| Revision as of 05:26, 9 December 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,540 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Oath Keepers/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:17, 16 September 2024 edit undo24.113.220.5 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
| (72 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Nevada|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Organizations |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 11 August 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Oath Keepers}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 11 August 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Oath Keepers}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
| ⚫ |
{{Ds/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Nevada|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Far-Right == |
|
== Allegiance to Trump? == |
|
{{disdis|Conservative Alabamian}} |
|
|
{{cot|I don’t know why we insist on explaining basic policies to people who will never actually listen because their very username is a POV statement ] (]) 22:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
<s>I don’t see how one source can judge a page such as this as “far-right.” There are many people and organizations who should be labeled as “far-left,” but are not labeled as such. I’m not going to name names, but I think if we should be open-minded and not bias one way or the other, I think it would be best to those who read Misplaced Pages on a daily or recent basis to know the facts and not experience political bias while reading articles. If we disagree, we disagree. I have my beliefs, you may have yours. I just want to make this page better and more understandable. -] (]) 02:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:As I advised CA on my talkpage, that the lede has references at all is in part because people keep stopping at the first paragraph and removing "far right" without getting to the sourced content that the lede summarizes. Neither Misplaced Pages nor political science in general are obliged to assert a false symmetry because of a societal skew that has seen a proliferation of extremist groups on one side of the political spectrum. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::<s>I think you are still incorrect in saying that. -] (]) 03:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:::@] Which of our guidelines and policies make you think Acroterion is incorrect? ] ] 07:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Conservative Alabamian}} Misplaced Pages does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone has biases. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what to believe. Misplaced Pages strives for a ], which is different. If you have multiple independent ] that use the far-left label on an organization, please offer them on the associated article talk pages. The sources in this article currently support the far-right label; if you have independent sources that use other terminology, please offer them. ] (]) 07:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Conservative Alabamian is now ] and pinging their old username doesn't work - and I think the software should be fixed so it does. ] ] 09:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? ] (]) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. ] (]) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Please change his name to Elmer Stewart Rhodes or give me access. Thank you. ] (]) 00:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:What do you mean "change his name", and what is your source for this? ] (]) 00:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> 💜 <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">]</span> ] - 01:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 == |
|
== Elmer Stewart Rhodes == |
|
|
|
|
|
should there be a separate article on Elmer Stewart Rhodes, as an individual ] (]) 22:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Might get redirected (again), but stub at ] ---] <sub>(])</sub> 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Declutter the lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
|
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. |
|
|
-Oath Keepers |
|
|
Pro government. Constitutional service organization. ] (]) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is incoherent. ]] 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Blaze == |
|
The first paragraph could probably be better at summarizing. I propose: |
|
|
|
|
|
In November 2022, Rhodes and another leader of the organization were convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions around the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Along with three other leaders, they were also convicted of obstruction and other felonies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze. |
|
Is changed to: |
|
|
In November 2022, Rhodes and other leaders of the organization were convicted of various crimes, including seditious conspiracy, for their actions around the January 6 United States Capitol attack. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says |
|
] (]) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Disagree. Because seditious conspiracy is an extremely serious offense and the text should be clear on which persons were convicted. Right-wing extremists get convicted of violent crimes is a bit like dog bites man. It happens every day. ] (]) 12:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834 |
|
== Rhodes == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
The first use of his name the article is at: Prominent members > Elmer Stewart Rhodes and links to this article, please pipe to ] also please link the same in the info box, which leaves the redirect alone for it own uses as prescribed. thanks ] (]) 04:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{tq|Your direct support ensures that the stores that matter most, those buried by Big Tech and the mainstream media narratives, will be brought to light.}} Yeah, no way. ] (]) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is useful for checking the reliability of sources. In this case it says "Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts." ] (]) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct.
-Oath Keepers
I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze.
