Jump to content

Talk:Diagolon

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

Imaginary organization?

[edit]

What does that even mean in this context? Did whoever wrote this mean fictional? Aren't all organizations imaginary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.128.169 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the whole Diagolon organization seems limited to one man with a Youtube channel: Jeremy MacKenzie, whose claim to fame seems limited to purposefully standing in line to shake Pierre Poilievre hand at a 2022 fundraiser as a publicity stunt.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/justin-trudeau-imaginary-hate-militia 108.35.187.202 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased much?

[edit]

Using "sources" that all point to each other to create better clickbait headlines is slowly making Wikipedia an irrelevant echo chamber for left-wing contributors. Claiming that Diagolon is an "extremist" group is stretching reality to the point of nonsense; what word will be left for actual extremists like the NRM? Wikipedia should aim at staying away from the binary mindset ("there's two political viewpoints: mine and nazis!") or just go ahead and get acquired by the Huffington post.

Here's how Diagolon describes their flag (taken from their website): "THE FLAG OF DIAGOLON AKA "OL SLASHY" IS A FUN SYMBOL WHICH REPRESENTS AN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF PODCAST FANS, OUTDOORSMEN, FATHERS, MOTHERS, BACHELORS, AND GENERALLY ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN LIFE, LOVE, LIBERTY, PEACE, AND MOST OF ALL, THE NOTION OF COMMUNITY WHICH BINDS ALL OF US."

If you think this is right-wing extremism, maybe you should go ahead and read Mein Kampf to recalibrate your political mindmap. 174.1.64.49 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Diagolon website does not get to be a reference for describing what Diagolon is or is not. David notMD (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD: I am looking at the revert of the IP editor's additions, and I see many reasonable looking sources cited that are independent of the Diagolon website. The edits, while not neutral, did contain useful information, and could be recast to provide additional context. The article as it stands now reads badly, with a list of seemingly random facts in the lead paragraph that have no coverage in the body text, violating WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is outside my wheelhouse. Reads badly either version. I will point out that current refs 8 & 13 are to Diagolon and Jeremy, respectively, and should be removed, as other refs support the text at those locations. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever has reverted those changes is endorsing the description of what is essentially a handful of cannabis-smoking Canadians opposed to the politics of Justin Trudeau as "a proposed nation running from Alaska to Florida" advocating "forming a new country through separatist violent measures". This is not just wrong, this is pathetic. The outcome is not a curated/better Wikipedia, it's basically sabotage. 174.1.64.49 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the sources in the article do not seem to indicate that Diagolon is a genuine separatist group; the Canadian Anti-Hate Network states that The plot to carve up select regions of North America into a new canted superstate is, at its heart, a meme. It appears to be more consistently described as a right-wing, tacitly militant accelerationist movement. To reflect this I have changed {{infobox country}} to {{infobox militant organization}}. Shells-shells (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their website is the sole direct source of information. Obviously, it takes prominence over opinions that draw their information from indirect sources. Pamandersonfanclub (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot trust an organisation to accurately describe itself. That's why Wikipedia uses reliable sources; self-published are explicitly called out by the guidelines as "largely not acceptable", and why I've sourced information from US and Canadian Government departments. Ionophore (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use sources that are based on speculatory opinion. If you are obsessed with spreading conspiracy theories about a fictional organization you should stick to reddit. The earth is not flat, we did land on the moon, and Diagolon is and always will be a meme. Pamandersonfanclub (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to say that Diagolon, (its creator and website), is "not allowed" to define itself? How can you seriously object to info straight from the horse's mouth??
Do you not actually realize how idiotic of a statement that is??
If you are going to keep this unbiased as Wikipedia is supposed to be, then you cite both its own self-claimed definition as well as opposing RELIABLE sources that suggest it is more or other than what the PRIMARY source claims.
Your assertion is idiotic, inept, and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding how to do proper research! 159.2.206.8 (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is very biased toward reality. And that idiotic and inept approach to research is how things are done around here. Apologies if you don't like it, but I seriously doubt you are forced to spend any time here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but those first two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other. Your idiotic and inept approach to research is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also Diagolon being a WORK OF FICTION, has already been proven in a court of law:
https://www.sasktoday.ca/crime-cops-court/did-feds-rely-on-poorly-sourced-info-to-invoke-emergencies-act-7539385
Pretty comical that your "approach to research" didn't even hold up in court.
(I studied law btw) 159.2.206.8 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good job studying law! And which court do you mean, or are you referring to the POEC? Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As several other editors pointed out, this article does seem to be lacking in both neutrality and factual accuracy. Particularly Barbara Perry's claim of Diagolon having an "ambition to create a white ethnonationalist state" is highly dubious, so I am torn between just tagging it as such and simply deleting it. Many other controversial and factually incorrect claims in the article are coming from Canadian Anti-Hate Network, an organization funded by the government of Canada, which used their claims about Diagolon to invoke the Emergencies Act to clear the trucker protest, so there is a clear conflict of interest at play. Happy to discuss further. Hyperkorea (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone that section and make clear to attribute analysis from Canadian Anti-Hate Network to the organization. CT55555(talk) 14:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However this does not address the core problem of the article pointed out by myself and others, which is that it's written almost exclusively based on CAHN claims and journalists citing this organization, which is a biased source due to the conflict of interest mentioned above. Furthermore, as another editor above me pointed out, even CAHN acknowledges that Diagolon's statehood ambition is a joke, however the article instead uses an unusual and highly dubious claim of Barbara Perry who seems to be the only person taking this joke seriously. Other humorous aspects of this group are systematically downplayed as well. We have a membership section that doesn't mention that Diagolon's vice president is a time-travelling cocaine addicted goat but does for some reason mention unrelated charges against Jeremy MacKenzie and nothing else about him, like his career in the Canadian Forces or podcasting. To sum it up, this article cannot in it current state give Wikipedia readers a clear and unbiased view of this organization. I can work on improving some of its parts but as long as CAHN is used as its main source I am afraid it will remain biased, so please don't remove the NPOV template before discussing it here. Thanks again. Hyperkorea (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does rely on the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, probably because they are an organization that reports on extremist groups, so that's normal. That is also the reason that journalists quote CAHN. It seems logical to me that the leader of a militia might have firearms related charges mentioned, and I do think that military service and podcasting are also a bit relevant, so you could add that in, I think.
The CAHN website says they do not currently take funding from government, so I think you're wrong about that, but I also don't see any reason to discount government funded organisations in Canada.
I assume the time travelling cocaine fuelled goat comment is sarcasm, so I'll not reply to that. But if there is a vice president with newsworthy activities, we should add that in too.
In the context of our disagreement, I've made a post to WP:NPOVN to get wider input. CT55555(talk) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CAHN does take money from the federal government of Canada. Bernie Farber who you're getting your information from has frequently spread misinformation on other claims of racism and hate and had plenty of his white supremacy claims against people and organizations taken off the Internet. Jeremy has wrongfully been targeted by the Trudeau government since Jeremy spoke out against Trudeau giving 10.5 million dollars to a Canadian citizen who joined the Taliban in Afghanistan and killed an American soldier. Jeremy also spoke out against the RCMP for coverups in the 2021:mass shooting in Nova Scotia and Trudeau interference in an attempt to push his gun control rhetoric. This was confirmed before Brenda Lucky resigned as head of RCMP. 2601:547:600:6800:18AF:CEBB:E9BF:6313 (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any element critical of Diagolon has been removed from the article and it only relies on the groups statements about itself for the information. Diagolon raises money and claims the Coutts 4 who were arrested for conspiring to kill police. Diagolon is now also openly white supremacist. This article is a disservice to wikipedia and seems like it was just rewritten by supporters to remove facts and statements from academics, journalists, and researchers. Other organiztions besides the Canadian Anti-Hate Network have done research into the community, including the Accelerationist Research Consortium and the Global Project to Counter Hate and Extremism, and found much of the same. Burt Halloway (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has become a little wild how much has been stripped out of the article that was previously sourced from reputable media and research in favour of what seems like edit and arguments from Diagolon supporters. Regardless, its better than the edits that were made from the previous single source PR website. 2607:FEA8:10E3:A000:B144:9C3C:4A32:C0B8 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the cocaine-addicted demonic goat, see [1]. Yes there's an RS for that. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

[edit]
184.171.197.72 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) the RCMP clearly note that this group does not meet the requirements of a hate group or organization. what is printed here is open lies.[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source has been cited several times on this talk page.
https://www.sasktoday.ca/crime-cops-court/did-feds-rely-on-poorly-sourced-info-to-invoke-emergencies-act-7539385
There it is again. It was proven in a court of law that Diagolon is a WORK OF FICTION. Please stop ignoring this source and make the corresponding changes that have been requested several times already. 159.2.206.8 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Diagolon" Statement denying connection with Poilievre and CPC, April 30 2024

[edit]

Despite GhostOfDanGurney effort using Wikipedia:Reliable sources to delete the statement of this "group" and its leader denying connection to Poilievre and organizer of "convoy-style" protest on the Nova Scotia–New Brunswick border saying that his "group" is mutual disdain of Poilievre and CPC and also not mutual friends of both of them,

just a heads up for anyone if you found a reliable source such as some reliable news organizations that report that statement (https://twitter.com/Derekrants/status/1785404405950431725) in the future, Please kindly add it into this article. Even if you remove it the video has been shared by many online already.Mason54432 (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what the above user is saying.

However, it isn't apparent to me that the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is any less imaginary than Diagolon. It certainly has nowhere near the stature of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The former seems to be the product of some rather good BC bud; the drug-addicted goat is a clue. The latter seems to be a group of grifters with a WordPress blog, who may perhaps occasionally have a point. Perhaps we should ask RSN. I came through here a while back and cut some puffery about both groups. The thing about Diagolon, though, is that some actual weapons violations occurred at Coutts. Would they have happened if the BC bud not been imbibed? I suspect so. But I am not an authority on the subject, just an bystander who has noted that in rural Canada the bullshit was really deep on the subject of covid and still is. As recently as today I found myself unexpectedly in conversation with an antivaxxer. Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diagolon&oldid=1248487358"