| Revision as of 20:39, 18 November 2009 editDarthBinky (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,240 edits →To say "public safety" or "law enforcement" personnel?← 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 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
== To say "public safety" or "law enforcement" personnel? == |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Oath Keepers/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 11 August 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Oath Keepers}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Nevada|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Allegiance to Trump? == |
|
Which is more neutral language? In The Los Angeles Times they say "public safety personnel" but in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle they say "law enforcement personnel." ] (]) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Both sound pretty neutral, in my opinion. --] (]) 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? ] (]) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I agree, although I'd point out that there's a subtle difference between the two. "Public safety personnel" would include non-police personnel, such as firefighters and EMT's, where "law enforcement personnel" wouldn't. --] (]) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. ] (]) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Buchanan == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 == |
|
Pat just wrote an article on this subject. Good for sources: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091019_alienated.htm <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says |
|
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834 |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (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.
