Talk:Boogaloo movement: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:10, 26 June 2020 editNetoholic (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,917 edits →Department of Homeland Security's statements ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:27, 26 June 2020 edit undoGorillaWarfare (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators119,443 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:

	::::: {{re\|Britishfinance}}: You're making your arguments for its inclusion, but you aren't providing clear proof that a consensus exists. I look at this section and see it as 2-2 right now, and adding on all the edit requests and discussion on ] about the use of "far-right", I do not see a consensus. This claim is highly-charged, and clear consensus must be demonstrated - not just dogged defiance and edit re-re-re-reverts on your part. -- ] ] 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)		::::: {{re\|Britishfinance}}: You're making your arguments for its inclusion, but you aren't providing clear proof that a consensus exists. I look at this section and see it as 2-2 right now, and adding on all the edit requests and discussion on ] about the use of "far-right", I do not see a consensus. This claim is highly-charged, and clear consensus must be demonstrated - not just dogged defiance and edit re-re-re-reverts on your part. -- ] ] 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

			I'm planning to do a thorough audit of the sources used in this page, and a look through what's come out in the more recent days, to get a clear picture of how each one describes the movement. I'll post my findings here once I'm finished. ] <small>]</small> 15:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:27, 26 June 2020

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boogaloo movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American / Gun politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED]	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Military history: North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

Template:Findnote

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boogaloo movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Possible source

Here's an article linking police officers to racism and a need for a civil war. The word boogaloo isn't mentioned, but it is contemporary use of invoking another civil war in light of other recent events of the past month. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not usable; there's nothing in that article to suggest that the boogaloo movement was related in any way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I was concerned about that. Thanks for the response. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Boogers

The term "booger" is increasingly used to refer to members of the boogaloo movement by its opponents. I think this fact should be included in the article. It's an insulting term, but so was "Nazi" (originally the name of a bumbling character from "Bavarian jokes").--Ultrademocracy (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ultrademocracy: Do you have any reliable sources supporting this claim? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security's statements

Now that several sources have reported on the DHS's clarification that Boogaloo groups are extremists "from both ends of the ideological spectrum", I think the weight of this disqualifies the lead's explicit "far right" designation. The official government operatives charging actual Boogaloo-linked crimes have now directly rejected the argument that they're mainly far-right. This source reports it pretty accurately. Also, though the DHS obviously has the most weight, a researcher from the Tech Transparency Project who studied boogalooo group Facebook activities also stated; "it's not really a right or left mentality for these guys so much as anti-government". MWise12 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is now the second time you have tried to unilaterally remove the "far right" descriptor from the lead. The first time is excusable, as perhaps you didn't know that there had been substantial discussion about it here. But why on earth would you do it again, after having participated in these discussions, knowing that you're making a controversial change against consensus? Your edits to this page continue to border on outright disruptive.

Anyway, the most recent conversation about this wrapped up about ten days ago, and I haven't seen a substantial shift in the weight of how sources are describing the movement. I disagree with you that "the DHS obviously has the most weight", particularly when the DHS source is a tweet attacking a media outlet and not any kind of official report. It's also not really accurate to say that several sources have reported on the DHS' tweets—I actually expected they would (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS). But so far all I've seen is a small report by The Week, which I pointed out there, and now your source from VOANews. As I wrote in the previous discussion, I didn't think the report by The Week alone was sufficient to justify talking about the tweet in the article, and from what I can tell VOANews is unusable as a source ("Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda.") It seems that, by and large, media sources have either not noticed the tweets or not found them worth reporting upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MWise12 - there is not a consistent description of this movement as "far-right" enough in sources to describe so matter-of-factly as GW desires in the lead. The only other use of "far-right" in the article (which the lead is meant to summarize) makes it clear members are of a wide range on the spectrum. -- Netoholic @ 04:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare Things have significantly changed since the last time this was discussed. Previously, the chief US government agency responsible for categorizing the ideological motives behind boogaloo-related attacks had not directly come out and contested the "far right" designation. They now have. Let me emphasize that - the Department of Homeland Security directly disputed the characterization of the boogaloo movement as "far right".

I also disagree that Voice of America is not a reliable source. It's a public outlet similar to the BBC, which is a reliable source. Further, in this case they're not even saying something in their own words, they're simply reporting the facts of a tweet that we all know was sent. MWise12 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at WP:RSN for discussion of VOA, but didn't find anything at all. But the fact that they are considered by some to be "propaganda" makes me believe at the very least they'd need in-text attribution. A RSN discussion might be wise. And yes, I am quite aware of what the DHS tweeted—I just disagree that that somehow overrides all of the reliable sourcing. We certainly have people in government saying all kinds of wild things, but we don't throw out all the other sourcing when that happens.

Adding to address your edit: my concern is not so much with the verifiability of the VoA source but with the WP:WEIGHT. Like I said, it appears so far only they and The Week have reported on the tweet—I didn't even know VoA had until you added it, it didn't crop up in my standard Google News search. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Just so I'm clear, do you disagree with the assessment by myself and a few others at the conversation I linked, or are you saying the situation has changed since then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare Similarly to VOA, the BBC is also often accused of (even by figures noted on its own Misplaced Pages page) being propaganda, yet it's still a reliable source. I read the sources cited that claim VOA is accused of propaganda, and some of the criticisms date from decades ago, and are strongly contested in the same sources. I thus think upon verification that VOA is a fine source.

The reason we shouldn't have to rely on larger news outlets to report on this tweet is due to the fact that it's precisely their mischaracterizations that the DHS was correcting. Politico isn't going to be rushing to report how the DHS corrected one of their reports. This isn't even a fuzzy issue since the tweet's contents are easily seen and verified.

Ultimately, the DHS and the Tech Transparency Project researcher's statements are two more of what I would call significant sources who contest the "far right" designation and support a less specifically ideological designation such as "anti-government". They add to the many that already exist, which at this point is enough to shift the weight toward not using the "far right" designation in the lead. Perhaps far right can still be in the lead somewhere (such as "X and Y have described it as far right..."), but it shouldn't be stated that the boogaloo movement is far right in Misplaced Pages's voice as if it's a matter of fact. MWise12 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: 10 days is a long time, and I disagree that there is -currently- consensus to call them exclusively "far-right" in the lead. That line in the lead is NOT supported in the main body. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The term boogaloo alludes to the 1984 cult film ... The word more likely alludes to Larry Neal's 1969 book "Black Boogaloo: Notes on Black Liberation". Essentially, this appears to be a white supremacist movement, and further characterizations (far-right, extremist) seem superfluous. --83.137.6.229 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Misplaced Pages articles summarize what published, reliable sources say about the topic. So, please provide links to reliable, published sources that make the connection between the 1969 book and the contemporary movement. Otherwise, it cannot be included in the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is as yet no consensus to use the DHS tweet (per earlier archived discussion on this specific point). It is a single tweet and conflicts with the high majority of other quality sources who have done SIGCOV pieces on the movement, and who use the term right-wing to describe it. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

After reading this recent WPO article As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement, I think it is now very inappropriate to use DHS tweets (or even any other DHS material). Perhaps the thing worth chronicling here (in the body, not lede), are attempts by the Trump Administration to downplay labelling of right-wing groups, in favour of labelling of left-wing groups, of which the Boogaloo movement is an example? Britishfinance (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Netoholic, I have re-reverted your revert (again) of this edit for which there is no consensus (and there is evidence per above, that the DHS tweet is not appropriate as a source here). Please discuss the issue further and get consensus before any re-reversion. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance:: Not sure why you think the DHS tweet is the only thing that this involves. The ONLY other description of boogaloo as "far-right" in the main body says "generally described as far-right or alt-right, although some groups have also been described as libertarian.", so the issue is that the sentence in the lead (meant to summarize the main body) is misleading. Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1 shows -repeated- requests and discussions about removing "far-right" from the lead. There is no consensus to include it, and the WP:ONUS is on you to prove otherwise, most probably via an RfC. Self-revert. -- Netoholic @ 14:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Netoholic. Two things regarding your edit that I (and others) have re-reverted:

* The majority of sources (as discussed above, and in the archived discussion), describe the movement as far-right. I added a new one from Washington Post above, but here is USA Today, Wired, NPR, Business Insuder. I could probably list over 20 RS with SIGCOV pieces on the movement and with "far-right" in the title. You should not attempt to remove "far-right" again.

* The DHS tweet conflicts with the high majority of all quality sources on the movement and is at a minimum, UNDUE. In addition, per As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement, it is now possible that the DHS tweet is also not a reliable source on this subject and clearly not appropriate for labelling the movement.

thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance:: You're making your arguments for its inclusion, but you aren't providing clear proof that a consensus exists. I look at this section and see it as 2-2 right now, and adding on all the edit requests and discussion on Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1 about the use of "far-right", I do not see a consensus. This claim is highly-charged, and clear consensus must be demonstrated - not just dogged defiance and edit re-re-re-reverts on your part. -- Netoholic @ 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm planning to do a thorough audit of the sources used in this page, and a look through what's come out in the more recent days, to get a clear picture of how each one describes the movement. I'll post my findings here once I'm finished. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 15:10, 26 June 2020 editNetoholic (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,917 edits →Department of Homeland Security's statements ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:27, 26 June 2020 edit undoGorillaWarfare (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators119,443 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:

	::::: {{re\|Britishfinance}}: You're making your arguments for its inclusion, but you aren't providing clear proof that a consensus exists. I look at this section and see it as 2-2 right now, and adding on all the edit requests and discussion on ] about the use of "far-right", I do not see a consensus. This claim is highly-charged, and clear consensus must be demonstrated - not just dogged defiance and edit re-re-re-reverts on your part. -- ] ] 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)		::::: {{re\|Britishfinance}}: You're making your arguments for its inclusion, but you aren't providing clear proof that a consensus exists. I look at this section and see it as 2-2 right now, and adding on all the edit requests and discussion on ] about the use of "far-right", I do not see a consensus. This claim is highly-charged, and clear consensus must be demonstrated - not just dogged defiance and edit re-re-re-reverts on your part. -- ] ] 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

			I'm planning to do a thorough audit of the sources used in this page, and a look through what's come out in the more recent days, to get a clear picture of how each one describes the movement. I'll post my findings here once I'm finished. ] <small>]</small> 15:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)