Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Whitewashing

Rockey0417 Your edits are completely unsupported by the sourcing, and appear to reflect your own experience with the group. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Vetting

These social media groups have no vetting process for membership. The boogaloo movement is not far-right, nor is it racially motivated. Due to the lack of vetting on social media platforms, far right extremists have attempted to latch onto the movement to further their own objectives. The core boogaloo movement has a saying "left boot, right boot, still a boot" They openly advocate for equal rights for all, despise authoritarian government, and abuse of power. The movement obtains its views and objectives from the bill of rights. Their ultimate goal is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people from tyrannical government overreach. They are motivated by the killing of unarmed civilians, unconstitutional laws, and the increasing militarization of police.

They are currently participating in the peaceful protests across the country as a supportive group only. They believe the killing is absolutely an abuse of power, and that any police officer supporting Derek Chauvin is equally at fault. They will actively defend the protestors, and private property owners when nessissary. They will not participate in the destruction of private property under any circumstances. Big kahuna bigger luau (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Big kahuna bigger luau: If you're hoping for a change to be made for the article, please be specific and provide sources to along with it. But your statements about the Boogaloo movement contradict sourcing that says the movement is far right, and that some groups are white supremacist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your mixing sources from two separate things. The boogaloo on social media, and the boogaloo movement are two non-mutually exclusive groups. The boogaloo on social media is a conglomerate of the boogaloo meme, and the boogaloo movement. Not all members of one group are members of the other. Thus you can't use sourcing from one to define the other. Big kahuna bigger luau (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No True Scotsman. We might as well separate the articles about religions and their followers.

Also, the sources pretty clearly show that the movement is based on the meme and you've provided no sources (at all, much less) to demonstrate that the two are truly unrelated. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There are experts on groups such as this and rather than sourcing them directly you are sourcing news articles that attempt to mix expert investigations with sensationalism

“I think for a lot of boogaloo-ers, their primary interest is resisting the state, what they believe to be state tyranny,” said Alex Friedfeld, an investigative researcher at the ADL Center on Extremism in Chicago. “They have this hostility towards law enforcement…. They oppose these [pandemic] directives. They’re upset about no-knock raids, police brutality. The George Floyd case — this is an example of police brutality, this willingness of the state to execute those who disobey — so it’s not surprising that they showed up to protest.”

the boogaloo movement is Libertarian extremism. Some fall further left of center, some fall further right of center. Just like with authoritarian extremists. The vast majority of people fall around center but there are obviously outliers. As with any group Big kahuna bigger luau (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Where does that quote say anything about the people who show up IRL being a different set of people than the online groups? The article already says that the group is focused on resisting the state/law enforcement, and that they've attended the Floyd protests. I will also note that this article does cite the ADL directly, contrary to your claim. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Given the username and that the boogaloo movement wears Hawaiian shirts and sometimes refers to events as luaus, I think we're dealing with a WP:NOTHERE WP:CPP WP:SPA. He might seriously believe that the movement isn't racist, but failing to accept that problem is there is only going to enable it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why wikipedia is not a scholarly resource. Big kahuna bigger luau (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia agrees with you per WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Per WP:42, Wikipedia is a collection of independent third party quality reliable sources. These are the sources that you should rely on when reading a Wikipedia article, and they are listed in the article. Britishfinance (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because we let people like you edit, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

The mention in one of the first paragraphs referring to the boogaloo movement being agaimst left wing political affiliations and being race related are both incorrect. I saw no sources to prove that. The boogaloo movement actively separates itself from racially motivated people and movements. I do not have a better paragraph to replace it, but those 2 portions are not factually accurate. 2601:300:4080:2190:887A:F633:14C1:5A5C (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources provided in the article support both claims. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Remove the far-right wing extremists from the description of the group. They have yet to shown such extremism and only advocate for the 2nd amendment. 2601:601:D01:DC40:481F:989E:40BC:B1C5 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There are sources in the article which state the exact opposite... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No violence of any sort is condoned by this group towards any individual based on skin color. Any statements made promoting violence against federal agents is made in satire and hyperbole, however, we will defend ourselves and fellow countrymen if they choose to victimize us or them. Many of us are people of color as well, we are not white supremacist. Legsagrees (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Legsagrees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

"Members of boogaloo groups typically believe in accelerationism" I suggest a [citation needed] on this, reference 11 just states this with no source either. King DeaN (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have repeated a reference that discusses their belief in accelerationism. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

I believe someone has incorrectly portrayed this movement. There is no evidence that it is a white supremacist group and this claim is harmful to myself and other people of color. Myself and other people of color participate in peaceful protests as members of the boogaloo boys and are now being harassed for simply wanting liberty for all human beings. The aim is to hold government accountable, and it is true through satire and hyperbole statements of targeting federal employees have been made, but no one condones any kind or violence based on skin color. Please correct this immediately. Legsagrees (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Legsagrees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: Sources used in the article talk about the involvement of white supremacists. "The current boogaloo movement was first noticed by extremism researchers in 2019, when fringe groups from gun rights and militia movements to white supremacists began referring to an impending civil war using the word "boogaloo," a joking reference to "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo," a 1984 sequel movie about breakdancing."[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

POC Boogboi

I am a person of color and participate in protests as a boogaloo boy. This group is not a white supremacist group, I am being harassed due to your ignorance. Correct this immediately, do not use sources who are clearly attempting to discredit our cause. Legsagrees (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Legsagrees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Legsagrees, the article does not say that the Boogaloos are a "white supremacist group". It says it is a mix of far-right groups, which includes some white supremacists. We follow the reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

This article calls people in the boogaloo movement white supremacists, this is untrue. As a person of color I take offense to this. It is an anti police/ anti government liberty movement. Please make the proper changes. Legal action can and WILL be taken. 2600:1702:25C0:8530:B8D2:EBCE:343:8814 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We report what the sources report. And WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. We don't take kindly to those. Are you Legsagrees editing logged out? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah that wasnt me, believe it or not many POC exist within the same movement you are misrepresenting. Those sources are speculating and have no evidence to make such claims. BLM and boogaloo bois have marched together for the past week, but sure keep claiming we're far-right extremists and racists smh. Legsagrees (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is for suggestions to improve the article, which need to be accompanied by reliable sources. There are plenty of places on the Internet you can go to write about your own experiences with the boogaloo groups, but this talk page is not one of them. Note the "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." at the top of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Your sources are biased and incorrect. Racism and hate is not a part of the “Boogaloo” 2600:6C48:6980:D5:D00D:D895:5F81:D76F (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please take a look at the edit request directly above this for responses to "the sources are biased". As for the second bit, the article touches on the fact that some groups are white supremacist, that some condemn racism, and that some wish to be seen as anti-racist when in reality they are not. All of those are supported by sources; if you have additional reliable sources discussing racism and hate (or lack thereof) in boogaloo groups feel free to present them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Remove white supremacists from the description as this is false information because their are many races in the moment it's the left wing that try to discredit and lie by saying that it is a white supremacist movement and is false Wardog95 (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This article does not say that this is a white supremacist movement, it says that some boogaloo groups are white supremacist. That is well supported by sources, which you can easily view in the inline citations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

You’re incorrect. We are NOT far right. Although some of them associate themselves with us. We are veterans and patriots most of us are Libertarian and we hate the 2 party system and authoritarian government control. We are NOT racist and no we do not want a race war. Stop spreading lies to make the left hate us. We want to help all Americans of ALL colors. We back the BLM protests (Just not the burning of small businesses). We are for freedom and protect all constitutional rights. We are with the people in their protests and want to help. Don’t label us bad we all need to work together. Get your facts straight before you make up some BS about us. 75.137.54.128 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done When requesting an edit to this page, please be specific about what text you would like to have added to or removed from the article. Please also support any changes with reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia articles are not based on unsourced personal experience with a movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests

There is no evidence that boogaloo boys have been at the protests of George Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxingGuru78 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@BoxingGuru78: Plenty of sources support it, including:

• For example, the so-called Boogaloo Bois — a group of armed anti-government extremists made visible by their Hawaiian shirts — have reportedly shown up to some of the protests. Vice
• Boogaloo activists who showed up for the first night of protests on Tuesday met with mixed reaction. Raw Story
• Some movement members appeared at a Wednesday night protest in Minneapolis, in hopes of participating in a chaotic scene. Members of at least one “Boogaloo” Facebook group shared pictures of men holding a Boogaloo flag (patterned after a “Blue Lives Matter” flag, but with the movement’s trademark tropical pattern) outside an AutoZone that was later set on fire. The Daily Beast

GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This page should be edit protected. The group was named on MSNBC on June 2, 2020, by Frank Figluzzi, former FBI Asst. Director for Counterintelligence, as being involved in hijacking peaceful George Floyd protests to stoke chaos and violence, and running false flag operations against antifascist groups such as Antifa. Abelian (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abelian: The page is currently semi-protected (log). If you think the protection should be increased or extended, WP:RFPP is the place to ask. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooga Booga

I believe this term is a reference to boogaloo, but I can't confirm it or find a source. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you find a source I'll be happy to look at it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I may be mistaken. I loosened my search terms and it seems to be a racial slur term that is applied generously to anyone speaking "mumbo jumbo" or races that are seen as inferior. So Boogaloo may use it, but it's not solely used by them. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A Disgrace

Why is this page restricted? And who is this person that wrote such lies on it and then made it impossible for it to be edited? Whoever it was, you are shameful and a disgrace to the American dream. Pierre-Joseph232134 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)— Pierre-Joseph232134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Pierre-Joseph232134: As is policy on the English Wikipedia (WP:INVOLVED), the person who protected the page has not been involved with writing it. All of this is visible in the page history, as with any other article. It was protected because of disruptive editing; namely, many people coming in and making changes to the page that either were not supported by sourcing or, often, completely contrary to sourcing. I wrote much of this article, and would be happy to hear from you specifically which statements in the page are either a) not supported by reliable sources in the page or b) contradicted by other reliable sources not yet used in the page. But vague statements such as this one are not particularly actionable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no "American dream", you terrorist 82.24.169.40 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Defamatory nonsense article; no such thing as the "boogaloo movement"; no relationship with politics or activity

Boogaloo is a common word, as is already defined within the article.

https://www.reddit.com/r/weekendgunnit/comments/az3ztu/whomst_ready_to_boogaloo/ This is one of the earliest online mentions of boogaloo related to hawaiian attire. It is by all, any, and every means; A satirical post. Instead of military camouflage, substitute Hawaiian shirt. Instead of a modern military rifle, substitute a lever action cowboy rifle from the 1800's. Instead of a modern semi-automatic pistol, substitute a single-action loading gate cowboy revolver with American Flag grips. It is a play on Tactical readiness, while still supportive of the right to bear arms.

Use google ffs. This is embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.90.21 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We go off what reliable sources say, not random Reddit posts. This article already covers the fact that some of the posts are joking. Also, how on earth can you claim that something is "defamatory" if you are also claiming the group doesn't exist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You created this article 2 days ago you psychopath. It is defamatory with the accusatory label of "far right". Believe it or not, open carry is legal in a majority (the normal part) of the United States. Carry a gun is not a "far right" thing; it is a universally American thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.90.21 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I was there... That's why I'm replying to you, because I'm one of the editors of this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To reply to your edit: who on earth is it defaming, then, if the movement doesn't exist? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You are defaming people who would consider it amusing to wear "Hawaiian tactical gear". It is not a movement. It is not an organization. There is no notion of violence or politically charged motives. Referring to this "movement" as "far right extremists" is insane and completely unfounded. It implies to disparage common Americans who excercise their right to open carry; for there is functionally no specific identifiers of what this "movement" represents beyond a funny picture posted on reddit a year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.90.21 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read any of the 18 sources in the references section, which disagree with what you've just said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a single one of them is associated with any crime. Please don't tell me you can't tell the difference between actual threats and what far-left snowflake journalism considers "scary evil spooky far-right extremism". One of your references is even the ADL, which is excessively dubious to consider a trustworthy source when they say ridiculous shit like https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-the-frog

So now we've moved from "they're not a real thing" to "they're not criminals"? Just trying to keep up, here. As for the ADL, which claims attributed to that source are you contesting? Even if you have an issue with the ADL, I don't believe there are any claims in the article that are solely sourced to them, without another source backing them up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So you're just artificially inflating the relevance of your article with as many online mentions as possible, even if they're individually redundant and not primary sources? This article has no reason to exist but to disparage and falsely attribute fun-loving open-carrying Americans as extremists or a hate group. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.90.21 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I am following common Wikipedia practice of using multiple sources to support claims that are (as evidenced here) likely to be contested. I'm sorry that you don't like this article, but until you can actually point to a specific claim that is not supported by existing sourcing, or can provide additional reliable sourcing that provides contrary information to what is in this article, this conversation is not going to be productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Members of boogaloo groups ""typically"" believe in accelerationism."

The cited ADL article does assert and then provide examples of people and groups that use the boogaloo meme intentionally while simultaneously promoting accelerationist ideology, but it does not claim that the "typical" "Boogaloo Boi" is accelerationist. Either this claim should be cited with the correct article or edited. Typical clearly implies that the average "Boogaloo Boi" is an accelerationist, but I can't find a citation showing that accelerationism is common across all the groups that identify with this term. TheSpoonKing (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That claim is from The Economist: Boogaloo boys imagine the forthcoming confrontation as a repeat of the civil war. The Hawaiian shirts that dot the crowds.... The shirt-wearers are usually adherents of accelerationism, a strange marriage of Marxism and neo-Nazism which holds that the contradictions of the economic and political order will cause it to collapse. ([2]) It used to be the whole section was sourced to that source, but I see how the addition of the ADL source makes it look like the Economist source doesn't apply. I've copied the Economist source to the end of the sentence for clarity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to The Economist, is there any other way I could see the relevant portion of that article? TheSpoonKing (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't either, but if you create a free account they let you see five articles a month or something like that. I'll note that for some reason their login isn't working for me on Chrome, but Firefox works fine. Could just be an issue with my extensions/adblock or something, but figured I'd mention it in case you run into it too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The boogaloo is a meme.

I am in many communities and the boogaloo is a meme, this is not mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia page. I’ve talked to a lot of these boog boys guys and after they stop joking around they say that they would only fight the government if their rights where infringed and the whole boogaloo thing is a meme, a joke, as the movement is a libertarian one, and not far right or white supremacism, in fact, nazis tried to co-opt the term in January when the VA protests happened and proclaim it a race war but were promptly banned from the meme communities because libertarians don’t hold those beliefs. In fact a lot of nazis work under the cover of libertarian so they can accelerate to fascism, which would not work because actual libertarians believe in civil rights and would defend those who can’t defend themselves like they are doing in the George Floyd riots. This article has a lot of disinformation in it, and I’d expect more from Wikipedia.Kalashnicool (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Kalashnicool (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article explicitly covers the issue of the movement using the screen of jokes/memes to distract from its activities; it is under the section “Movement”. Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Like the white power gang sign that also started out as a troll meme, it has become larger than itself and actually adopted as the white power symbol. Sources appear to support that the same thing has happened to boogaloo. Nothing to see here. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Boogaloo is a long used meme in the gun community that ignorant far left journalists have tried to co-opt to associate with racism. All the articles cited have a clear far left political leaning. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/boogaloo. All you have to do is look at any mention of the term pre-2020 & see that is has no relation to racism. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/09/20/boogaloo/. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l27kjo1Z6Q btw one of the hosts in this one is black. Basically you look at any reference outside of far left media it will become clear that "boogaloo" has no reference to racism & white nationalism. This article is blatantly politically bias. 162.250.213.4 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Know Your Meme, blog sources, and YouTube videos are not reliable sources. If you believe a specific source used here is not reliable, we can discuss it in more detail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You're implying that your sources are reliable. You cite BuzzFeed, a cite famous for publishing pushing the Russia collision hoax. The leftist hate group "The Southern Poverty Law Center". Not to mention NBC & NPR. All your sources are blatantly slanted to the left. The only source that makes any mention of the very old meme before 2020 is a paper that makes not connection between "boogaloo" and racism or white supremacism. The videos & the "Know Your Meme" article show that the meme has been around for years, and if you look at any sources pre-2020 you'll find it is not used in association with racism or white supremacy. Also your sources "Vox" & "Buzzfeed" have a Youtube presence just like the "TFB". Yet you believe your sources reliable & mine to not be. You are showing blatant confirmation bias by ignoring sources within the prepper & pro-2a community. Also the sources you use are not only ignorant of anything having to do with said communities, but have an agenda to try to villainize them. In essence you have a bunch of sources who have only recently learn of the term which you're taking as gospel. All the while ignoring its actual usage. Would you like be to scour the internet for usage of it pre-2020. B/c I unfortunately have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.250.213.4 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources you name are widely used throughout Wikipedia, and have been discussed at length at WP:RSN. If you think that those organizations as a whole are unreliable, that is the place to discuss it, not on this singular article.

Your claim about only one source referencing pre-2020 usage of the term is not true, multiple sources in this article refer to pre-2020 usage ([3], [4], [5], etc.)

A source also having a YouTube presence does not automatically make it unreliable, and there are reliable sources that publish on YouTube. But the video you linked appears to be from a gun shop, which does not appear to have an editorial board or otherwise meets the requirements of WP:RS.

No, you do not need to scour the internet for pre-2020 usage of the term, as that would be WP:OR. You could alternately spend that time looking for reliable sources to support your suggested changes, but it's your time to spend how you like. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hyperlink

It should link to Second American Civil War, not the real one. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't know if that's a very useful link—it mostly refers to existing events that have been referred to as such, or to literary etc. references, not to potential future events. I think it's useful to link the first American Civil War, for those who want additional context on what that was about. But curious to hear if other Wikipedians have thoughts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. SACW appears to be reinterpreting what is the popular term for the original American Civil War and doesn't apply. If we decided to add the latter, it would go under See Also. Sidenote: Reinterpreting the Revolutionary War as the second, forgets that England isn't America, which would be a contradiction of terms. But whatever. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a legit centralized movement around this and the fact its a page for anything but some cultural thing is absured.

This was a 4chan meme turned instagram meme, most of the people who self identify with it are more than likely people who are already milita members or something around those lines. Is there any reason this page needs to exist? The ADL may identify it as some sort of movement but it really isn't, its a meme used to describe something pre-existing and at most this page should be a sub section under one of those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.129.183 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 22 references on this page to support that this is a loose movement of various groups that share a central ideology. If you are on a mobile device they may not immediately jump out at you, but you can expand the "References" section to peruse them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources and as someone who goes on the websites where this stuff really started, its a meme that pre-existing militias and other individuals latched onto. It started out as a meme and turned into something groups that already exist identify with. Again, this belongs as a sub-section of a pre-existing page such as gun right movements or militias as the next evolution of those groups. There may be a bunch of articles on it but the majority of these news organizations are disconnected from the kind of environment something like this spawns from.75.102.129.183 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if you are not a regular Wikipedia editor, I imagine you can understand why we can't directly cite posts on 4chan or Facebook. While the majority of the sources may be news organizations, the sources also include quite detailed studies of these groups by folks such as the Tech Transparency Project and Network Contagion Research Institute, whose analysis is based directly on the groups in question on 4chan, Facebook, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see how this addresses my argument of this being redundant information which belongs on a different page.75.102.129.183 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

All of these sources specifically discuss the "boogaloo movement" or "boogaloo boys", not some other movement or organization. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

All of them talk about it being an extension of right wing movements and reference the milita/prepper crowd.75.102.129.183 (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of far right organizations and militia/prepper groups have their own articles. If there is enough coverage of a specific movement or group, then it makes sense for there to be a separate article. That is the case for this page—there is plenty of sourcing, and the article is long enough that it would most likely have been split out of any of those pages by now if it had been combined. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

3 June 2020

Calling a movement of people far right extremist and wanting a civil war without confirming the facts is slander. And you can be sued for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaakenFMarion (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@HaakenFMario: Good thing that all of those claims are sourced, then. You may want to review our policy on no legal threats. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

This group is not racist or far right extremist. Please change this so people are not fearful for their neighbor and ally. I will submit some other their literature that I believe as well as many others proves what I have stated.

The Redacted Liberty Network otherwise known as RLN is an organization created for the people, by the people. The RLN is made up of members from different communities, faiths, and ethnic groups. We are your neighbors, friends, and families that believe our great nation of the United States is still worth fighting for! Everyone deserves a chance in life at happiness, freedom, and liberty; A life free of tyranny and oppression. We strive to bring justice to those who deserve it, protect those who can't protect themselves, and return to a peaceful and harmonious life. We are not an extremist organization. We are not racists, nazis, white nationalists or anything alike and we are not looking for violence. We are welcoming of all individuals who believe in our cause and want equal rights for all. We will not tolerate hate crimes, the utilization of violence against peaceful opposition, the destruction of private business, or any acts that oppress the rights granted to us under the United States Constitution. We will, however, defend ourselves and others if met with uncalled for violence. We wish for peaceful resolution, compromise, understanding, and cooperation throughout our mission to bring power back to the people and protect our constitutional rights. It has become very clear in recent years that the United States government does not care about its citizens. It is a system filled with corruption and tyranny. It is time that the people retake the power they were always meant to have and remove it from government officials who have overstepped their boundaries. Our first and most important priority is the American Citizen and their safety. We will always be there for individuals, businesses, events, and organizations that ask for our help and protection. RLN will be working alongside other organizations in an attempt to bring reform to the United States. All of this is the ideology behind the "Boogaloo". The Redacted Liberty Network hopes to be the official voice of those who believe the same. It is time to bring credibility, reason, and order to the movement. Any individual who goes against our code of conduct is not welcome within the community. Any individual that wears or brings apparel associated with our organization, claims to be a member of our organization, or claims that they share ideologies and beliefs with that of the "Boogaloo" but goes against what we stand for is no member of ours. We ask that the media and other news outlets refrain from tarnishing our cause and that we are consulted when it comes to things relating to RLN. We will be heard!

Thank you for reading this and please do some more research because this is sad. At a time when people need to unite, his disinformation only promotes division amongst people 2ith a common goal. 2001:579:F024:2620:E5A9:60B9:D3EA:9696 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced graphic on movement

An unsourced graphic (see opposite) has been added twice regarding the movement's views. I have removed it as it has no reliable source that would give it attribution as being the official views of the Boogaloo movement (e.g. we cannot use home-made graphics of a personal view on what the movement represents). There may also be COPYVIO issues here too with this graphic. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Boogaloo values.jpg

I was just coming here to say that I nominated it for speedy deletion on Commons. Who knows where the original source for this graphic is, but it's reused so widely on Facebook/etc. that I think it's safe to assume the uploader is not the creator and the original file is not CC-licensed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done GW. Britishfinance (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Alt-right aspects

GorillaWarfare made a good point that there was no reference supporting any alt-right leaning. There are lower grade RS that mention "Boogaloo" as being part of the Alt-right lexicon (e.g. [6], [7]), but I am not sure there are reliable. The Bellingcat article on the Boogaloo movement explicitly notes that is it separate from Alt-right and that political discussion is not encouraged in the movement, it is more guns and military. Bellingcat Bellingcat. The useful [Middlebury Institute of International Studies] makes the same point saying The Boogaloo Movement has tried, to varying levels of success, to distinguish itself from other far-right groups. In ideology, they generally share more in common with the Patriot Movement from the 1990s and early 2000s than to contemporary alt-Right or white nationalist movements. [8]. Should we make this explicit in the article – BM is less identified with the Alt-right as it avoids political discussion in favour of military discussion, and is more identified with groups such as the Patriot Movement? Britishfinance (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Inside Hook, but isn't BPR an NPR member station? I know I cite WBUR a good deal in Boston and Massachusetts articles, and if BPR is the North Carolina equivalent I don't see why we couldn't use it.

I don't think it's a fair summary of the Bellingcat article to say that it it describes the boogaloo movement as separate from the alt-right, and that political discussion is discouraged in the movement. It says that /k/ discourages political discussion, but /k/ is not the same as all the various boogaloo groups. The other mention of the alt-right in that article is: All of this has given the movement that grew out of /k/ a somewhat different cast than the “alt right” and the movements that survived its implosion after the Unite the Right rally in 2017.. It's a little hard for me to tell from context if it means "cast [of characters]" or "cast" as a synonym for "form", but either way I don't think it distinguishes the two all that strongly. The sentence you quoted from the Middlebury source is based off the same Bellingcat article. It's a little strange that the Middlebury piece includes that bit about not being similar to white nationalist movements when the title is "The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe".

I think the best thing to do for now is leave out any claim that the boogaloo movement is alt-right, and also not try to distinguish it like you suggest. We could add that it has similarities to the Patriot movement, for sure, but I don't think we can make any claims that the movement is dissimilar to white nationalist movements when several other sources explicitly say that some boogaloo groups are white nationalist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, let us hold for more sourcing. Certainly a lot of new articles being written each day now on the movement. Britishfinance (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Picture Source?

Where is the picture from the article page from? I looked at both sources listed next to it but do not see that specific picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3378:2A0:19F5:2A34:122C:9D39 (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The photograph is from Wikimedia Commons, where I cropped it from this file. The file was imported from Flickr, where it was released by the photographer under a free license. Wikipedia generally cannot use images from news sources such as those, as we require our images to be freely licensed—the sources are cited in the caption to support the fact that boogaloo movement members were present at that event. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a picture of Boogaloo bois with poc on location of current George Floyd protest proving all this "white supremacists" "alt-right" talk is just media biased. Roguetaix (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Roguetaix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you would like to donate your photograph, feel free! (Assuming you mean you took the photograph yourself; you can't donate someone else's photo). But I will note that this article makes no claim that the boogaloo movement is alt-right. It also does not claim that all boogaloo groups are white supremacist; in fact, it says, Some boogaloo groups are also white supremacist and specifically believe that the "boogaloo" will be a race war, but there are others that condemn racism. Even if it did claim those things, though, a photograph of boogaloo bois with PoC would not override reliable sourcing describing the movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The real Boogaloo

Without fact checking with actual Boog sources. The movement has nothing to do with "white supremacists", "alt-right", and isn't affiliated with proud boys or Qanon. This wiki page is based on heavy biased articles as sources. This false information has been linked to a person posting a picture of his neighbors vehicle and plate online. This false information will lead to someone getting hurt or killed. Boog members are on the ground protesting and providing medical aid to all people at George Floyd protest all across the US. I can provide pictures of these events to be used for this page if need be. The Boogaloo movement fights for everyone's Rights and stands against tyranny. Roguetaix (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Roguetaix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Feel free to provide any of these "boog sources" you refer to, though note that we do have a policy about reliable sources. Can you please read where I already responded to you in the section above rather than repeating the same thing? I have addressed your comments about alt-right, and your offers to provide photographs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The boogaloo movement is not far right or left, they are mostly libertarian and want liberty and freedom for ALL people. They strongly believe they n the second amendment and are known to be heavily armed for peaceful reasons, they do not want violence and they do not intend to start anything. The majority of the movement is funny photos known as memes. They strongly believe in basic human rights for all people. They believe in the NAP and want to be left alone , they strongly believe anyone should be aloud to do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt another people while doing so. 108.234.28.210 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The Boogaloo is neither far right, nor is it white suprematist. It consists of all political groups and has no definitive political aim. To claim it is far right is incorrect. Mike Saalem (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Mike Saalem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Complaint

Just delete it lmfao it's literally an internet meme. You got this GorillaWarfare constantly rebutting like a broken record about how she's somehow the decider of what is or isn't a valid trustworthy source. It's literally a meme! No one agrees with you and everyone is calling you out, GorillaWarfare. 2600:1010:B12A:4ECD:0:26:3A6E:C001 (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:AfD is thataway. Though I will point out that the vast majority of my replies on this page have been to people providing no sourcing at all, not people providing inadequate sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you hard work GorillaWarfare! A lot of talk here from the sock puppet accounts, but no sources to back up their claims. I'm glad you were able to actually supply sources to create this page as I had originally put it on the disambiguation page, which was probably premature. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

CHANGE Boogaloo bois, is a loosely organized American far-right extremist movement. TO Boogaloo bois, is a peace organization of non-right and non-left activists representing a pro-freedom and anti-tyranny movement. 2600:1011:B157:E4C4:B4D2:4253:D131:74C0 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Directly conflicts with what all the references say. Britishfinance (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Because the media has no ulterior motives and would never report misinformation to divide the people. Legsagrees (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Legsagrees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's a conversation for WP:RSN, or perhaps WP:VPP, since media sources are used throughout Wikipedia and not just on this article. We are not going to contradict Wikipedia policy on this one article by replacing information that is well sourced to media sources (as well as other research groups) with information sourced to whoever happens to show up and comment on this talk page with their opinions of what the movement is or is not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Change far right to Libertarian. Remove or change the white supremacist allegations. They are not correct nor substantiated. 108.70.124.118 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Almost every quality independent reference calls them "far-right" (e.g. Why far-right protesters are wearing Hawaiian print), while several others refer to their white supremacist links (e.g. The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe). thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Nothing about the boogaloo is race related or right or left wing related. This article is not true by anymeans as is spreading hate mongering and fear mongering to civilians 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:76 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Almost all of the references refer to the movement as being right-wing (although, they do not also list as being alt-right). No reference I have seen call it left-wing? Several references note that it contains elements of white supremacy, although there are divergent views on race in the movement (per the article and refs). Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no room for racism in the boogaloo. We are not right or left wing. A huge part of the ideology is the fact that a bipartisan government is just a ploy to divide the people. Katara935 (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

We are not far right. We hold no party affiliations and have been very critical of president trump. We are against racism and sexism. We promote liberty and freedom for everyone regardless of race, gender, or anything else. We have been working hard to fight the false narrative that we support white supremacy and that we are far right. We are a well regulated militia that set out to protect the people from over reaching government 70.168.126.223 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit error on boogaloo movement

They are not far right extremist. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4ED4:D6A8:89D2:B824:2A56:40ED (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

The Boogaloo is not a far-right ideology. 2601:602:8200:7E0:8D76:4083:67F:2284 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Some wrong info and needs to be changed

The Boogaloo group is not a far right movement for civil War but a libertarian movement against the state. Description of attire is correct. TheCoyote2020 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — TheCoyote2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please provide reliable sourcing to support your change; the existing sourcing supports that the Boogaloo groups are indeed far-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/05/27/the-boogaloo-movement-is-not-what-you-think/

Urban dictionary actually does a better job of describing what boogaloo actually is than wiki haha. Sad TheCoyote2020 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have added the claim that some groups have been described as libertarian.

 Not done I have not removed any claims around groups being far-right; the Bellingcat source does not refute that, and in fact supports it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/ctec/ctec-publications-0/boogaloo-movement-wants-be-seen-anti-racist

First off I'd like to say thank you for taking the time and looking at my sited page and adding it to the wiki. I added an article which has many sited info on the matter to better develop the info on this page. In cited (8) it directly states that they have been associated with by others but have been trying to correct that.(9-11) are direct pages in where they call out and remove racists from the groups. Plenty of other cited work in the write up as well but these are direcly related to what was mentioned earlier TheCoyote2020 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done The Middlebury source is already used in this article, and the article also contains the fact that some groups condemn racism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The Libertarian movement is expressly not a far-right or white nationalist group. They are anti-state and anti-collectivism (thereby opposed to collective identities like ethnonationalism). By stating that the movement wants another Civil War it is implied that they are in favor of Slavery - this could not be further from the truth. It would be FAR more accurate to say that the movement would support another Revolutionary War but it does not call for one.

Here is an paper that is critical of the movement but gets its facts right: https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/ctec/ctec-publications-0/boogaloo-movement-wants-be-seen-anti-racist

It has a researched history of the movement and its complexities. It is by the Middlebury Institute at Monterey.

Ploopy116 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Ploopy116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 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. And how exactly should this information be included in the article? Seemingly, this is a tad controversial so it would require consensus... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that the Middlebury source is already used in this article, so it would be helpful if you could be more specific about what in that paper you're hoping to see added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Remove the reference to “American Civil War” - Boogaloo has nothing to do with a war about race or between two countries. It’s about the freedom of individuals overthrowing a tyrannical government and re-establishing one closer to the Constitution and all its given rights. 172.125.114.245 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I do have some sympathy with this view. My reading of the refs is that is it clear that a civil war is appealing to the movement (if not an outright objective), however, it is not obvious that it would be on the basis of the original American Civil War (e.g. slavery/racism). It is clear that there are white supremacist groups in the Boogaloo movement, however, there are also groups that are not white supremacists (or even racist). Ultimately, several of the refs state that the movement incorporates a diverse range of views under a general citizen-style libertarian/right-wing gun-loving militia umbrella. Perhaps alter to just "civil war"? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I mostly included the wikilink because a lot of the sources mention a "second civil war", which to me begs the question of "what was the first?" I agree that it doesn't appear any boogaloo groups are looking for a re-do of the first Civil War, or are even hoping for any similar goals. Happy to hear any thoughts around how we could be clearer there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the refs refer do refer to the movement's desire for a U.S. civil war [9], and several explicitly refer to it as a second American civil war [10]. I think we should keep the phrase but remove the link in case readers think it implies that it is a re-run of the First American civial war in terms of ideology (even though parts of it are, although not uniformly). I will make that change but come back if you disagree. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Change the description of the movement from "far-right" to "Constitutionalist". The movement does not believe in policies adherent ro either party, strictly those presented in the Constitution. 2600:100A:B12E:C964:5C51:6405:BF7A:C035 (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, I have not seen the term "Constitutionalist" used in the sources provided in the article - do you have a source for this. Almost all of the sources used, describe the movement as being far-right. Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The group description is completely false and needs to be changed.

This group is not right wing, they are Libertarian and absolutely not white supremacists. They do not support Riots or Violence but peaceful protests. They are a end of the world prepers and anti-Tyrannical government who participate in MEMES. Here are two sources and one being an interview with a member on the Rick and Bubba show.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=smgwVIsLycY

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/boogaloo 69.21.28.185 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The article already states that some groups are libertarian. The sources you have provided are not usable in the article; please review WP:RS (and WP:SELFPUB). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

i dont think its cool how you are pushing a political agenda. You called the 2nd Amendment a far right extreme position. Thats why i dont donate to wikipedia anymore :( never will again and im a moderate) The 2nd Amendment is the backbone of the constitution. Thats not a far right position. Thats an American position. 2600:8805:9084:5200:1D48:4E2A:5908:C036 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

This article is slander as it makes many false statements about members of this disorganized movement. They are not far right extremists. Many are libertarian. The main political belief is that individual liberties need to be restored and that the federal government is overstepping its constitutional power. I have yet to meet a single white supremacist related to the movement as an overwhelming majority denounce racism and have zero tolerance for it. There are followers from all walks of life with all different backgrounds. Many do believe a civil war is on the horizon but not in the way the article proclaims. They believe that they will have to defend their liberties from further overreach of the government and in no way are they accelerationists. Please rewrite this article to be factual and not political. thank you. 2600:6C56:7608:36:C5CD:E150:A789:E4BB (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Boog bois, or those who support the boogaloo movement, are not white supremacists. This is an outright lie that could very likely get people hurt. Boog bois are libertarians and anarchists who follow the NAP, or non agression principle, and support individual liberties for all. Racism, especially the superiority of a single race, is a direct conflict of this philosophy. The boogaloo is not a civil war, either. It is a second revolutionary war, in which the people stand up to an oppressive government. It is not a war against other citizens. 75.173.78.41 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible the reliable sources could have an agenda, or perhaps an interest in writing exaggerated stories to generate readership? Or are they wholly disinterested partisans of truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.30.112 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course they have an agenda: reporting the news. Your agenda appears to be pushing your POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've been working on this encyclopedia for 19 years (me personally for 14 or so). Believe me when I say that you're not the first person in two decades and millions of editors to suggest that there can be bias in sourcing. Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources, and feel free to present any reliable sourcing of your own–including sourcing that has bias. Wikipedia achieves neutrality by representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (see WP:NPOV). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

The Boogaloo movement is a Libertarian movement against a tyrannical government, it's a fight for liberty. Even though racists and far right try to claim they're apart, they are not accepted within the movement. SenatorBoog (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC) — SenatorBoog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. -- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

It is not a far right group 2604:2000:1241:CA7:F40B:3EDB:AFD4:B1D9 (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

I suggest the boogaloo movement have the nomenclature of a "far right" extremest group removed in favor of libertarian. Since the movement is internally inconsistent with wikipedia's definition of far right, saying that far right politics include both "extreme nationalism" and "authoritarian tendencies" neither of which can be accurately used to describe a movement that is openly anti-government as stated within the boogaloo movement page. The "boogaloo movement" article acknowledges that members have been seen in support of both racist and anti-racist groups, and have views that differ on a wide variety of subjects, even when you source J.J MacNab it states "anti-government extremist groups" not far right ones. 2604:2D80:688E:3200:C121:76F5:63B4:9F01 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Sources cited inline support "far-right". Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a far right movement and sources aren’t first hand

The boogaloo is libertarian right not far right. Also there is overwhelming evidence that racism has no place in the boogaloo culture because it’s based off individuals rather than race. White supremacy is way far from the boogaloo as it involves equality for all. No firm sources because it’s a movement of thought and not an organization. Instagram page too_savage_for_statists is a source to look at PorterAlley (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@PorterAlley: Instagram is not a reliable source per our standards on user-generated sources. Wikipedia avoids interpreting primary sources because we don't use original research. Instead we cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Also, denying that white supremacists are involved in the your movement is only going to enable them to take over it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The journalist sources use social media as primary sources. Tazhawkeye (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. We can use reliable sources that draw conclusions from social media, but we can't draw our own conclusions from social media. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests

The boogaloo movement also has nothing to do with the George Floyd protests. KingOfFilth (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That conflicts with what the references say – E.g. Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War, Far-Right ‘Boogaloo Boys’ Are Trying to Incite Violence at Protests. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Remove any remarks about racism or far right affiliation. If you are truly committed to providing free, reliable, open source information, you will do ACTUAL research and find this is not the case. Alternatively, provide sources showing clearly where the Boogaloo affiliates itself with far right ideologies. Please be sure to reference credible sources, mainstream media news outlets are not credible sources. Katloon (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Sources are already cited inline. As for what is or is not a credible source, feel free to review the policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Change all instances of "civil war" to "revolutionary war". 2601:404:CE80:5910:E505:64BD:FDE:B543 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

sounds good..? Katara935 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Civil War is by far the most common term used The Boogaloo: Extremists’ New Slang Term for A Coming Civil War 'Boogaloo' Is The New Far-Right Slang For Civil War. Far fewer references to a Revolutionary War at this stage, although I could see how the term is more consistent with the anti-government ethos? However, per WP:42, we must follow what the reliable sources say, and not what we think they should say? Britishfinance (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

The Boogaloo movement is not a far-right extremist group. We are made of people of every race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. We make it a point to be that way to prevent this exact misinformation. We are simply pro-2A, and anti-tyranny. The media is twisting this group of people to make the general population fear or resent us when we are the people and it is the people we will fight for. You can find more information on facebook groups proving my points. We are actively anti-nazi, anti-racist. There is no room for racism in the big igloo. Please hurry and look us up properly before we're censored for good. I hope you guys are the same decent folks doing the good work of maintaining accurate, reliable information. I hope you haven't been bought out. You could really really hurt this country's only chance. Do the right thing. Please. Katara935 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:42, we must stick to what is said in reliable indepenent high quality sources. We cannot do our own original research into a topic, per WP:OR. We are also not paid, and are all volunteers. Obviously, if all the reliable indepenent high quality sources get a story wrong, then so will we. However, it is very unlikely that all reliable indepenent high quality sources will keep getting a story wrong on a sustained basis. This article uses quite a diverse range of reliable indepenent high quality sources, including Reuters, The Independant, NPR etc. Britishfinance (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Far right extremists? Do you have any source on that because I visit the forum that this was created on and like, it's not far right, and it isn't racist. It's a pro 2a movement and that is all. Please fix this as it's massively misleading and not helping the divide which the media is creating at the moment. Thank you 49.182.28.43 (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A forum is not a reliable, independent source, and your opinion is not either. Oh, and, yes, there are three sources given which say this exactly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

SPAs

They've really been flooding this talk page over the last few days. I would not be surprised if there is a forum somewhere where Boogaloo bois are coordinating this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, it might almost be good if they were coordinating off-wiki. It seems like the pattern in the majority of posts on this page has been: someone posts an edit request asking for a change to be made based on their own personal experience with a boogaloo group, I respond to say that we need reliable sourcing, and then someone new comes along and does the same thing again. If they were coordinating off-wiki then maybe someone would actually read my reply and try to post a reliable source and a specific change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They're just coming and coming nonstop. It may be uncoordinated, but the repetition has me suspicious. You're doing a great job in your responses. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I attribute it to the editing interface for semi-protected pages. The interface displays a blue button to "Submit an edit request," that creates a new section on the talkpage. It doesn't suggest that you read the talkpage first or that there even is a talkpage. This repetitive edit request pattern is the bane of most articles that see outside organized editing or requests to "go correct Wikipedia." There really needs to be a better interaction with potential editors on protected content. Acroterion (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I opened an incognito window yesterday to explore what the IP editors are seeing. It definitely explained a lot for me around what's happening on this page. I'd thought about potentially adding an editnotice to the page encouraging people to read the talk page and provide sources, but I realized those are largely in place already with the request edit page. I think people just scroll past the (admittedly lengthy) top matter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We do need to provide more guidance. They should see something that tells them to check the talk page to see if their comment has already been addressed, at a minimum. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Need more refs

"some encouraged actions emulating the "rooftop Koreans", a reference to Korean store owners who shot at looters from roofs during the 1992 Los Angeles riots." I didn't find this in the source cited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's in there. Online, Boogaloo activists called for meetups in dozens of states, to organize actions like the “rooftop Koreans,” a reference to shop owners who defended their stores by shooting would-be looters during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

See it now, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

CNN article on Boogaloo movement

Gun-toting members of the Boogaloo movement are showing up at protests, by Robert Kuznia, Drew Griffin and Curt Devine, CNN. First released June 3, 2020, last updated 4:38 PM ET, Thu June 4, 2020. In addition to being timely about the protests going on around the U.S., the article discusses divisions in the Boogaloo movement along age lines (older groups/younger groups) and political ideologies (right/left). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Pepe the frog

Everybody uses Pepe the frog as a meme. "They have also used other imagery popular among the far-right, such as the Pepe the Frog meme." Might aswell say that they breath air and drink water. This line should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:56C6:B900:54F7:72EE:4A23:1184 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Pepe the frog was co-opted by the alt-right. So, it's more noteworthy than "breathing air". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Even the creator of the meme acknowledges that it was stolen by them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"Assault Rifles"

It looks like only the one Al Jazeera source says that "boog boys" carry "assault rifles" vs "assault weapons," the distinctions between which are explained at the tops of their respective pages. Given that the overwhelming majority of weapons in the USA are not select fire assault rifles, I propose that the wording and the link be changed. Is one article from a news source not known for its understanding of the difference between the two classes of weapons sufficient to deny this request outright? Would it be requested that I find other sources that use the phrase "assault weapon" instead of "assault rifle"? 24.192.63.225 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll do some more research on the difference between the two, I am admittedly not a gun nut. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} I've just changed the phrasing to "heavily armed", since the distinction between assault weapon and assault rifle appears a) confusing and b) political. So, according to AP, while "assault weapons" can be rifles, they are not technically "assault rifles." 🤯 GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Stream sniping" misinformation

Whether or not some misinformed social scientist claims something is irrelevant. This page completely mischaracterizes what "stream sniping" is.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/30/16059138/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-stream-sniping-ban

Suspiciously, the only Google results which include both the phrase "stream sniping" and "boogaloo" are this article and the quoted Washington Post story. Very strange for a term supposedly used by an online movement. 75.69.101.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The misinformed social scientist is notable Harvard academic Joan Donovan being interviewed by The Washington Post, one of Wikipedia's highest quality sources per WP:RS/P. Hits on google don't establish notability on Wikipedia, it is from high-quality independent reliable sources. thank you, Britishfinance (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I see that you took out the reference to Joan and "steam sniping" (above) here. Although Joan seems to be the only person to use the term in relation to the movement, she is notable as an academic covering such organizations, and several of the references I have read on the movement note that they often unexpectedly "pop-up" at various events that they are not specifically associated with - E.g. [11]. I think that Joan's term is useful in this regard? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Sorry, the ping didn't work and I only just now saw this. No objection to you re-adding it if the phenomenon is covered in additional sources, I just thought it an odd thing to include since it was such a small portion of that WPO article and I hadn't seen it mentioned in any other sourcing. Although that Insider article seems to refer to them showing up unexpectedly at events, but not necessarily for the purpose of inserting themselves into livestreams. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, let me try a re-do this emphasizing that they tend to turn up unexpectedly at events (there are other references to this as well as BI), and note that Joan (an expert in this area) has specifically labeled it as "stream sniping"? I will stick it in but if it doesn't work, take it out again. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: No objections from me. Though there's a dangling quotation mark at the end of your addition, is part of that a direct quote? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that is a typo; fixed now. thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that hits on Google establish notability. I said it's clear evidence that the information is wrong. She's making a claim that the term is used that way on the internet, and yet the internet only has her being quoted saying that. So the only person doing so is her. Being a Harvard academic doesn't make her an expert on gaming culture or internet memes. It is completely irresponsible to include this nonsense in this article. 75.69.101.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually happen to agree with our IP friend here—the common understanding of "stream sniping" (I believe) refers to, when playing against an opponent who is livestreaming their gameplay, watching their livestream to learn information about their location, etc. I think the best thing to do would be to retain Donovan's description of the behavior, but omit the "stream sniping" quote to avoid confusion with the alternate, more commonly-used definition of the phrase. I'm going to do that now, though if you disagree feel free to revert and we can discuss further here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem with that GW and happy with your version. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A source for the edit requests regarding varying views

Not sure how much you'd like to incorporate, but I noticed a lot of people mentioning libertarian leanings and such being denied since they didn't provide sources. Just found this so I figured I'd share.

'On one end, members want to embrace multi-racial anti-government advocacy and are “legitimately libertarian in an individualism-above-all-else-including-race kind of way,” Newhouse said.'

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/05/boogaloo-far-right-organization-george-floyd-protests/3155528001/ 24.192.63.225 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate you coming here with a source! The problem with these edit requests is they've largely asked for the "far right" descriptor to be replaced with the libertarian descriptor. There's no issue with including the fact that some groups are libertarian; it's already in the article as it stands right now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the pool of reliable sources is definitely leaning towards the image portrayed in the article, so in that sense the article is an accurate reflection. I was mostly just adding this here in case someone else wants to compile more sources that might eventually shift the overall "mood" of the collective sources such that, for example, the lede (right phrase?) might eventually include mentions of other "factions" within the "movement" rather than just calling it strictly alt-right. The "individualism-above-all-else-including-race" part in particular is my own personal impression, but that's not exactly wiki-worthy. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually have been working over the past hour or so to adjust the lead and ideologies section to better reflect that there are many views held across the various groups. Not sure if you have any thoughts, but as always I welcome feedback on the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's admittedly difficult to give objective feedback when I've known of the "movement" well before it was anything other than gun memes, and particularly "autistic" (as they're described therein) ones at that. This is back in ~2014. And you can't include anecdotal things like that. If anything, perhaps "largely alt-right" rather than just "alt-right" in the first sentence? There's anarchists and far-left types too, but again that's all anecdotal and I haven't read all of the sources to see if that'd be an accurate representation. Ultimately it seems you're doing your best to keep it apolitical and true to sources, and the fact that I think some of those source are full of it is irrelevant. Keep on keepin' on. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is where Wikipedia is at it's most frustrating. All these "reliable sources" push a narrative and it's the only information that can be be added to the article because of Wikipedia's rules.98.247.222.39 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the lede now captures the range of diverse views in this group, around its core beliefs of a pro-gun citizen militia ethos. That ethos is going to attract a lot of far-right and white supremacist-type elements, and based on the quality sources quoted in the article who have been actively investigating the group (and the recent activity at protests), that is borne out. We have a lot of quality independent international sources reporting the same views on the group, from Reuters to British papers like The Independent, which are used in the article. The movement has gotten a lot of press over a short period in the last month, so it is possible that as time goes on, more quality sources will revisit the movement and refine views. If views change, then we can amend the article accordingly – certainly highlight any such sources here. Thanks for your involvement and comments. Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance GorillaWarfare The issue with the first line of the lede as it stands is that it implies all groups associated with the term "boogaloo" are far right. This is disputed by many sources and people who study extremism, who associate it with general anti-police and anti-government sentiment that includes wide varieties of groups. Even the ADL, a source no friend to the right wing, does not designate these groups as necessarily "far right" or even right wing. https://www.adl.org/blog/the-boogaloo-extremists-new-slang-term-for-a-coming-civil-war MWise12 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence acknowledges that it is a loosely organized group, while also accurately reflecting the sourcing by describing them as far-right. The article is quite clear that they generally self-identify differently, as well as explicit about all the various groups they have also been associated with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying it is loosely organized doesn't address the main problem with the sentence, which is that it implies the term "boogaloo" is inherently for a "right wing movement". The sentence needs to add qualifiers that it is not just right wing. MWise12 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The movement is described as far-right by the majority of the sourcing, and so this article reflects that, including in the first sentence. I understand that plenty of the groups would rather describe themselves as libertarian or whichever other label they choose, but that does not change that coverage largely describes them as far-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In this page there are three sources that describe them as anarchist, and two that describe them as libertarian. At what point are you determining that coverage "largely" describes them as far-right? MWise12 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In my reading of the sources used in this article, the sources that mention libertarianism or anarchism tend to do so when describing how a singular group self-identifies. When described as a whole they have generally been described as far right. I only included three inline sources in the lead to avoid citation overkill, but am happy to add more if you wish. They are perfectly abundant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite them here so I can take a look at them? Keep in mind, we should be giving far more weight to sources that actually study extremism than media outlets just regurgitating claims from other media outlets. MWise12 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sources already being used in the article. 3, 4, and 5 are the ones cited inline, but even looking at the titles alone, sources 10, 12, 18, 22, 28, and 29 describe them unequivocally as "far right". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that a group of media outlets all cross-citing from eachother (and not experts who actually study movements/extremism) gives them authoritative weight to declare what something is or is not. Especially in this case where there isn't even uniformity among what media outlets consider the "boogaloo movement". I may be open to a compromise where we change the first sentence from speaking in Wikipedia's voice to phrasing such as "has been described by various news outlets as being"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWise12 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

These media outlets are reliable sources. However, if it assuages your concerns at all, I will note that the researchers at Middlebury, Bellingcat, and the SPLC also describe it as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Middlebury cites Bellingcat for its use of the term "right wing", ironically, and Bellingcat openly states; "Open source materials suggest that, for now, the apocalyptic, anti-government politics of the “Boogaloo Bois” are not monolithically racist/neo-Nazi. As we have observed, some members rail against police shootings of African Americans, and praise black nationalist self defense groups."

I will say I think some of these contradictions come from the fact that boogaloo may have started as a mainly right-wing phrase used online, but it has in the past 2 years (as BellingCat notes) gone mainstream and today is used by a wide variety of generally anti-government groups. MWise12 (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is well described in this article that the boogaloo movement is anti-government, and that there are individual groups self-identifying as all kinds of things, with racists and anti-racists alike. No one is arguing you on that point. But they are still generally described as far-right, including by bellingcat: On the internet, meanwhile, a largely white, and far right movement publicly contended over what risks its members should take to support a black man killed by police.....In recent weeks, the term “Boogaloo” has gone mainstream after months of growing popularity in online far-right communities. Nationwide anti-lockdown protests have provided an opportunity for right-wing militias to rally, armed, in public. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you object to the qualifier "The boogaloo movement, adherents to which are often referred to as boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois, is described as a loosely organized American far-right extremist movement." ? I think there's enough contradicting claims among sources (I counted at least 10 in the article that describe the movement and don't use the term right wing) to disqualify making a purely flat statement in Wikipedia's voice. MWise12 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would. It adds nothing to the article besides making people go "described by whom?", and if we add "described by extremism experts and journalists" then it would be (rightfully) questioned why we're adding in-text attribution to a well-sourced claim. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's described by some journalists and extremism experts. You're simply ignoring the large, notable portion of sources that contradict your insisted "far right" designation. MWise12 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the other journalism; hell, I added most of it to this article myself. But I do disagree with your summary of it. You say that the other sourcing "contradicts" the sources that say they are far-right, as if those sources are saying "the boogaloo movement is not far right", but that's not the case. The sources that do not describe the movement as far-right often either a) don't describe the movement in general terms at all, b) specifically indicate how the movement self-describes, or c) focus on an individual group/person in the movement and describe their specific politics.

We seem to be at an impasse here. I think the best thing for us to do now is wait for some of the other folks who actively edit this article (and hopefully watch this talk page) to weigh in on the conversation. (Not the SPAs, though, please.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The current wording seems fine. It is inclusive of the spectrum of ideologies, though I think the racist roots of the group could be emphasized more. [12] gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The first few sentences from the "Beliefs and Structure" section should just replace the first lines of the lead. They're actually more accurate than it is. MWise12 (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments earlier, I also think the current wording is fine. Diversity of views aside, the term right-wing appears very frequently to describe the group per the references. I have not seen any credible source try describe it as left-wing. Britishfinance (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with British Finance, "right-wing" is the usual identifier used with this movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree with MWise12 here, the movement mostly defines itself as a libertarian movement, the fact that there are a few neo-nazis individuals involved don't make the whole movement far-right, that would mean that ANTIFA is an extremist far-left movement, when most of the members subscribe to far-left ideologies such as communism, anarcho-communism, and whatnot, but that doesn't make the whole movement far-left nor extremist, the same occurs here. Some journalists may consider the movement far-right, but there are others that don't, the same happens with (my apologies for the redundancy) ANTIFA, some media outlets consider it to be far-left while others don't. --Fvoltes (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How a movement describes itself is often very different from how a movement is widely described. It certainly is in this case, and you often see it with other right-wing individuals and groups (as well as elsewhere in the political spectrum). As discussed above, media and extremism researchers tend to describe the boogaloo movement as far-right, so this article does the same -- while also pointing out, of course, that the movement tends to self-describe as libertarian, and that it is a heterogenous movement with individual groups holding all sorts of views. I will point out, by the way, that Antifa (United States) describes the movement as left-wing in the lead, though you are correct that it appears in that case "far-left" is not supported by the sourcing to the same degree it is here, and so the discussion of that is relegated to the article body. I haven't edited that article in any substantial way, so I have no idea what the history is there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I get your point, but again, I think we can't describe a movement as being far-right when there's an ongoing debate whether it's a far-right movement or a libertarian movement, the fact that most of the media outlets cross-reference each other saying it's a far-right movement , as someone mentioned before, proves that a group of journalists consider it to be that way, but there are also other journalists who consider them to be libertarian. Anyway, I think we should get consensus. Fvoltes (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The second source you point to does not really support your point that media is describing them as "libertarian" over "far-right". I also don't agree that "most of the media outlets cross-reference each other" with respect to their political leanings. As for consensus, that's what this section has been attempting to do. If you want to start something more formal, be my guest, though I wonder if it's really a great time for it. The coverage of this movement has been very recent (mostly cropping up in the past three weeks) and starting a ~30-day RfC might be unwise as the coverage is continuing to evolve. Your call, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fvoltes: Whatever you decide to do, please do not make unilateral changes to the lead, against past consensus, with a misleading edit summary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't do anything for now, it's too early as you said. Fvoltes (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm really sorry for what I just did, before we were talking I had already made the changes but hadn't published it, then while reading the article again I realised that the article was being related to the Patriot Movement, and I wanted to change that, however, I forgot I had made changes before, it was a foolish mistake by my part Fvoltes (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay, not a problem. No harm done. Though I'm not sure I follow why you think the Patriot movement see also link ought to be removed. For one, they have been mentioned in articles alongside the boogaloo boys (e.g. [13]). Secondly, regarding your edit summary that "libertarians aren't conservative and hardly ever patriot": there are absolutely conservative libertarians (see Libertarian conservatism and Paleolibertarianism), and the Patriot movement article mentions paleolibertarianism directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Refloop and precedents

Regarding "far right" vs variance, I would like to point out that the amount of sources repeating a bit of information does not make it automatically the one that Wikipedia should go with (for example: an outdated information on a subject may have more refs than an updated information, or a pseudo-history may have more refs than a more-scientific history; WP:RSBREAKING, WP:SOURCETYPES). The authority of the source matters. For example a book or academic paper with detailed research and depth may be more prominent than 10 web articles that are not in-depth, or similarly a web article that has depth should weigh more than a web article that is merely a brief overview. This depth can be observed from the size and content of the article, the sources they use including interviews and expert opinions. Many news articles don't use any sources or minimal expert opinions. Also note WP:REFLOOP, this is when news articles use Wikipedia itself as source for information and then editors use that as sources on Wikipedia. This is a big concern and likelihood. DA1 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out the precedents of more established articles such as 'Anarchism'. Anarchist ideologies and groups are overwhelmingly left-wing but there are also right-wing Anarchist ideologies and groups as well. The Wikipedia article's lede of it does not label the movement as "left-wing" or "far-left" like what the article for Boogaloo currently does. The article for 'Libertarianism' also refrains from describing the ideology as inherently "left wing" in the first lede but rather, in its second lede, gives a chronological overview noting it originally being left-wing but later also including "right-wing" ideologies. I believe the Boogaloo article should refrain from using "far-right extremist" exclusively in its first lede but leave it blank as the aforementioned has done while elaborating the variance in ideologies in the second lede and article body. DA1 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the lines in the second paragraph lede is too vague:

Some are white supremacist or neo-Nazi groups who believe that the impending unrest will be a race war; however other groups condemn racism and white supremacy.

Rather then the un-elaborated phrasing of "however others groups condemn racism and white supremacy" alone, the article should reference the anarchist, left anarchist, libertarian (and other) presence/aspect of the movement. That is missing completely from the lede and is only briefly referenced in the article body in one line under the second section. The non-far-right elements should be given their due weight in the lede rather than excluded outright. DA1 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I could not support that view. The scale of high-quality SIGCOV refs calling the group right-wing, and the diversity of high-quality SIGCOV refs calling the group right-wing (per my comments above), is just too great for it to be REFLOOP. REFLOOP happens with lower-grade sources, and/or sources not doing proper SIGCOV pieces. I don't see a case for that here (in fact, the refs are overwhelmingly the opposite). The term extremist also features regularly, and certainly more than anarchist (which hardly features). The actions of the movement (per the article), and their ideology, are undoubtedly extreme. The article captures what the group label themselves as (e.g. citizen-style libertarian militia etc.), however, it is important that their label is kept separate from what independent high-quality sources call them. If there is a left-wing element in the movement, it is to date minor and not prominent. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• As I have already mentioned further up in this conversation, the term is supported both by the news sources and the extremism researchers, so there is both quality and quantity in the sourcing here. Regarding books and academic sources, I think this movement is largely too new to be covered in either of those types of publications, though if you've found anything I'd love to see it. I agree with Britishfinance that this does not appear to be a REFLOOP issue. I was the person who created this article, and the sources that existed prior to this article were quite clear in describing the movement as far-right. You will also notice that all of the sources currently cited inline to support the "far-right" sentence were published before this article was created. As for your concerns with the line about white supremacy/condemnation of racism, I'm not sure I follow why you want to replace that wholesale with a sentence about anarchism/libertarianism (especially when libertarianism is already mentioned in the lead). In my reading of the sources, the discussion of racism (or lack thereof) among the movement is quite prominent. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance, GorillaWarfare: The non-far-right element may be minor but it is not absent. It should be elaborated in the lede as well. There has been sources speaking of it, briefly mentioned in the article body (WP:LEDE "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Here is another article that interviews a Boogaloo movement participant, [14], from CNN.

Which brings me to a related point, the article's information seems to be exclusively from third-party viewpoints. Have you considered including some reference and quotes from first-party participants? The entire article seems to have only one statement of that nature albeit that is also unattributed to any group or persons in particular ("Some participants in the movement claim that the group and its ideology are nothing more than online jokes"). DA1 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that your (accurate) description of the non-far-right element as "minor but not absent" is precisely why it is mentioned in the article body but not in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. However, I'd be happy to hear your suggestion for what wording change you're thinking of -- it is easier to discuss in specifics. As for including first-party participants, what would you suggest be included? We have to be very careful about primary sourcing (WP:PRIMARY), and not use quotes as a way to overstate a particular group's viewpoint as belonging to the whole movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I did not say it should be replaced; I stated the second part of the line should be elaborated. It shouldn't just stop at a vague "other groups" wording and have no elaboration on what some of those "other groups" are. DA1 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for misunderstanding you. How would you suggest elaborating on it? I don't know what other information we would give; some boogaloo groups are white supremacist/neo-Nazi, some others are anti-racist. I'm not sure there are additional unifying threads between those groups that we could pull out; for example I don't believe the sourcing supports a claim that all of the anti-racist groups are also libertarian, or anarchist, or whichever else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Connection to the Turner Diaries

I think it should be noted that despite all the apologists, Boogaloo is a far-right movement built upon white supremacy. Oftentimes there is a link between their worldview and that of William Luther Pierce who wrote the racist speculative fiction novel "The Turner Diaries."

In this article from the Independent it is noted that Boogaloo adherents sometimes utilize memes from the Turner Diaries like "the day of the rope":

Boogaloo memes have also appeared among white supremacists, signalling that a civil war is not just against liberal governance but will accelerate social collapse to make way for white dominance, the Anti-Defamation League reports.

"Some promote boogaloo-related phrases alongside hashtags such as #dotr or #DayOfTheRope, both of which are references to neo-Nazi William Pierce's The Turner Diaries, a novelised blueprint for a white revolution," the organisation reports.

I would like this fact added to the page.

Thank you.

Loknar (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Loknar: If you ctrl-f "dotr" you will see that this reference is already included in the article, with a wikilink to The Turner Diaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare, it looks like those references were removed from the wikipedia article. Doing a search for "dotr" in the article with control-F shows nothing. Please re-add the Independent article and the connection to the Turner Diaries. Thanks again!Loknar (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Loknar: You may need to refresh—it was briefly removed earlier today but I restored it a half hour or so ago. Second sentence of the "History" section: This usage of the term is believed to have originated on the fringe imageboard website 4chan, where it was often accompanied by references to "racewar" and "dotr" (day of the rope, a neo-Nazi reference to a fantasy involving murdering what the posters view to be "race traitors"). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Understood. Thanks again! Loknar (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

The Boogaloo movement is not a Far Right Extremist group, we are libertarian. We are not left, nor are we right, we are down. Down for the people. We believe everyone should have the right to peacefully protest against the crimes of the government and their civil servants but we also believe small business owners livelihoods should be protected. Both the protesters and shops are being protected by the Boog Boys. We do not want a civil war. Please stop slandering us when you have no idea what we're really about, clearly no research was done outside of media news outlets. Please let us tell everyone who we really are. 24.222.246.23 (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

While that's true, the challenge is that the subject is meme heavy. The advocates aren't publishing a lot of formal, reliable sources. The "reliable sources" are all critical. So, for example, there's the claim that the name is a reference to a sequel to the Civil War. That claim is popular with critics since it paints the advocates as a bunch of racists who long for the days of slavery. On the other hand, in the wild the advocates more often refer to either "1776 part 2: Electric Boogaloo" or "Revolutionary War part 2: Electric Boogaloo", since they see themselves as heroes seeking freedom. None of that stuff consists of encyclopedic sources though. Given that, to remain NPOV while still being encyclopedic I'd suggest the article should be circumspect about what claims it includes, even if they have "reliable" sources. 75.69.101.95 (talk)

Boogaloo has always been about a second civil war. I've been following this for some time and any claims for it being a "second American revolution" are attempts to whitewash it. All claims to explain it away as meme-related are unfounded. Yes, this is my own experience but I wanted to counter the OR above. Loknar (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We maintain NPOV by representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (emphasis mine), not by modifying the article (including by being circumspect) based off of our own observations of the movement or claims made in unreliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's another "we are libertarian" news source for ya, Gorilla: https://www.wisn.com/article/armed-libertarians-join-milwaukee-protesters/32771798. Or this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-libertarians-join-milwaukee-protesters/ar-BB153o4a 24.192.63.225 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Those two links are the same article, one is just syndicated to MSN. What specific change are you hoping to see made based on this source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideally? The eventual shift of the article from “this is a far-right group of crazies” to “this is an non-homogenous group of barely-affiliated libertarian-leaning individuals who think boog memes are funny.” Do I ever fully expect that? Of course not—-there are reliable sources that say the opposite. I’m largely just posting ones contrary to the popular narrative when I find them and leaving the specifics to your discretion. I can suggest specific edits if you’d like? I’m new to this. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, specific edit suggestions are ideal. WP:Edit requests has some more information if you need. But as for shifting the article, the source you've provided describes one group as libertarian, and makes no comment on the overall politics of other groups in the movement. When there are a lot of sources saying "boogaloo groups are generally far right" and a handful saying "there are some libertarian groups" or speaking about one specific group, you end up with an article like what we have now, which says largely the same thing: that the boogaloo is generally far right, but there are individual groups with various other leanings (libertarian, anarchist, etc). I will also point out that libertarianism and rightwing beliefs do not necessarily contradict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Remove “ label of far right movement, that label is contradicting the later stated libertarian view of the boog. 2605:6000:1202:1117:20E0:A137:C30A:CB64 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per every other nearly identical request we've gotten since George Floyd was killed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Would recommend you read the section directly above this one for more details on why this change won't be made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove "members" from the article

The article referrs to "members" of the movement but the movement is an autonomous, decentralized ideology and not one with "members". This should instead be changed to something akin to "participants". SJMccarthy (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Except in cases where the reference was to members of specific groups, as opposed to the movemenbt in general, I have changed "members" to "participants", "adherents" and "believers", as seemed appropriate for the context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Anything mentioning far right or racialist movement, it’s not it’s a libertarian movement ffs 141.126.167.33 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide citations from reliable sources for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Boogaloo Bois are actually a peaceful group of Libertarians. Some extremist have used the term "boogaloo" but do not represent the group "boogaloo Bois" The page should reflect accuracy of the Libertarian movement that includes all races and advocates for peaceful protests against tyranny and police brutality. Even this article tries to vilify peaceful boogaloo groups but if you are to be neutral then you can see through the obvious false assertions in these links to the facts stated by its members.

"This local group declared they were not Alt Right or white supremacist but “a libertarian movement; pro-liberty, pro-2A (second amendment) and pro-individual rights.However, reports around the country have provided information that this loosely knit philosophy of accelerationism is popular with militias, gun activists and some white supremacists have also adopted the “boogaloo” identity."

”https://shepherdexpress.com/news/happening-now/armed-boogaloo-movement-appearing-at-black-lives-matter-prot/#/questions

Example of peaceful and thoughtful people supporting black lives matter stated from members in this article:

"Justin Mishler, a Boogaloo follower from Belvidere, Illinois, who attended a Milwaukee protest last week, said he and other group members were not bothered by the mistrust they encountered from protest leaders.

"It's their protest," said Mishler, who carried a semi-automatic rifle at the march.

Mishler, 27, said he was a student at Northern Illinois University and complained he cannot carry a gun on campus. He said carrying weapons at protests serves as "a deterrent against the police abusing their power."

He said he knows that some people view Boogaloo followers as racists or domestic terrorists, characterizations he disputed.

Friedfeld said there are two factions in the movement: one follows a white supremacist philosophy and is clearly anti-Semitic and racist; the other, which includes followers trying to join Black Lives Matter protests, believes in taking down the government.

 "They view themselves as the protector of the American people and the one who will lead the uprising against tyranny," Friedfeld said.

"They have this inherently anti-police stance," he said.

The movement is trying to use the protests to change its image and align itself with Black Lives Matter, according to experts who follow the Boogaloo and similar movements."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/reports/2020/06/10/boogaloo-boys-get-cool-reception-at-milwaukee-black-lives-matter-marches/5323664002/ Cme111 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Both of these appear to be interviews of members of the group. In any case, I don't think that these two relatively poor sources are sufficient to override the fact that reliable ones such as NBC, The Times, and others have qualified this movement as far right. In any case, this page is not about the "boogaloo bois" but about the movement as a whole, and if there are sub-groups of this which do not share the violent ideology then those may be mentioned with WP:DUE weight in a subsection. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cme111: This article already reflects what your source says: that some groups are anti-racist, and that some groups are white supremacist. It also reflects that the groups generally self-identify as libertarian. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"The movement is trying to use the protests to change its image and align itself with Black Lives Matter, according to experts who follow the Boogaloo and similar movements" Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Steven Carrillo

Not sure where it should go in the article, but Steven Carrillo, who has been arrested for murder after ambushing and killing Damon Gutzwiller, a Santa Cruz deputy, left references to the boogaloo movement scrawled in blood on the hood of a car, so it probably deserves a mention somewhere in the article. NBC: "Before he was apprehended, Carrillo scrawled the word 'boog' and 'I became unreasonable' in blood on the hood of a car. 'Boog' is short for boogaloo, a far-right anti-government movement that began on the extremist site 4chan and aims to start a second American civil war. The phrase 'I became unreasonable' has become a meme in public Boogaloo communities on Facebook, which discuss weapons and fantasize about a second civil war. One recent meme on Facebook shows a man holding a Boogaloo flag at a protest, along with the phrase 'Become unreasonable.'" It is also worth noting that the FBI is investigating whether Carrillo could have been the shooter in the 2020 shooting of Oakland police officers (article about the link), which currently redirects to the George Floyd protests page, so it may be best to include this in that section of this page, but I'm not sure about that. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

They've now charged Carrillo for both murders. There was also an US flag with an igloo. I've added a bit under the George Floyd protests section using your source. I've also put a mention of "I became unreasonable" on the Marvin Heemeyer article, as he inspired the phrase. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I've made a few edits, including moving the section out from under the George Floyd protests section—the Mercury News article mentions they may have been using the protests as a distraction, but quotes the agent in charge of the investigation as saying they were not intending to join the protests, so it probably makes sense to treat them as unrelated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Please edit this page. The information is incorrect. As a member of the Boogaloo movement, I can assure you that our members are not white supremacists. Those that portray that type of bigotry are oust from our community once discovered, just like cops were in the recent riots involving our brothers and sisters in the BLM movement. We do not tolerate people who are incapable of tolerance. Please correct your information. May power always be with We The People. 2001:5B0:2B13:ECA8:8D5E:6FDE:1C28:EB5D (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We report what relaible sources say. If you have cotations fromo reliable sources which support your position, please post them here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources are key. Personal testimony is original research. Pikavoom (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

There is a part of this article that claims boogaloo is a white supremacist group, but the citations provided say nothing of the sort. I believe this was done to create stigma against pro 2nd amendment groups. NorCal2506 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @NorCal2506: Since you evidently weren't able to find them yourself, I will quote the sources clearly cited inline after the sentence about "white supremacy" in this article (emphasis mine):

• Experts on extremism warn that “boogaloo boys” are reaching a wider audience of disaffected young men during the coronavirus pandemic as they are drawn by memes into the subculture of insurrection. Some of those involved are white supremacists who believe the coming civil war will be a race war but most are simply anti-establishment rebels frustrated with tightening US gun laws and lockdowns. The Times
• “This movement is evolving and their views are very much in flux. The next few weeks will show where they are,” Newhouse said. “But white supremacy is part of this movement. Even as they try to navigate away from it, it’s always going to be there in the background.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
• The term “Boogaloo,” which began to predominate in far-right web spaces in early 2019, began as a shorthand for civil unrest following potential local or federal firearms confiscation, and has been embraced by antigovernment and white nationalist communities. SPLC
• However, in recent years, it has caught on among far-right militia and white supremacist communities who use it to refer to what they foresee as a coming revolution: “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.” Middlebury Institute of International Studies

Additional sources already used in the article also support the claim, though aren't cited inline, if you prefer them. The NBC, ADL, Vox, The Guardian, Insider, Reuters, The Independent, and Tech Transparency Project cites could all be used to support the claim, and I've only gone through the first half of the sources used here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

The information is completely false, it's propaganda. The boogie boys protect protesters. They are of all colors and creed's. White supremacist and alt right labeling is asinine. People who will fight for the liberties of all, should not be degraded this way. Ctbull816 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Ctbull816: Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the current sourcing, or show that it is contradicted by additional reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of image

@Netoholic: Between the photographer specifically identifying the subjects as members of the movement, and multiple reliable sources describing members of the boogaloo movement being present at the 2020 VCDL Lobby Day dressed in fatigues and Hawaiian shirts and carrying with long guns, I think it perfectly appropriate to include that image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Who is the photographer and why in the world would he be considered a WP:RS for such a potentially defamatory assertion? Unrelated sources which state boogaloo was there somewhere is not reliable source for these specific pictured individuals to be identified as such. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Legal issues which says we don't use random pictures to caption someone as a "drug dealer" - and that's a far tamer example than given the implication on this page. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

So to be clear, the argument here is that the photographer is either mistaken or lying about the subjects of his photos, and he somehow managed to photograph some other group of people wearing military fatigues, Hawaiian shirts, and carrying long guns at this rally where the boogaloo boys were reliably reported to have been, wearing and carrying those same things? I will note that this photographer's images have been used at other articles including alt-right without this same objection, so if this is the argument you're going with you may have some other images to discuss as well... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The argument is that he is not a reliable source by our standards (wrong, lying, whatever, it doesn't matter what I think), and that is particularly aggravating the issue that we are identifying these specific pictured private individuals in our article describing them as part of a movement in a manner where our WP:IUP does not allow us. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the alt-right image? (File:Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' Rally (35780274914) crop.jpg) I'm not trying to bring it up as a "gotcha" or anything, I'm just trying to figure out if there's something about that image that makes it acceptable while this one is not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Netoholic's issue that the photographer's photograph may be correct (e.g. valid photo taken at that specific protest), but that even though they are heavily armed men wearing Hawaiian shirts, the photographer is potentially defaming them by calling them Boogaloo members (as if he called them drug dealers)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: At first pass, the main difference is that, in the alt-right image, the participants are displaying iconography presumptively associating them with particular affiliations, but its possible that may not be enough if fairly evaluated in regards to WP:IUP#Legal issues. But that is not the case here. An amateur photographer's assumption that these specific pictured people are "boogaloo" is not a reliable source. If you have a reliable news source that uses this exact Crider photo and captions it in this way (to avoid WP:CIRCULAR, from before your insertion of it on May 30), then add that citation to the caption here. Otherwise, it is defamatory and should be removed. Images for illustration are just not so important as to potentially get it wrong by implying private individuals are part of a movement. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I would argue that the fatigues/Hawaiian shirt/rifles combo is similarly identifying (in addition to the photographer's identification of his subject). However, perhaps a better solution is available that will resolve your concerns while also retaining an illustration for the article. File:Blue Igloo in Raleigh (49841914728).jpg is another photograph by this same photographer, which has been used by various media sources with captions identifying the subjects as members of the boogaloo movement: [15], [16], [17]. While I think the current image is a better illustration (as the Hawaiian shirts are the particularly stand-out identifier of the group), the second has the captions/news articles to support it. There is also an image of a Hawaiian-shirted person at the same "Blue Igloo" (boogaloo) rally as this photo, but I haven't seen that photo used in reliable sourcing anywhere: File:Blue Igloo in Raleigh (49842745367).jpg—though a tweet by the online extremism researcher Megan Squire does use it, if that would be sufficient. These two images have the added benefit that their subjects are slightly less recognizable, as they are wearing face coverings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance and Beyond My Ken: also pinging to get your input. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: So does that mean every non-WP:RS picture of people dressed in all-black with masks would be appropriate for Antifa/black bloc articles? No. No picture from that amateur photographer of an identifiable person is acceptable under WP:IUP, and its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup). -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

...What? Did you read past my first sentence? I'm pinging Britishfinance and BMK because they've supported maintaining the current image in the discussion below, and I've just suggested changing it to a different image to try to accommodate your concerns. That is not "pinging for backup", nor is that "disinterested in doing the right thing". You said above If you have a reliable news source that uses this exact Crider photo and captions it in this way (to avoid WP:CIRCULAR, from before your insertion of it on May 30), then add that citation to the caption here., and so I've offered you images that meet those criteria. Why are you now saying no image by him is usable? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Those alternatives are just as afoul of WP:IUP because the people are identifiable not just anonymous in a crowd (see WP:IUP#Examples). Also IUP says Some tabloid newspapers and magazines have had legal issues with respect of original copyright for sake of getting their stories out, and images from such sources may be problematic to use on Wikipedia for both legal and moral reasons.. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the goalposts just moved, but alright... They are both images of a couple of people at a rally, if anything the new photo I suggested is more anonymous (because of the face coverings), not less. And it is supported in the caption like you asked. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up copyright, the image is clearly released by the photographer under a compatible CC license and was properly imported from Flickr. The photographer links his Flickr from a few places, so it's not some sort of license laundering setup.

I thought I'd found an alternative option that would satisfy all parties, but evidently not. Either way, it seems like consensus is forming below to retain the current image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The point is we would need a RS for the claim that these specific identifiable people are part of this movement. If they were pictured anonymously from the back or part of a larger crowd, clearly showed identifying insignia, were identified by authorities as part of the movement, or were interviewed in a WP:RS and openly stated their affiliation. Why is it you need a clear picture of someone's face in an article about a movement, when so many of WP:IUP policies say to avoid that? We don't use identifiable people in articles which would unjustly defame them. No response to my black mask/clothes point? I don't at all care about what you assess "consensus" as... that does not make your stance legal or moral in accordance with IUP. -- Netoholic @ 03:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, first you said that a caption was sufficient, but that's apparently now changed. I don't need a picture of anything in this article, but I do like to have illustrations in articles where possible, as is generally encouraged. As for your decision about IUP, it appears to be out of line with others' interpretations of the policy, at least here. It's fine as you disagree with the emerging consensus here, so long as you either choose to respect it, or find a broader consensus to override it. But it seems this particular discussion is finished, as I'm not interested in trying to jump through moving hoops to find a picture you're okay with when everyone else commenting says the current image is fine. Nor am I interested in arguing false equivalencies about people wearing black vs. people wearing a very specific combination of Hawaiian shirts over cold weather and military gear, and carrying rifles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging Britishfinance here too, since the edit war appears to be continuing... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The photographer (Anthony Crider) is a professor of astrophysics in North Carolina [18], but has his own site since 2010 [19], that links to his flickr site [20], that records various protests he has photographed (location, time etc.), and what he saw. Not a professional, but a credible figure nonetheless. Britishfinance (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Crider has been profiled for this work on photographing protests [21], and other newspapers have used his photographs and given him attribution for them, even for other Boogaloo members such as this [22], and this [23]. Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This is Lawfare using Crider's photograph of Oath Keepers (and using that term in the caption), at another protest in 2019. [24]. Britishfinance (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Profiled in his own school's website? Not WP:RS. Photos used elsewhere? Not WP:RS for this specific image. He is an amateur photographer, even prolific, but he is not a WP:RS for determining what, if any, affiliation these specific individuals are part of. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But he is being used as an RS by papers, and even legal ones, as I point out above; here he is on the Southern Poverty Law Centre with more controversial figures: [25]. As also pointed out above, his own twitter and flickr site identifies the location and time of this specific photo and the protest in question. All three are heavily armed and all three are wearing Hawaiian shirts – it is clear what they are. Unlike some random amateur photographer, Anthony Crider is a credible public figure in the area of photographing controversial events, and whose photos and captions of such events are used as RS by good third party news sites. Britishfinance (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: "wearing Hawaiian shirts – it is clear what they are" is exactly the kind of WP:OR which could be remedied by finding an actual WP:RS that these specific identifiable people are part of the movement which this image's placement in this article implies. Crider is not a reliable source for identifying, by clothing alone, what affiliation a person belongs - and neither are you. It is the sources which used his photos that are making that identification. In this case, there is no secondary source... just his photo dropped directly to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 13:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If Crider was an unknown person with no credibility I might lean towards your view, although it would still require an extreme reading to assume that heavily armed people wearing Hawaiian shirts at a recent protest were not Boogaloo movement. However, Crider is a credible photographer whose work on photographing protests is properly sourced, and whose photos and captions are used in other RS (per above). I could not support a view that considered both of those statements to be false. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think the obvious interpretation of this article's lede image is that the people in it are dressed up as Boogaloos for Halloween.</sarcasm> Photo is fine, arguments for removing it are lame. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support keeping the photo of people openly wearing obvious Boogaloo garb in public, unless evidence emerges that these were actors pretending to be Boogaloo followers. The photo illustrates the article very well. Photos are not "reliable sources" and are not held to that standard. No evidence has been presented that this photo is faked or misleading in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Cullen328's points. Reasons for deleting it seem to be exaggerated in importance. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't find that either Wikipedia:Image use policy#Moral issues or Wikipedia:Image use policy#Legal issues applies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, it is illustrative. Maybe crop out the guy on the right whose face is maybe recognizable. The rest of the people there are masked or obscured anyway. Pikavoom (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that Netoholic. having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Those who wish to participate in the deletion discussion can find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

There is a typo in the word "Particiants in the boogaloo movement often wear..." It should be "Participants" Rywright (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} Thanks, fixed! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

This entire page is false. I’m sorry to say. Boogaloo does not mean civil war. It’s used by vets for those who anticipate a fire fight with terrorists at home. Such as antifa. 2600:8801:9200:B69:E1E6:5070:E7B9:21AF (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Conflicts with what the references say. There is little mention of Antifa being terrorists or the main target of the Boogaloo movement; instead, the main focus is an anti-government bias. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the current sourcing, or show that it is contradicted by additional reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Good evening. I am writing to request that I be allowed to edit the "boogaloo movement" page. It contains a large amount of misinformation, and I seek to edit it for accuracy. It seems that people are spreading lies to discredit our liberty movement. Theluauproject (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Virginia 2nd Amendment Rally (2020 Jan) - 49416109936 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that Netoholic. having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Those who wish to participate in the discussion can find it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A homosocial bois club

Currently the first line says:

The boogaloo movement, adherents to which are often referred to as boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois, is a loosely organized American far-right extremist movement.

It should read:

The boogaloo movement, adherents to which are often referred to as boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois, is a loosely organized American far-right homosocial extremist movement.

And before you dismiss me as a crank, the evidence I present is this:

1. these are all male groups that are bonding through friendship, mentorship, and other forms
2. their camp clothing
3. compensation with feelings of inadequacy through ownership of long rifles

Due to their well-documented misogyny, the role of this male homosociality is to perpetuate perceived patterns of male dominance through existing historical stereotypes. However, this is the 2020 so there is no sense of irony in this eg inadequate men hanging out and bonding with other inadequate men.

If this was a serious, peer reviewed article this sort of question would be researched and answered, instead this article just tells you what an invented movement does but never asks about the why? 81.141.32.93 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. A wikipedia article is not a peer-reviewed piece. It is, per WP:42, a collection of what high quality, independent, reliable sources say about the subject. If such sources call the movement homosocial, then so will the article. At the moment, I have not come across any at this stage? If you do find them, then just post the URL here and we can take a look at it. thanks for your interest. Britishfinance (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not serious

There isn't any boogaloo movement or maybe in some leftist brains. Look at the destruction during the protest, do you think it's the far right behind it. Everybody who disagree with leftist view is far right or a white supremacist, so easy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:D944:16AF:1F36:DD64 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the current sourcing, or show that it is contradicted by additional reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Change "far right extremist group" to, "veteran popular movement that attracts a diverse audience from all religions and races, in the name of liberty and human rights. Most enthusiasts of the boogaloo have a libertarian or independent mindset that are against the two party political system. This is contrary to the popular belief that the "boog bois" are far right extremists in which the mainstream media suggests." Chexican79 (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

. Also, @Chexican79: all Wikipedia does is summarize the mainstream media (see WP:RS and WP:RSP), so you're gonna have a bad time if you don't want to. We also don't use original research, which is why the article doesn't even suggest that minority members of the group have merely been duped by white nationalists into thinking they're just a libertarian movement. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert of an expert quote by MWise12

Starting a discussion here after being reverted by MWise12. Edit summary was Strongly disagree with this inclusion. Including one person's (very controversial) opinion is arbitrary. Text that I added, and which MWise12 reverted, was:

Robert Futrell, a far-right extremism researcher and professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said to Wired, "If the extreme right is a Venn diagram, one side is white supremacists, and the other is anti-government groups," and that the boogaloo movement falls in the intersection of the two.

It was added to the second paragraph of the "Beliefs and structure" section. Robert Futrell is the Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and is an accomplished researcher on the subject of political extremism. More info on Dr. Futrell at [26]. The quote is properly attributed in-text per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and cited to a high quality source (Wired). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

References

The idea that anti-government groups are right wing by default is patently absurd. How would I even begin explaining how insane that claim is? Let's start with the fact that Communist uprisings and left wing anarchist movements for the past century were all anti-government movements. We cannot allow a situation where all anarchist violence gets pinned on "right wing extremism". Don't really even have words for the pure dishonesty that would be. MWise12 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Futrell is not claiming that all anti-government groups are right-wing in that quote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with his statement, and why I don't support it being in this page, is that he doesn't explain why they're supposedly "right wing". So-called white supremacists? Okay, it's understandable why that group of people would be described as right wing. But anti-government extremists? As presented (with zero explanation as to why the anti-government portion are right wing), his statement insinuates that being anti-government is an inherently "far right" position, which is not true. MWise12 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't insinuate that at all, it simply acknowledges the true fact that there are anti-government groups among the extreme right (as there are among the extreme left; but this article and Dr. Futrell's expertise focus on the extreme right). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it implies there are only two sides of the extreme right - white supremacists and anti-government. Its not a nuanced take. -- Netoholic @ 01:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That quote unduly biases the article on its own and must be balanced with other views. Quotes should only be used where the source (or preferably the quote itself) is cited often elsewhere, otherwise quotes can be WP:CHERRYPICKING bordering on WP:OR. Robert Futrell has an all-time H-index of 15, which is pretty minimal for someone in that position. He's not often cited for his views, and likewise not quoted directly. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong view on this. It does feel like a very personalised/colourful view from Futrell, and I am not sure that logically it makes sense – is the spectrum of right really divided in that way? I would be surprised. However, if other experts made a similar point, then I would revisit, but it seems more like a solo view at this stage? Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, appreciate the input from all. Looks like the consensus is to keep the quote out of the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment from 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:2837:7862:8777:7C91

Who cares? This is her pet project. They think they can control the narrative but are only succeeding at destroying the reputation of wikipedia as reliable and unbiased. This plan of accelerationism is the medicine, not the poison. If wikipedia has become unreliable and biased, there's no reason to stand in their way when wikipedia continues the patterns of blatantly unreliable and bias work. It's like they need to keep their reputation in your mind as reliable and unbiased for some reason when this does not align with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:2837:7862:8777:7C91 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

2605:A601:AACF:CF00:2837:7862:8777:7C91, I have no idea who you were trying to reply to (or really what you're trying to even say) but you placed your comment at the top of a section ([27]). Feel free to move it to a better place, I've just put it here for now so it doesn't look like the original post that started that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This is just a broad bad faith accusation. Should it just be removed? Bacondrum (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No objections if you want to remove it. I tend to take a pretty light touch with removing talk page comments, arguably too light. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)