Talk:Three Percenters/Archive 1

Archive 1

"movement" vs. "Club"

I am not sure if threepercentersclub.org can be considered "the official website". Equivalently, whether the "3 Percenters" movement and the "Three Percenters Club" can be considered equivalent. Apparently, this is no "paramilitary group", but a loose networks of various paramilitary groups or militia training initiatives that share a broadly similar outlook (i.e. constitutional rights are actively undermined by the federal government and preparation for armed defense is desirable). In the threepercentersclub.org "About Us" page, a clear distinction is made, according to which the "movement" emerged "shortly after" 9/11, while the "Club" was "founded and formed unofficially in 2011 on Facebook", apparently just to give an online platform to the existing movement. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

after some more research, I find the term "3 Percenters" arose in 2008, either coined by or substantially publicized by Mike Vanderboegh. As this page at the moment doubles as the article on Mike Vanderboegh and his novel, I have inserted some information on that. It seems indeed sensible to suppose that the "3 Percenters" meme has cristallized around Vanderboegh and his novel in 2009 to 2010 or so, i.e. as part of the right-wing "backlash" after Obama was elected.

I would now like to find out where the figure of 3% in the context of the American Revolution first originated. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Source of the 3% figure

The current revision of Patriot (American Revolution) has:

"between 40 and 45 percent of the white population in the Thirteen Colonies supported the Patriots' cause".

The phrasing found on several 3%er sites goes

"During the American Revolution, the active forces (Patriots) in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it."

This text can be traced to Vanderboegh's blog[1], originally (2008 or 2009) posted as sidebar text.

So the claim is that the 3% represents the number of armed fighters on the patriot side, while they estimate about 30% supporters in total, which is below our "40%-45%" but roughly compatible. Interestingly, this site links to Wikipedia, and in 2009, the Wikipedia article included this:

"Many historians believe that no more than 2/5 of colonists openly joined the revolution. There are two major theories: one states that 1/3 of the colonists were Patriots, 1/3 were Loyalists, and 1/3 were neutralists, who either did not know or did not care about the American Revolution; the other theory states that about 35-40% were Patriots, 30-35% were neutral, and 25-30% were Loyalists."

which is in closer agreement with the estimate of 30% support for the Revolution, but even then the article did not in any way support the 3% figure (although it is obvious that the active fighting force is going to be considerably smaller than the size of the population in general support of them).

The population of the Thirteen Colonies at the time was about 2.5 million[2], so 3% would amount to 75,000 men. Our American Revolutionary War article gives an estimate of 45,000 US troops, which would actually be closer to 2%, but this represents the maximum strength at any time during the period 1775–1783, so the number is going to be somewhat higher if anyone who at any time during this period was an active combattant on the patriot side is to be included. From this, I conclude that 3% is pretty much in the right order of magnitude, and as it's necessarily an estimate, it's a fair one, but I could not establish where it originated. Perhaps it was simply an educated guess on the part of Vanderboegh himself. --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why "self-styled?

In a quick check of other political activist group entries, I fail to find that qualifier. Aren't all activist groups "self-styled" in some way? That seems like an editorial comment to me. PapayaSF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Decided to remove it. The quotes around "patriot movement" seem more than sufficient to make the point without totally violating NPOV. PapayaSF (talk)

The movement was started in 2008, developing during the early years of the Obama administration

1. This doesn't make sense, since Obama didn't take office until 2009. 2. The source given (their own website) says the movement began shortly after 9/11, but says it was "founded and formed unofficially on Facebook in 2011." This refers to 3percentersclub dot com, and it isn't clear what the connection is between Graham and Vanderboegh. That site also describes the creation of the group as a reaction towards government overreach in the years after 9/11, but we don't have much evidence until Obama took office. I'm hesitant to rephrase it because there seems to be no evidence that the group actually existed between 2001 and 2009, outside of this one guy and perhaps his circle of Oath Breaker guys. Certainly we see evidence of Vanderboegh coalescing the group in 2008 and 2009, but there appears to be little that happened between then and 2011, where we see more activities. If we can figure out if the 3%ers and the "3%ers club" actually represent the same entity, then maybe we can hammer down a better timeline. I'm just going to change it to 2009 for the sake of simplicity until this can be more clearly established. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If they were paying attention to candidate Barack Obama, his background, and his friends and contacts in 2008, they could see what might be coming. His election in November 2008 made that a certainty. It may appropriate to say the movement or organization was informally started in 2008. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 17:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Article is 100% inaccurate

If you go to the organization’s website you will see that everything sighted in this article is false. We have tried to edit the article to correct the the misinformation only to be locked out due to “vandalism.” Please allow us to update/correct this article. Raven5272 (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Three Percenters are NOT a militia. This is disinformation. Fjcolleton (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

RS state that it is, actually. --Kbabej (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The SVG File for the Three Percenters looks Very Bad

I was looking for a high quality svg for the 3 percenters flag as I would like to use it for something. When I downloaded it I realized how it was clearly an "image trace" done poorly. I went on the official 3 Percenters website listed on the wikipedia page and found the flag they are selling on their shop. I then created a 1:1 recreation making sure is was nearly perfect. I have never wanted to edit a Wikipedia page before so I did not know how to. I made an account and could not change it because of my "rank" or whatever wikipedia calls it. I'm not sure if thats the reason or not but I can't seem to change it. I just wanted to leave it so it is correct for the next person who wants to use/see it.

The Official 3 Percenters Flag

My source was the official store on the website along with the 13 star American flag from 1777-1795 that I use for perspective as the flag on the website is waving. If this can't be used for what ever reason I understand I only thought it would help the Wikipedia community and hopefully someone will be able to use it to correct the horrible one currently being used by the article. Alex Microbe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

WHAT IS THE THREE PERCENTERS? ‘The Three Percenters - Original’ is a national organization made up of patriotic citizens who love their country, their freedoms, and their liberty. We are committed to standing against and exposing corruption and injustice.

We are NOT a militia. However, we do have meetings on local levels. These meetings are to help members network together and to learn from each other. Being a Three Percenter is more of a way of life rather than a club to join. As such, there are no membership fees or dues and we will not charge people to participate in a movement that defends civil liberties. However, some events may be held at facilities that require admission. This can be paid individually, as a group, or through a legal means of fundraising. Operational costs (Website hosting, forum participation, training resources, etc) are paid through donations or proceeds from the online store. Mostly, we are an “open source community” meaning, we help each other and try not to rely on 3rd parties or institutions that cost money for our operations. We consist exclusively of volunteers and no member at any level is on any payroll provided by our organization.

We are NOT anti-government. In fact, we are very pro-government, so long as the government abides by the Constitution, doesn't overstep its bounds, and remains “for the people and by the people”. Our goal is to utilize the fail-safes put in place by our founders to reign in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny. We are working to preserve the intent of our government as designed. We do not intend to implement our own government. There is often a misconception that we are wanting to overthrow the government. This is simply not true and a false rumor to try and paint our movement as anti-government.

We do not seek to incite a revolution. However, we will defend ourselves when necessary. We are not here to create violence. Violence should always be a last resort and even then should only be defensive in nature.

Our National Facebook page is at www.facebook.com/threepercenters/ Raven5272 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to provide some reliable sources that say this. The 3 Percenters' website is not reliable. Good luck! --Jorm (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2018

CHANGE SUMMARY: Requesting change in the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence from, "Approximately 375,000 people" to "However, approximately 375,000 people" to improve readability, clarity, and to emphasize that this sentence is conflicting with the claims made in the previous sentence, not supporting it.

FROM: The group's name is derived from the claim that only three percent of the population of the Thirteen Colonies fought against the Kingdom of Great Britain during the American Revolution.[3] Approximately 375,000 people out of the 2.5 million colonists—or fifteen percent—served in either the Continental Army or state militias, a participation rate higher than in most United States military conflicts.[4]

TO: The group's name is derived from the claim that only three percent of the population of the Thirteen Colonies fought against the Kingdom of Great Britain during the American Revolution.[3] However, approximately 375,000 people out of the 2.5 million colonists—or fifteen percent—served in either the Continental Army or state militias, a participation rate higher than in most United States military conflicts.[4]

WHY: Clarity, emphasis, and readability. Boopkid (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Sentence seems fine and does not really require a tweak. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 09:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Washington 3% has partnered with Joey Gibson and Patriot Prayer to bring us all together to demonstrate! "

Upcoming event that might be of consequence, Saturday August 18, at Seattle City Hall plaza will be 'Liberty or Death' rally against gun control ballet initiative I-1639 that will be on November's ballot.

https://www.facebook.com/events/2110807252525623/

Maybe keep a lookout as this event seems placed to make it as controversial as possible. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing group?

The Ass. Press and The Seattle Times, states that the 3% are a 'Right-wing' group along with Patriot Prayer: [3] [4]

Should the Lead section be changed to reflect this? 24.16.106.217 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Other, better sources differ.--Jorm (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm, currently the lead does not mention anything about 'right-wing', 'far-right', 'alt-right', etc.; so perhaps that section should be changed? 24.16.106.217 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2018

WHAT IS THE THREE PERCENTERS? ‘The Three Percenters - Original’ is a national organization made up of patriotic citizens who love their country, their freedoms, and their liberty. We are committed to standing against and exposing corruption and injustice.

We are NOT a militia. However, we do have meetings on local levels. These meetings are to help members network together and to learn from each other. 162.155.195.190 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2018 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

3 percenters

375,000 is not 3 percent of 2.5 million people. its 750,000 RON FLIPPEN (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request, February 13, 2019

Second paragraph:

The group's name is derived from the claim that only three percent of the population of the Thirteen Colonies fought against the Kingdom of Great Britain during the American Revolution. Approximately 375,000 people out of the 2.5 million colonists—or fifteen percent—served in either the Continental Army or state militias, a participation rate higher than in most United States military conflicts.

A plain reading of the second sentence there would compel a reader to conclude that the militia's name is based on a mistake or a lie. Going with the sources, the only way to conclude that is to take the sourced fact about the explanation of their name, the sourced fact about how many colonists fought in the American Revolution, and draw a conclusion that isn't in a source. (And I'm being very generous calling the claim about the number of colonists who fought "sourced." Hold that thought.) We must have one reliable source that says, more or less, "THIS is why the 3 Percenters call themselves that, THIS is what percentage of the colonies' population actually fought, so the 3 Percenters are wrong." We don't have such a source. We have a source that verifies the first aspect, a source that verifies the second aspect but doesn't mention Mike Vandeboghe or the 3 Percenters, and no source that confirms the third aspect. But if readers aren't supposed to draw that conclusion, there's no need for the entire second sentence. That makes it a textbook violation of WP:SYNTH.

Removing this isn't enough. Here is the entire relevant passage from Allison's book.

Over the course of the war, 230,000 men served in the Continental Army, with another 145,000 serving in state militias; many served multiple enlistments, so in total perhaps 250,000 men bore arms on the American side from 1775 to 1783.

Not even considering the SYNTH issue nor the fact that the number 375,000 seems to have been pulled out of thin air, there's no explanation in this book of the percentages we have here. That makes the words "or fifteen percent" a violation of the policy forbidding original research. I had a tough time figuring out who exactly added this but it looks like it was the only edit from User:Uncovered-history. They got tricky, being careful not to add anything from the very next sentence after the text I just quoted. Continuing that quote directly:

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine exactly how many served...

The sentence needs to be removed and so does the citation to Allison. His work is a straightforward history book which, since it doesn't mention Three Percenters or Mike Vandeboghe, has no apparent use here. Does anyone have anything from Vandeboghe or anyone else that says what, if any, source they claim supports the number 3? Because until we have that, these wink-wink-nudge-nudge efforts at calling the name wrong need to be kept out. Whoever responded to this, please add this article to your watchlist. Efforts at adding such text, all part-and-parcel SYNTH and OR violations, have been going on for years. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I made some edits which basically fulfilled this request. The original verbiage "fought" was not the verbiage used by the cited article, which is "took up arms." "Fought" is the more general term that could encompass anyone who was involved in the war effort, including in purely support roles. "Took up arms" is a specific reference to the troops running around in a field somewhere, shooting tea cups out of the hands of British officers or whatnot. Secondly, I removed the Allison citation as it does not refer to the 3 Percenters and seemed to be WP:SYNTH. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• "A plain reading of the second sentence there would compel a reader to conclude that the militia's name is based on a mistake or a lie." That conclusion would be correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be, but the paragraph as it had been written used WP:SYNTH to convey that, which is impermissible. Allison did not mention 3 Percenters as, of course, his book had been written well before that was even a group. I had looked for some reliable sources on the disputed origins of the 3% name and could not find any. (I did find some non-RS, but that's another story.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

CHANGE: After the events at Charlottesville, the National Three Percenters Council issued a "stand down order" for 3 Percenters, asking them to refrain from participating in marches or protests with white nationalist or Neo-Nazi groups. The statement also asked members to refrain from protesting against Black Lives Matter and Antifa events over concerns that the media would associate them with white nationalist groups.

TO: After the events at Charlottesville, the National Three Percenters Council issued a "stand down order" for 3 Percenters, asking members to temporarily refrain from participating in any marches or protests in light of the recent violence at Charlottesville. The statement also asked members to refrain from protesting against Black Lives Matter and Antifa events over concerns that the media would associate them with white nationalist groups.

REASON: The existing language "[the organization] asked members not to attend protests 'with' White Nationalists.", is loaded with implication, as "with White Nationalists" implies an association--just as the statement "don't go to that bar with Jim" implies a pre-existing relationship between you and Jim. That implicating language is NOT justified by the source text, which an objective observer would read as a request for members not to attend protests "where White Nationalists might be in attendance." PLEASE don't take my word for it; read the source link (only ~300 words)--I'm confident that you'll find that it supports this edit. Theproofsinthereading (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Y Done, though I will add that a non-primary source would be welcome for this information, if such a source exists. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request, July 26th 2019

Change: "The Republican state senators had gone into hiding to prevent a vote on a cap-and-trade proposal that would dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to combat climate change."

To: "The Republican state senators had gone into hiding to prevent a vote on Oregon House Bill 2020, a cap-and-trade proposal to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the state."

Reason: The wording is assumes that the plan will work, and implies a global reach when the bill only covered the single state. As this issue is part of the debate about it, it seems needlessly inflammatory. There was also no link to the page on the bill itself.

--CainFortea (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

SPLC categorization

The article states a SPLC categorization of the 3 Percenters. While it may be true that the SPLC categorizes them as such, I argue that the SPLC does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. You can look at the SPLC Wikpedia article itself to see the various controversies and how various organizations no longer use the SPLC as a reliable source. I argue this should be removed as it is from a source that is controversial at best and unreliable at worst. Maybe they are an "anti-government" group, but a better source should be used, or the line should be removed. 143.72.26.157 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution! If you feel that a source is not reliable, feel free to take it up at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This article is not the place to do it.--Jorm (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

SPLC Categorization

The SPLC has come under fire as a highly partisan hate group for their effort in pursuing to paint groups they feel that don't represent their beliefs. (3 Percenters are bad, while hate groups like Antifa are allowed to spew their hate). The whole article has been written in order to paint this particular group in a unfair and bad light. Opinion and conjecture are used in order to diminish this group where there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. The section under "anti-government" should be removed as it clearly does not state such on the group's website which states "We are NOT anti-government. In fact, we are very pro-government". Additionally, I think that since the article uses SPLC and other nefarious left wing resources that there should be a warning on the page as to the content, or notification that the content is questionable.Ebarlow74 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Ebarlow74 11/6/2019

Thank you for your contribution! If you feel that a source is not reliable, feel free to take it up at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This article is not the place to do it.--Jorm (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think whatever source you're using, characterizing the SPLC as a "hate group", is highly suspect. MartinezMD (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"Far-right" categorization

I think there may be some political bias in labeling this organization as "far-right". Many in this organization would probably not align with the far right, given that the far right still advocates for a strong government/military presence. I believe a more accurate term might be Libertarian or anti-government. "Radical Libertarian", "Anti-government", "Revolutionist", might be better terms. Nathanweisser (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you got sources? There isn't anmy point otherwise. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Whoever wrote this article must not have read the literature printed by the 3 Percent organization.

The article claims the 3 Percenters are a militia. Their web site clearly states that they are not.

The article states that the 3 Percenters claim that only 3 percent of Colonists fought the British. Their web site clearly states their claim that only 3 percent of Colonists fought the British AT ANY POINT IN TIME. They say nothing about the percent of Colonists that fought at SOME point in time. A very clear distinction.

I am not a 3 Percenter, nor do I intend to join, but when Wikipedia clearly states lies, then someone needs to revise the article.

(Name and email redacted.) 2600:8805:700:CEF:7959:B29E:3274:A2A3 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

3%er's can not really be labeled as entirely far right. They are an amalgamation of several different beliefs and ideologies; ranging from devout Christian's, Buddhists, and other religions; to more left leaning moderates that enjoy shooting sports, and want to bear arms. True 3%er's aren't paramilitary by practice, although some instances of groups identifying with that name but being more of another brand that could be construed as extremist, have been known to exist, but without the blessing of the larger more moderate, tempered group. 2605:6000:101F:8853:2CB1:1D6E:BE5A:1F60 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No source cited. Neutrality^talk 13:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

The statement where the 3%ers are claimed to be far-right should be changed to Libertarian as they are against both the right and left 2604:2000:1241:CA7:F40B:3EDB:AFD4:B1D9 (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

We put in what reliable sources indicate. your opinion doesn't hold sway for the article. It has to be verifiable. See WP:RS, WP:RSP, and WP:V. MartinezMD (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Remove the term 'occupation' regarding the American Revolution and the American colonies. Colonies can not be occupied. 82.42.100.169 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I changed occupation to rule. If you think another phrasing would be better, let us know. MartinezMD (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is NOT an anti-government organization. It’s in the name of the organization “Oath Keepers”. Oath to the constitution, the United States of America, and its lawful government. Ryanj2912 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A review of the issue is in the article. Do you have a specific edit you're proposing to the article? MartinezMD (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This article seems to not live up to the neutral guidelines.

For instance, it states some of the beliefs of this organization, then makes arguments why the beliefs are incorrect. It's a one sided strawman argument in the article itself.208.53.198.7 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about the organization, but I know about Wikipedia. Start by picking a sentence or two you believe is not neutral. Copy it here in quotes, tell us what you think it wrong. Wikipedia goes with what is verifiable, WP:V. So if you "know" something, but can't demonstrate it with a source, it doesn't go in the article. Alternatively, you can make changes yourself, but you have to use reliable sources. See WP:RS MartinezMD (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is often a practice of liberal and left leaning editors finding some source that makes agenda pushing statements and lobby hard to include them under the "the source says it, not me" tent. That said, I just looked and I don't see any place where this practice looks to me like it's happening in this article. Can you be specific? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, when you look for sources, we do look for bias in reference to what Niteshift36 just wrote. Read WP:RSP for more detail. MartinezMD (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Under Organization and activities, this sentence can be misread as stating that political activism is a paramilitary activity:

Chapters engage in paramilitary activities such as marksmanship training, as well as political activism.

How about putting it this way:

As well as political activism, chapters also engage in paramilitary activities such as marksmanship training.

I think that's a little clearer. - 50.80.242.31 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Made the change to make it clearer. MartinezMD (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

It is wrongfully stated at the beginning of this description that 3 percenters "are an American far-right militia movement[2] and paramilitary group". This should be removed as should all verbage insinuating that they are a militia or paramilitary group. They are not. By their own definition they describe themselves as Second Amendment advocates and deny being any militia or para military group. There is an obvious far left bias to this article and should be corrected to neutralize said bias. Bias, whether right or left should be set aside to allow readers to form their own opinions without the undertones. Jay Hocke (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition to that, on Wikipedia, we prefer information from reliable and independent sources. Using the group's own definition would be an inappropriate use of a primary and potentially biased source. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 20:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Turning into a news article

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

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

The III%ers are not far-right.

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

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

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

Then I'm certain you will be able to find a third party source that backs up your statement! It should be easy, if you're correct. We'll wait.--Jorm (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Unless you can find a "reliable" third-party source claiming you are not a criminal, then the hive-mind at Wikipedia can feel free to label you as a criminal. You can't even provide your own published statements as evidence. Wow. 1984, here we are.Surakmath (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP is based on reliable information see WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't like it, you can publish your own blog. That's why WP is valuable. Although anyone can edit it, we only allow verifiable information to stand. MartinezMD (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• You're correct, you can't use your own statement as "evidence". The key point here is that you don't own an article about yourself. the 3per organization doesn't own the article. It belongs to Wikipedia as a whole. It's not here to make anyone's "case". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

I can't see the NYT article as it's behind a paywall and I've used up my free article access this month. However, here are other reliable sources we can substitute if NYT isn't clear. These are reliable organizations, Guardian and LA Times are left of center, Fox right, and CSM and AP center. Take your pick for a substitute. MartinezMD (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• "...associated with the Three Percenters, a far-right militia organization" - LA Times
• "Parts of the fragmenting “alt-right”...such as the Three Percenters encourage veterans to join their ranks" - The Guardian
• "Flag-waving members of the Proud Boys and Three Percenters militia group" - Fox News
• "Flag-waving members of the Proud Boys, Three Percenters militia group" - Christian Science Monitor
• "The upcoming rally is expected to attract far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters to Portland." - Associated Press

The NYT article says "“Within the extreme right, many of Trump’s most passionate backers come from the militia movement,” said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League. “The militia movement is overwhelmingly behind Trump’s candidacy.”" Doug Weller talk 13:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Doug, does it say anything specific about the Three Percenters? MartinezMD (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the AP source to the article for the time being. MartinezMD (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now been able to read the NYT article. While I think anyone reading it can get the information from context, there is another issue. The article is about Georgia Security Force III% militia, a III percent group but not the national organization. For this reason, plus the paywall issue, I will remove the NYT source as not specific enough in either manner (not spelling out far-right, and discussing a local group instead of the larger national one). MartinezMD (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Sacha Baron Cohen

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

• https://deadline.com/2020/06/sacha-baron-cohen-crashes-right-wing-event-leads-singalong-1202972079/

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

This has to be a prank for Sacha's new season of Who Is America?. Interesting to see how in the aftermath videos a number of people at the event were upset with the racist, ignorant acts and the organizers were preaching about tolerance.

• https://www.npr.org/2020/06/28/884461869/far-right-group-pranked-dude-is-this-like-a-bad-impression-of-borat

FunksBrother (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

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

Then I'm certain you will be able to find a third party source that backs up your statement! It should be easy, if you're correct. We'll wait.--Jorm (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Jorm. We meet again. Let's see here, the source which cites the three percenters as a "Paramilitary" group is a book which, itself, cites this WebArchive source that descirbes them as a paramilitary group. What is politicalresearch.org, anyway? I had never heard of it before. I did some casual glancing at their Mission statement and, as it happens, it's a social justice think tank. Hardly a Reliable or NPOV source. As it stands, I am going to remove that citation of it being a Paramilitary force until you can find me a Reliable Source that accurately describes them as being Paramilitary. Krakaet (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take this issue up with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you feel the source is faulty. Until then, do not remove sourced content.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean...it's a self-described "fight-the-Right" political think tank which is characterizing an opposition group. I would think that it is common-sense that such a source should not be used if it is the only source. As per WP:ONUS Just because it is written does not mean it should be included. What is the reason for inclusion of this commentary? And, if you do believe it should be included, shouldn't it be noted that this is how its opposition characterizes it? Or are you going to argue that a social justice think tank is WP:NPOV?

It's not for me to say! You feel strongly about it; take it to WP:RSN! That's pretty much all there is to say on the matter.--Jorm (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Krakaet, [5] (cited five times in the article) states: Barbara Perry, a professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa Ont., who has studied the group says it is actually "a far-right 'prepper' militia movement that is actively arming and engaging in paramilitary training." Vexations (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you looking at the right source user:Krakaet? The source I see tagging the paramilitary statement is not using webarchive. Furthermore, the citation (#47) in that book is using the Three Percenters "guide to being a Three Percenter" as its source material. "...the movement has adopted a paramilitary structure outlined in its National Bylaws. It divides the country into operational areas, has a hierarchical system of command and control, and demands its followers take an oath similar to that sowrn by serving members of the military." The books also quotes from the guide about their training and "advanced tactic[s]/shooting" from the guide. Looking at the guide myself it also has leader, assistant leader, different officers, discussions about tactical gear, logistics, communications, camouflage, etc. That all seems consistent with the interpretation of paramilitary. A search on Google can find many more sources. MartinezMD (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am, indeed, looking at the right source. Did you look at that book and the statement in that book which describes it as paramilitary? That book is not making the claim, that book is citing another source, Citation #73 in the book which links to this politicalresearch.org think tank.Krakaet (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that now, but regardless the book specifically names and cites the group's own material as I've quoted. That is more than sufficient to support the statement in this article. MartinezMD (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

References

Suggest the opinion Slur Word "far right" be deleted

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

No. It's not a slur word. It's a description of a political viewpoint, and it's well-sourced. MartinezMD (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What? No, sorry. "Far-right" is not a slur, and it's ridiculous that you would say so.--Jorm (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait. Are you just trying to wind us up? Because this whole thread reads like a troll, like someone trying to make fun of the people who say "far right" is a slur. I can't tell. Poe's law strong here. If you're not trying to troll us, then I wonder about your competence.--Jorm (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No it is not a slur word it is a slur expression. It is not well sourced. All as in every source comes back to the same marxist think tank. Three dozen different editors have explicitly posted as much to be denied by the articles two full time extreme leftist misinformation agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:2C8A:5850:62A:C728 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have provided reliable sources. If you don't like it, provide a neutral reliable source that says otherwise. MartinezMD (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's probably pointless replying to this WP:SPA, quite likely a member. There's no way that someone with a world view so detached from reality. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I give a short policy reply so that others who read know it's been addressed. I don't expect to get through to someone who's (maybe?) read everything and still doesn't understand. MartinezMD (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also see WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again,  Not done. Facebook is not a reliable source for anything.--Jorm (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

First, I requested a change because the source cited does not support the claims made (see above); a new source isn't needed to begin with. Second, the paragraph is specifically about comments on a Facebook page. If a Facebook page is not a reliable source for anything, and this entire paragraph's primary source is the Facebook page that you say is unreliable, then the entire paragraph needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwusmu (talk • contribs)

The source quotes some of the Facebook comments including "I think Black people resent having to obey laws", "Let the animals starve or kill each other", among others. "...the group claims that it does not discriminate against anyone but the posts on its Facebook page tell a different story" followed by the examples. Then "The Three Percenters might argue that they merely provide a forum for free expression, but they clearly make no effort to remove such comments from their Facebook page." So the source provides examples for it's assertions. MartinezMD (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any change you may want to make regarding this description needs to backed by reliable sources WP:RS. I do not think you have adequately researched your position as numerous sources, including right-wing biased outlets, have used the description "far-right" in their writing. This has already been partially addressed in the preceding discussion. Starting a new paragraph is not helpful. To help you, I have picked some articles from media outlets typically considered to have a right-leaning bias that have describe the group as far-right:

• Daily Mail "...of far right militia organization the Three Percenters..."

• New York Post "...were met by the far-right militia group the Three Percenters..."

• Washington Times referring to a III percenter tattoo "...bears the symbol of a far-right group..."

• Washington Examiner "...they are pro-gun and pro-police but not a part of the "3 percenters" far-right militia..."

If you disagree, you can take it up with WP:RSN as they review the sources we typically use in WP. MartinezMD (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And before I forget, the ADL and SPLC (which includes them in their HateWatch section that "is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right") do consider the group far-right. So I'm not sure where you came up with that. MartinezMD (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Name's Origin is Stupidly Inaccurate

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

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

Do you have a reliable source to refute this statement and propose an edit, or do you simply not like it? MartinezMD (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency Fix Suggestion in Intro Para

These two sentences from the intro seem at least in tension with each other, and to my mind contradictory. The first sentence indicates, or at least implies, that the group is jointly US and Canadian in its nationality (which for a group or company would typically mean its country of legal establishment or HQ or most operations), while the second sentence says otherwise.

The Three Percenters, also styled 3 Percenters, 3%ers and III%ers,[1] are an American and Canadian far-right militia movement[2] and paramilitary group.[3]

and

The group is American-based but has a presence in Canada as well.

I'm not editing this myself because I don't know facts (I read the article to learn them, and it is confusing rather than edifying on this point), and to avoid wading into a controversial topic.

As suggested edits: if the second of these sentences is inaccurate, of course delete it. But if, as I suspect, the second sentence is accurate (in part because "American and Canadian" in the first sentence has no citation to any source), I would revise the first sentence to be more clear, and consistent with the second sentence. For example, change "American and Canadian" to "active in the United States and Canada" (& rearrange the sentence a bit). Or slightly broader but I think better, incorporate the second sentence into the first one, eg delete the second sentence and change the first to "The Three Percenters, also styled 3 Percenters, 3%ers and III%ers,[1] are a far-right militia movement[2] and paramilitary group[3] that is based in the United States but also has a presence in Canada." Either of those two edits would eliminate the first sentence's indication that the group's nationality is jointly Canadian and US. Sullidav (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

the opening paragraph is written in an OP-Ed format and is not factual at all. It is inflammatory and not fact based. -

as currently published it should be corrected to-

The Three Percenters, also styled 3 Percenters, 3%ers and III%ers,[1] are an American and Canadian far-right, pro-originalist constitutional group, with roots in the 2nd amendment, as a method of controlling a centralized Federalist government. The group openly vows to not allow any removal or "taking" of their guns as a 2nd amendment protected right.

The group advocates gun ownership rights and resistance to expanding the powers of U.S. federal government, over the powers of state governments.[7][8] The group's name derives from the oral history of the US Revolution, where many believe, though not proven to be false or true, the claim that only three percent of American colonists were actively fighting in the field against British forces at any given time during the American Revolution.[10]

The group is American-based but also has a presence in Canada. One Canadian expert, a openly self claimed marxist, Maxime Fiset, a former neo-Nazi who works with the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence, created in 2015 by the City of Montréal with the support of the Quebec Government, considers the group the "most dangerous extremist group" in Canada.[7] that being said, supporters of this group, clearly state the fact that "There have been no known arrests of "Three Percenters" in any extremist, terrorist or violent activities, since the groups founding."

•  Not done Please provide a reliable source that supports your change.--Jorm (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

ADL edits

Re these edits by Graywalls: all of this material seems evidently both important and verifiable and I agree with Beyond My Ken that it should be in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If so, you can restore it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, and your understand of WP:BRD don't quite agree fully. The first guideline I am citing says that, verifiable or not, when added contents are disputed, someone wanting to re-add them have to do the legwork to build consensus. I completely disagree in restoring it given the motivation that was behind inserting it, for that reason, I am disputing the insertion, therefore the insertion has been disputed, now deferring it to full consensus building process. Such ensures that COI can not just add sources, then re-add by asking a buddy or a coworker by simply saying "I agree with the addition". The way in which ADL refspammed sources was cleverly masqueraded as legit edits when in reality they were using a farm of relatively generic sounding accounts to plant "according to ADL..." and such, sometimes multiple accounts working on the same article. Graywalls (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

spam my ass, completely ignoring context to delete content is myopic. Acousmana (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You do not need to leave uncivil comments like you did. I am linking to COI discussion regarding ADL's corporate advocacy efforts for others to see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy. Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oath enforcers

Besides the fact I think this needs an article of its own, it mentions Three Percenters.[6] Doug Weller talk 16:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations for percentage of Americans who fought in Revolutionary War

Hi, I'm a new editor so I can't make these additions myself on account of this page having a semi-protected status.

I've found two sources that state with a good amount of confidence that the proportion of the population that fought in the Revolutionary War was materially higher than three percent:

https://observer.com/2017/07/soldiers-militia-american-revolution/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

I think it would be worth adding those citations to the figure, since the citations on the sentence containing it seem to provide broader support to the sentence as a whole.

I also think that language stronger than "disputed figure" in the lead would be appropriate. Whatever the actual figure is, there doesn't seem to be evidence that it was only three percent.

Again, I'm new so let me know if I'm going about this wrong in some way!

I agree and changed the wording. I used the Smithsonian source. MartinezMD (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe though that it should state "...the disputed claim that only three percent...". This is because there are sources claiming that, and given that the American Revolution is a core part of the "American Myth", it cannot just be assumed that the revisionist history is accurate and not the conventional thinking of the time closer to the Revolution.Baz Dionysos (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To be "revisionist", it would require that the 3% claim be reliably established then changed. It was never reliably established, and the numbers supporting a larger figure have not been altered. MartinezMD (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, this statement (The group's name derives from the erroneous[9] claim) jumps out as a loaded statement with only a link to an opinion piece as evidence to the contrary, which leaves me wondering how much of wikipedia is actually trustworthy information when this statement is obviously based on opinion, not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.10.242.1 (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The opinion is a review of the subject by a professor. US population was 2.5 million. About 200,000-250,000 in total served in the continental army, navy, marines, and militias. That comes out to about 9%, not even counting the fact that half the population was female, meaning it was about 18% of the males, and not counting that probably about 1/4 of the males were too old or children, which would make the figure of eligible men even higher. Which figure do you not believe, the 2.5 million population backed the US Census Bureau or the ~225,000 veterans? This is basic math. MartinezMD (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

https://observer.com/2017/07/soldiers-militia-american-revolution/

This source is an opinion article and shouldn't be used. The only facts it mentions support the 3% claim but the article claims it doesn't. (100,000 / 2,780,369 = ~3.6%) The article then devolves into wild conjecture by assuming statistics. It also directly contradicts some claims made in it's own citations. Hobadee (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

While this source is better than the opinion article and is actually cited by the opinion article, it still somewhat supports the 3% claim, at least in terms of army size. It appears that the *army* was 3% of the population, but the *militia* was an additional large percentage on top of that. Therefore, the 3% claim is correct when applied to the army that was raised by the Continental Congress, but not when applied to everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war. Really this claim is about 50/50 true, depending on how you interpret it. Hobadee (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. The group's national page said only 3% of colonists took up arms, not 3% were in the army. So the 3% claim is not correct. MartinezMD (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

2604:2C00:FFFB:2E3:2D8B:5F99:9FD2:3952 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC) This is mostly false and should be removed until such as time as the subject is researched. Quit being part of the problem by making up what you want something to be, rather than what it is.

No doubt you can explain here why all 64 references are false? Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

I suggest to change the wording to past tense as the organization no longer exists Unkie mark (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Could you please provide a source on their official disbandment? Wasn't able to find any information. Living Concrete (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's already in the article lead. I put it in - official announcement from their website. The tense should be changed, I just didn't get around to it. MartinezMD (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

On February 21, 2021, their leadership dissolved the American national group

Emphasis mine. They shut down the American branch, but not the Canadian. And there are already local offshoots. The organization still exists, so changing to past-tense is not appropriate IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the Canadian website? This is the American national organization.MartinezMD (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This entire “summary” of III% is completely made up. III% means 3% of the population of Britain took over from tyrannical rule and became America. It has nothing to do with “far-right” what the heck is wrong with you people? 2601:181:C480:5820:8D70:3E4C:58C0:3F86 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There is nothing actionable in this request, only grievance.--Jorm (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect info

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This group is NOT a militia. It is just a group of like minded friends that uphold the constitution and help each other with prepping, survival in case of emergencies such as natural disasters and also teach safe responsible firearm ownership and use. Also it is not dissolved as the Wikipedia page states. It is going on in full effect. Whatitdonephew2509 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support any proposed edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Capitol attack"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was no attack on the Capitol. Stop using the wrong words. It was a mostly peaceful protest until the crowd was provoked, which then some may call a riot. RealTheGreatest (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) @RealTheGreatest:

WP:RS are clear on the nature of that attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Erroneous" claim

The archived link says that no more than 3% were active in the field at one time. The sources cited to describe the claim as wrong say that 100k or 200k are for the total numbers of people who served at any point. These are, obviously, two different things.

If we are going to describe this as erroneous, we should also update Continental Army which gives a size of '80,000 at peak' — exactly the same number used to derive the 3% figure. 73.65.167.168 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "80,000 at peak" means that the highest number of soldiers in the Continental Army at a single point in time was 80k. There were other soldiers before and after that point, so the actual total number of soldiers is much higher. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

80,000 at peak does appear to be what the 3%ers claim, so the IP is right to indicate there's some between-article inconsistency. That said, WP:OTHERCONTENT applies here. Firefangledfeathers 21:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the 3 Percenters claim that only "3%" of citizens ever took up arms against the British. They're misunderstanding peak versus total. Which is the same confusion the IP is showing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

From the Observer source: "This 'three percent' myth is born out of the claim that only 80,000 people served in the Continental Army and militia during the war. With the 1780 population estimated at 2,780,369, that gives us 2.96 percent of the country serving in George Washington’s Army." Historians apparently dispute the claim by indicating that the "active forces in the field" number was much higher. Firefangledfeathers 22:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Relevance?

Why include the reference to "The Road to Serfdom"? While it may be factual that he claims that introduced him to "rightist" thought, Hayek was an economist, not a revolutionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhoadley (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in classification

As much as the site is honored by students and professors alike, you editors did make a mistake. The three preventers are not far right. They are libertarian, and independent party..the claim made here is something along to calling all leftists communists.. 152.44.214.34 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

source? soibangla (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm more interested in what professors hold Wikipedia in esteem? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Esteem is a stretch but... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Professor is a stretch, but... —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That burn was much appreciate given the sub-zero temperatures out here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

You have labeled three percenters as an anti-government group.. Thats an incorrect statement. They are for freedom 96.240.147.199 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

Please add that Representative Clay Higgins has ties to the Three Percenters SpencerMullen1 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

ADL Source Usage edit request

The use of the ADL as a source (Source 8) is redundant, as the ADL source's relevant information is only used in direct citation of source 9 within their own article. 174.70.202.68 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Issues (June, 2023)

Ideology

The ideology is not clear. According to Malcolm Nance they are (right-)libertarian (see They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency, pp. 319-320)

But today there are many more groups, without centralized (national) organization, ergo many more ideologies (e.g., social conservatives, nativists, etc.).

The article needs to be updated: Is it a militia or a network of militias?

The Three Percenters (sometimes styled as III% or Threepers) is a diffuse national network of militia groups and independent activists https://www.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2022-12/Gartenstein-Ross-et-al1.pdf (p. 5)

It should be discussed whether to replace militia with:

• Network of militia groups

• Extremist gun rights movement

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/three-percenter-capitol-riot.html

• Subset of the militia movement.

https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/20210225-Three-Percenter-PR-NISAP-rev051021.pdf (p. 2)

• sub-ideology

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/three-percenters

We need to specify which Three Percenters group we are talking about

For example, III% Georgia Security Force has its own leadership (Chris Hill), while Three Percenters Original (the dissolved organization) had another leadership. The introduction talks about the leader of the last mentioned group.

I noticed that there are separate article: Washington State Three Percenters

I would suggest including them all in one article. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2023 (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. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts Change "militia" to "national network of militia groups". 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit this page

I was going to add a disambiguation link to the top of this article, but was unable to do so since it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What disambiguation needs to be done here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

Request for this to be more neutral it's clearly written by someone with an agenda and needs to be more neutral 2601:182:B00:BA50:8D0:9C63:B2C3:68AF (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2023 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

Please change "militia" (X) to "national network of militia groups" (Y). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Improper linking of Lauren Boebert to the Three Percenters

The statement ("Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert has close ties to the group") claiming that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has close ties to the Three Percenters extremist group should not be included in this article summarizing the organization.

This is because such a claim does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, verifiability through reliable sources, and presenting information in an encyclopedic manner appropriate to the context. Specifically, the nature of any alleged connections between Rep. Boebert and the Three Percenters appears politically controversial and lacks independent sourcing. Making an unsubstantiated claim of "close ties" also has a negative tone more suited to accusation than neutral summarization. The article should thus avoid any details about one individual's purported ties to the group and instead focus on giving an overview of the organization itself based on reliable, published sources. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. The NYT is a reliable source, and goes into details about Boebert's ties to the Three Percenters and other militia groups. A sitting member of Congress having close ties to this group is absolutely noteworthy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your ill-informed advocacy for the inclusion of the claim asserting Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's ostensible affiliations with the Three Percenters extremist group in the article flouts the very essence of Wikipedia's meticulously upheld standards for objectivity, verifiability, and the art of encyclopaedic curation.

While The New York Times indeed enjoys the prestige of reliability, Wikipedia demand that assertions be buttressed by the formidable fortification of multiple, autonomous, and unimpeachable sources.

Furthermore, the intricate web of these purported associations, swathed in the tenebrous shroud of political controversy, appears to lack the abundant and independent ratification necessary to fend off accusations of partiality. Wikipedia's unwavering allegiance to impartiality and equanimity calls for a judicious stance towards contentious content, and in this particular instance, the interpolation of unsubstantiated and potentially prejudiced information pertaining to an individual's entanglements with a particular group might run afoul of the canons of balanced, didactic exposition.

PS:

I've reverted this change with a firm click,

Backtracking the edit, like a quick magic trick.

Restoring the balance, making things right,

In Wikipedia's realm, where facts take flight. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The source provided is sufficient to support the claim, and other sources (like this one) are available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

From my vantage point, it is imperative to emphasise the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, which arise from the dialectical relationship between objectivity, verifiability, and the dissemination of encyclopaedic knowledge. These principles form the scaffolding upon which the edifice of reliability and impartiality in shared information stands.

I resolutely maintain the stance that my assertions entwined with the sensitive matter of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's purported affiliations with the Three Percenters extremist group, must find their grounding in substantial and credible evidence. While The New York Times occupies a prominent position as a reputable source, Wikipedia's guidelines typically encourage the inclusion of multiple independent and reliable sources to substantiate claims of this nature. This rigorous approach acts as a bulwark against potential bias and ensures a more comprehensive and balanced portrayal of the subject at hand, thus adhering to the principles of historical materialism.

You has brought to my attention that 9News also lends credence to this claim. In light of the incorporation of multiple sources, it becomes crucial to scrutinise the credibility and impartiality of 9News, in line with Wikipedia's standards for reliability. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the mere existence of multiple sources does not exempt the need for each source to meet the criteria of reliability and impartiality, mirroring the dialectical unity of opposites.

Furthermore, I have expressed reservations concerning the inherent political controversy surrounding these alleged affiliations. This concern underscores the significance of maintaining a measured and class-conscious tone within the article. Wikipedia's unwavering commitment to neutrality necessitates a dialectical approach when addressing contentious content, with careful consideration of the potential ramifications of incorporating unverified or prejudiced information. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What a load of pompous nonsense. You've expended a great deal of words simply to say you're mad that the sources agree she's affiliated with the group.

with careful consideration of the potential ramifications of incorporating unverified or prejudiced information.

The information is verified per the cited sources. The fact you dislike it is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly it's important to remember that discussions on Wikipedia are based on principles of civility and collaboration. I understand that we may have different viewpoints on this matter, but let's continue the discussion in a respectful and constructive manner.

I comprehend your viewpoint and wish to convey my gratitude for your active participation in this discourse. Allow me to elucidate that my purpose is not to dismiss or express aversion towards the information but rather to ensure its harmonisation with Wikipedia's bedrock principles of objectivity, ascertain-ability, and encyclopaedic presentation. Wikipedia functions as a cooperative platform where editors are dedicated to upholding the utmost standards of dependability and impartiality in the material presented to its readers.

It is of utmost importance to acknowledge that the sources under consideration do indeed lend support to the assertion of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's alleged associations with the Three Percenters. Nonetheless, the linchpin of my argument revolves around the guiding tenets that govern the creation of content on Wikipedia:

1. Multiplicity of Independent Sources: Wikipedia's directives frequently endorse the inclusion of numerous autonomous and credible sources to corroborate claims, particularly when confronting contentious or conceivably biased information. While The New York Times undoubtedly maintains its stature as a reputable source, reinforcing the claim with support from diverse reliable sources enhances its verifiability.

2. Mired in Political Controversy: I have also accentuated the potential for political controversy inherent in such claims. Wikipedia's unwavering dedication to neutrality necessitates a circumspect approach when disseminating contentious content. We must duly weigh the repercussions of incorporating unverified or potentially prejudiced information, recognizing its potential to disrupt the article's neutrality. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but let's continue the discussion in a respectful and constructive manner.

You threw that out the window in your first reply, calling my edits ill-informed advocacy. Since then, you've provided nothing but purple prose to pad out the length of your commentary, while offering no sources to counter the ones which have been provided. You claim concern about "political controversy", but WP:N does not mean we have to tiptoe around controversy, it means we provide factual information with sourcing. And you clearly haven't read the NYT article, as it provides multiple independent sources which back up its statements.

This isn't going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that my initial response might have benefited from a more diplomatic tone is a fair observation. It is essential to maintain a respectful and constructive discourse.

However, I would like to challenge the assertion that your contributions have been unequivocally backed by credible sources. While The New York Times is indeed a reputable source, within the realm of Wikipedia's rigorous editorial standards, it is customary to seek a diverse array of independent sources, especially when dealing with contentious subjects. This approach, anchored in the pursuit of impartiality, not only enhances Wikipedia's overall credibility but also safeguards against potential bias.

As you pointed out, Wikipedia's guidelines unequivocally emphasize the primacy of factual information and the necessity of proper sourcing. Nonetheless, I would like to challenge the notion that we are duty-bound to present information with unwavering balance and neutrality when confronting politically contentious topics. While neutrality is a paramount principle, it is equally vital to ensure that the presentation of information aligns with the weight of evidence available from reliable sources. This requires an exercise of discernment to avoid false equivalencies and to accurately portray the subject matter.

In response to your assertion that the discussion may be affected by biases, I wholeheartedly concur with the need for vigilance. However, I would challenge the implication that bias is inherently a problem to be resolved. Bias can be inherent in sources, but it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to navigate and present information in an unbiased manner. This often requires a nuanced approach, fact-checking, and cross-referencing of sources to ensure the most accurate and neutral representation.

I remain fully committed to continuing this discourse in a constructive and cooperative manner, with a shared goal of ensuring Wikipedia's integrity as a comprehensive, impartial, and verifiable source of information. In our collaborative endeavor, it is imperative for all contributors to engage in critical thinking and uphold Wikipedia's principles and standards with unwavering dedication. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted to the status quo until consensus is reached on this. Knitsey (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding 2c here - the NYT article seems to base their support for a connection on the content of the 9news.com article which is noted and linked in their article further down the page (and firefangledfeathers linked above separately). That particular article does not strongly support "close" ties. It seems to be based on the fact that some people on the platform flashed a known hand signal. That's not what I would call close ties. Certainly, worth looking into, and would suggest some level of relationship, but it's somewhat circumstantial (and honestly, not good journalism). Who are these people and what is the nature of their relationship with Boebert? Based on just these two articles, it's not enough for me to support inclusion as it seems to be agenda-driven. I'd support it if there were a clearer connection defined in either of those articles (or in additional articles from reliable sources). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, maintaining a critical approach to news and assessing evidence is crucial, especially with claims about political figures. Flashing a known hand signal may not indicate "close" ties, so understanding the context and nature of the relationship is essential. To form an informed opinion, we must seek additional information from reliable sources with a deeper investigation into the connections and motivations. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Improper use of the word erroneous

To make the claim a statement is “erroneous” you would need a source to accredit such a statement. The linked sources are not actually sources. This ultimately discredits a claim without evidence to support the disbelief of said claim. 173.71.80.98 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How are the citations "not actually sources"? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)