Talk:American Redoubt

Sikander Jaad Op/Ed Column
For the sake of balance and NPOV, I added mention of a newspaper op/ed piece that was critical of the Redoubt movement. Another wiki editor removed this, calling it a "opinion piece in a local paper by a nobody". Perhaps a more authoritative voice of dissent can be found, but for now, I believe this one should stand. After all, Wikipedia's rules put a premium on third party hard copy sources. DiligenceDude (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See Also Entries
Inclusion of diametrically opposed "See Also" wiki-links is not in the best interest of fair and un-biased WP editing. If doing so were valid, then we should get busy and add these See Also links:

- A link to the KKK page at the NAACP page.

- A link to the Sharia Law at the Campus Crusade for Christ page.

- A link to the Communist Party USA page at the Libertarian Party page.

I hope that you can see that this sort of linking could be construed as a smear tactic. ArdentBravesFan (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point. It isn't relevant because it is "diametrically opposed" but because it is a similar movement. Both are movements to relocate followers of a particular ideology to the same region of the country. If the Communist Party USA supported a movement to relocate its followers and supporters to New Hampshire, that would be 'See Also' material for the article on the libertarian initiative for the same (Free State Project). Nolan135 (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe you are incorrect on this issue. Links to radically racist and anti-semite groups can be seen as derogatory. Three different editors have now reverted your link.  You need to establish consensus on this issue before reverting this for the fifth time.BellicoseSouthernBelle (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Derogatory according to whose objective standard? And why does it matter to Wikipedia, which is written and edited on the basis of NPOV, not an organization's public relations? Three editors have reversed my edits to restore the content and none of them have been able to adequately explain why a link that clearly belongs in the article shouldn't be there. Nolan135 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been explained, quite succinctly.  Again, you need to establish consensus on this issue before reverting this for the fifth time.  No offense intended, but consider this a 3RR warning. BellicoseSouthernBelle (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has not been explained. All of those who have removed the link have used the same exact argument (a version of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) and have not responded to any points I have brought up. Again, we don't care if this makes a supporter of the American Redoubt project worried that they might somehow be associated with Nazis, or something of that nature (the article explains that they are not racialists, at any rate). We are concerned with NPOV and expanding the article's collection of relevant 'see also' links to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics. The link to the article on the Northwest Territorial Imperative is relevant to this article because both are movements for a political migration to the same area of the country. I have yet to see anyone offer a valid reason why it doesn't belong. And you aren't an administrator. You can't warn me, and besides, my edits fall outside of a 24 hour period. See WP:3RR Nolan135 (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This goes far beyond WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  I agree with ArdentBravesFan that to SMEAR a political movement with association with racist radicals casts it in a bad light and thus it is NOT NPOV editing.  Against repeated objections by several editors you've repeatedly posted a link to an overtly racist group that advocates relocation to a similar (but not geographically identical--=just overlapping) region.  Why?  Cui bono?   Any notability of that vague similarity is far overshadowed by the IMPLICATION that the two groups are somehow connected. This is especially true when a group is vocally ANTI-racist. I can only see this as a subtle form of character assassination. If POV pushing like this is done systematically, then the end result is that WP readers are led to believe that PTA = KKK. Based upon what I'm seeing at your Talk page, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nolan135,) and your editing history, you have a clear history of pushing POV with regards to mentions of white supremacists and other hate groups in Wikipedia pages.  (By the way, don't try to purge your Talk page. Those comments are visible to Admins, *forever*.) WP is not about pushing social, political, religious (or anti-religious) agendas. PLEASE strive for neutrality and objectivity!  You are correct that none of us involved in this dispute are Administrators. But if you continue this contentious editing IN THE ABSENCE if any consensus, then I will be forced to report your activity to an Admin. TheSwitzerdude (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no smear involved. As for your attack against me, see WP:GF. The territories in question do not simply overlap. The core proposal for the NTI is almost exactly the same as that for American Redoubt. The inclusion of this link does not imply any sort of affiliation or ideological/philosophical equivalence. Nolan135 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no one seems to want to discuss the article, much less seriously discuss it according to the principle of NPOV, I will go ahead and change it. Nolan135 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just one editor repeatedly reverting something does not constitute consensus. THREE editors have reverted your change. THAT is something more like consensus.ArdentBravesFan (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with ArdentBravesFan. BellicoseSouthernBelle (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this link is inappropriate and an subtle way of sullying the reputation of The American Redoubt. Classic "guilt by association"--although in this case it is by LACK of association.  Nolan135 should cease and desist from this tendentious editing. OPSECObsessed (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gotta agree, as well. To link an ANTI-racist to a page about racists is underhanded. Nolan needs to cut this out unless he can find consensus with his position. DunwoodyWoody (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You would be wrong. Not one of you is able to explain why a link to a movement B with ideology y about relocating to a region is not appropriate in an article about movement A with ideology x which also advocates relocation to that region. Of course, judging by every single comment here, the reason is clearly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, mixed with a refusal to assume good faith. Nolan135 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of pro-Israel stance
I removed the claim that Rawles is 'anti-racist' because one of the only sources cited simply reproduces that claim verbatim with no evidence provided, but even what remains ("outspokenly pro-Israel") seems of questionable relevance in context. Should it just be removed outright or am I just not seeing how it's relevant? Anarkinsey (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is indeed relevant. In the very same sentence, it is mentioned how the Redoubt is envisioned as a safe haven for both Christians and Jews. The history of modern Israel is one of a refuge for the Jews, worldwide. It is a sort of Redoubt, on a grand scale.

I also restored the properly-referenced mention that Rawles is outspokenly anti-racist. Newspaper articles are valid references for WP. And, BTW, his novels features lots of black, Asian, and Mexican-American characters in a favorable light. From the very beginning, Rawles has has done his best to not associate with racists, neo-nazis, and other radicals who are racially intolerant or who are intolerant of Jews. To leave this article with no mention of his stance on association or disassociation would leave doubts about the motivations of the American Redoubt movement.DunwoodyWoody (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on American Redoubt. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120712034738/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/2017469929_redoubt10.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017469929_redoubt10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Evolution of the Movement
I see a couple of editors (whose IPs reveal they are writing from the Redoubt) stifling the various points of view on the Redoubt Movement. These editors are pushing a POV that follows a narrative that Rawles lays out. Let's be clear: their view absolutely must be heard. But so too must the other voices, and I would ask the editors to kindly review WP:NPOV and understand that controversial articles will necessarily include voices that they may view as flat-out wrong or invalid. Nonetheless, that is the way political discourse is. We don't have to agree with everyone, but in Wikipedia-land we have to accurately convey that various people are saying various things.

If these editors are Redoubters who worry that people are "mischaracterizing" what the Redoubt is all about, it's better to lay out those alternate voices and misconceptions. Squelching the voices just leads people to an opposite conclusion -- that the Redoubt really is about control and limiting the voices...especially those of the (political) minority.

It's ironic that some of the editors are championing an ideal of freedom but are wary of letting that freedom -- of speech -- play out on a subject close to their hearts.

Best regards from nearby,

GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I was confused on why so many accounts were suspended 68.59.47.87 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on American Redoubt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023064156/http://ferrycountyview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=561:op-ed-american-redoubt-or-doubt&catid=64:op-ed&Itemid=85 to http://ferrycountyview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=561:op-ed-american-redoubt-or-doubt&catid=64:op-ed&Itemid=85

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Tenets of the Redoubt
Regarding the removal of the core tenets of the Redoubt in this article (from the survivalist blog), please note that I did not merely do a copy/paste (as the other editor asserts) but only selected and summarized several of the key tenets. There is no copyright vio, but I don't do edit-warring, and will leave others to judge, if they're interested. If not, I guess it doesn't meet the notability threshold, right? Best regards. GetSomeUtah (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

These tenets are just copies of the northwest front movement. This whole article was written by Jim Rawles. Please Mark for deletion, NPOV, notability and COA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.77.167 (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This article was written by well over a hundred editors. No chance. It clearly meets our criteria. Doug Weller  talk 11:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be so sure about that. Take a look at all the big contributors in the past - they include the majority of Trasel's confirmed sockpuppets. Most others are IPs with far larger and more frequent than average edits as well as some SPAs who may or may not also be socks. The current two big "pro"-contributors recently used the exact same edit summary. I have to say, the article itself is just bad too. It misrepresents sources and magnifies the supposed success of it and its creator, despite the fact that most will have never heard of either. It seems that at least one puppeteer is keeping it criticism-free and not less than a bit promotional. They're apparently very driven too (over a dozen known socks already), so they might be closely connected. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the editors. But looking at Google News I think it would pass an AfD. Stub it? Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Rawles himself has been an active editor (removing stuff that disagrees with his ideology). It would be good to focus this article less on Rawles (he has his own article) and more on what's actually happening with the "movement" (if there one). GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean the 15 mentions of his name (not counting references)? Good idea. Doug Weller  talk 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, I didn't mean to imply that it should be deleted. I'm not very active nowadays (very busy etc) but I'll try to make the article a bit more neutral. I've never really made a CheckUser request but might try that too. Hopefully we can simply salvage a decent article out of this without having to start over. We might want to consider protection though. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)