Talk:Oath Keepers/Archive 3

Use of "Conservatism in the United States" template? Yes/No
The template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. Now founder Stewart_Rhodes is is in jail for seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol there are attempts to remove the template. Please discuss here and let's come to a consensus. Thank you. Myotus (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary: "They have been identified as part of the patriot movement." Mine: "Article never mentions conservativism, the Patriot movement article makes no direct link to conservatism, and 2016-2020 esp threw classic U.S. left-right alignment with liberal-conservative out the window." SamuelRiv (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which article you are looking at. The Patriot movement article is listed in the "Variants and movements" section of the "Conservatism in the United States" box and its short description is "American conservative political movement." Also I am not sure what you mean by this statement in relationship to the article: "2016-2020 esp threw classic U.S. left-right alignment with liberal-conservative out the window." Myotus (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Which doesn’t seem to reflect the lead’s “ patriot movement is a term which is used to describe a conglomeration of non-unified right-wing populist, nationalist political movements,” Doug Weller  talk 17:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The article itself doesn't have anything sourced directly linking it to conservatism. An infobox (which could imply it's a "variant", an indirect link, or "movement", which would be direct) and a short description are not individually sourced. The article does say it's historically linked to paleoconservatism, which is a subtype of U.S. conservatism, but that type of link would be on its face an indirect one to modern conservatism imo. Here's the thing: you don't use a citation to put an infobox on a page (there's nowhere to put it), so the link between the page topic and the infobox had better be on the page and/or direct.
 * The statement of left-right vs. liberal-conservative was to pre-empt the argument that being characterized as "right-wing" was necessarily a direct link to conservatism post-2016 (and similar with left vs. liberals). SamuelRiv (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please state and link to the Wikipedia policies you are talking about. If you feel the words "paleoconservatism" and "patriot movement" need to be in the article then a much better solution would be to add them in rather than to remove the template as removing the template is not improving the article but adding in information on the Oath Keepers connections to "paleoconservatism" and "patriot movement" would be. Myotus (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So to keep a box I don't think should be on, I should be the one to find a random source that ties OK to a specific ideology. And the motivation for finding such a source is not a lack of context or information, but to justify this infobox. I'm not usually a fan of policy spam, but since you asked, in this case the WP:BURDEN is yours to support the challenged material. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but following your rhetoric and prose has been challenging which is why I asked for you to provide the actual policies as it may help me in better understanding your rational for wanting the template removed. Myotus (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An infobox is used that by its presence links A to B. I am challenging that link because it is not directly referenced in either article A or B (or even the article you claim to link them both, C). Those who want to keep the infobox now have the WP:BURDEN to provide a reliable source to justify it. (What I smalltexted above was my stunned reaction to your previous comment.) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank your for providing a clearer explanation to your objection on the use of the "Conservatism in the United States" info box. Understanding your objection I have added a line connecting the Oath Keepers to the patriot movement (with citations). Myotus (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're understanding. The patriot movement connection was not disputed. Please see my original edit summary. The connection to be made is to conservatism specifically. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems the problem you are having then is with the Template "Conservatism in the United States" not the Oath Keepers article. "Patriot Movement" has been listed in the template since November 27, 2016 (6 years). If you have an issue with that being related to the Conservatism when you would need to bring it up there. Articles should not be cherry picked for removal if they are listed on the template. "Patriot Movement" is related to Conservatism as expressed on the template - and not challenged for six years. Unfortunately cherry picking appears to be exactly what is going on with the Template "Conservatism in the United States." Looking it over, articles that have long used the template are having them removed such as this article and "Alex Jones" are being removed now that the subjects are being called out for possible sedition or removed because they are uncomfortable subjects such as LGBT conservatism. Myotus (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record. The "Conservatism in the United States" template has been on the Oath Keepers article since July 10, 2019. Myotus (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that's relevant unless you think things don't change. Of course material should be removed from templates if it becomes obsolete. Doug Weller  talk 15:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Obsoletion of a link is not what is being debated here. Myotus (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Navigation templates like this one are meant to be WP:BIDIRECTIONAL -- if it's not in the template, it shouldn't be here. Additionally, as SamuelRiv pointed out, it is not enough that sources characterise Oath Keepers as part of the patriot movement, and the Wikipedia article on the patriot movement includes a template about conservatism. If you can't even find sources which describe the Oath Keepers as conservative, it is very obviously not a central aspect of the topic of conservatism in the United States that would warrant its inclusion in a navbox about that topic. Endwise (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The policy you point to states:


 * "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." That is the case is for "Patriot Movement."


 * Every are article that uses a template however does not have to have bidirectional. As the policy goes on to state: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."


 * Also, I have reverted it back, please do not pull the template without coming to a consensus. Myotus (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be the only one arguing it should be included here, and you are arguing that based off unsourced material in separate a Wikipedia article, rather than anything written in any sources. I would argue that in such a situation consensus does exist against you. Endwise (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Patriot movement has citations and fairly solid ones. What are you referring too? Myotus (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You based your argument above on the navbox and the short description in Patriot movement, neither of which are based off sourced material in that article. Endwise (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as the comment "not enough that sources characterise Oath Keepers as part of the patriot movement" Wikipedia policy values quality of sources not quantity.WP:RELIABLE
 * Myotus (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, I said it is not enough that they characterise them as part of the patriot movement. Endwise (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The case for inclusion
Can anybody make a reasoned case to include this template? If so, please present it, so we can get resolution.  SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * First point (more to come later): Focus on the real issue with the template instead of cherry picking articles for addition or removal which is showing an appearance of bias. My advice is for the WikiProject Conservatism to clean up the template and to create guidelines and some standards. Currently the "Conservatism in the United States" template is appears to be managed like a fan-boy magazine rather than an sidebar for an encyclopedia. It has links to marginal but popular-in-the-moment conservative issues and people listed and the history shows they get removed from the template (or from using the template) when they get controversial, as in the case of the Oath Keepers. Myotus (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Second: the template is called "Conservatism in the United States" not "Mainline Conservatism in the United States" Myotus (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Third: While I have not engaged SamuelRiv's statement, "2016-2020 esp threw classic U.S. left-right alignment with liberal-conservative out the window." I do now want to call it out, especially since it is interesting that the arguments so far made to remove the template focus myopically on details of the actual use of the word "conservative" in the article ignoring the broader rhetoric in the use of the word. What sources do you have for "right" or "radical-right" that no longer associate it with conservatism? I am seeing a lot of sources verifying it. So even with not looking at the "Patriot movement," sources confirming that the Oath Keepers are a right-wing organization is enough to association them with conservatism and keep the template in the article. Myotus (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support inclusion. It's a far-right American political organization. American conservatism is a major source of context here, and readers of other articles on American conservatism might be interested in this aspect of extreme conservatism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there really nothing more substantive one can say here than "it is far-right"? Nothing about what sources say about conservatism? Nothing even about what this article says about conservatism? ...Really? I have little doubt in my mind that you would agree that additions of to articles like May 19th Communist Organization, Weather Underground, or United Freedom Front should be reverted, as those articles make zero mention of liberalism. This article also makes zero mention of conservatism. Endwise (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Liberalism in the United States template does not have a "Variants and movements" section as does the "Conservatism in the United States" template, so no I doubt you could add the template to those pages. However, if you did you would be increasing the pages that link to it by 30%. That is from 10 pages to 13 pages. The number of pages linking to the "Conservatism in the United States" template is 205. As I mentioned before use of it is out of control and you do not get to cherry pick for public relations. As I said before, if you have issues, start with getting the "Conservatism in the United States" template under control and get a (non-biased) policy on how it can be used. Myotus (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the template, I agree it is way too bloated. I had a look at it a week ago and removed the 10 or so most silly inclusions, one of which was this article, but it would definitely be good to remove (a lot) more. Endwise (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On "more substantive", are you proposing that articles linking the template need to explicitly say something substantive about American conservatism? This would be a much higher bar than is required by WP:NAV. I'd prefer to see such a restriction adopted via centralized consensus than applied in just this one case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For an article to be included in a navigational template about conservatism in the United States, it has to actually be part of the topic of conservatism in the United States. The explanatory essay you linked to me says If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them, which you appear to be arguing the opposite of. You're welcome to hold your own point of view about the Oath Keepers, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish that point of view -- a better place to publish your opinions about things that you can't find in reliable sources would be a blog or a forum. Here on Wikipedia, we need reliable sources to make the connection between the topics. This is in keeping with the guidance of the explanatory essay WP:NAV that you linked me, and core Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV. Endwise (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We may be operating with a different understanding of the topic. When the many reliable sources describe OK as "far-right", they are placing it in a strict subset of conservatism. Endwise, do you really feel I'm soapboxing here? I'm happy to talk more about it at my user talk, or yours (please ping me). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When the many reliable sources describe OK as "far-right", they are placing it in a strict subset of conservatism. -- Sometimes, in the speech of Americans, "conservative" is swapped for "right-wing" and "liberal" for "left-wing", but that language is not accurate. Richard B. Spencer is right-wing (far-right even), but regularly voices his disdain for conservatives. Similarly, CPUSA is left-wing, and regularly voices their disdain for liberals. Sources that describe Richard Spencer as far-right aren't reason to put a conservatism template on his page, just as sources that describe CPUSA as left-wing aren't reason to put a liberalism template on their page. They would both be bizarre inclusions.
 * That's why we need sources in this article that place the Oath Keepers within the conservative movement in the USA to include them in a template which says they're within the conservative movement in the USA, as WP:NAV (and implicitly WP:NPOV) advises. I don't think you're "soapboaxing" exactly, I just think it's important we all remember we're here to make articles reflect what reliable sources say, not what our own opinions say. Endwise (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exceptions abound, but absent some solid sourcing to say the OK are exceptional in this regard, we can take "far right" to mean what it normally means in American politics. There are sources that describe the group as conservative, so we could change the first sentence to read "Oath Keepers is an American conservative, far-right, anti-government militia" but it adds redundancy and length to an otherwise clear opener.Sources for "conservative" include NBC, San Francisco Chronicle, High Country News, and Mercury News. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Two newspapers from 2014, two from 2017, none about OK. A lot can happen in 5 years – kids can go through high school, an organization's leadership can be indicted for seditious conspiracy.... For contemporary references, The Intercept's OK analysis gets into their relationship with mainstream conservatism. If an in-depth analysis like that were to bluntly say "their ideology is characterized as X" then that's the kind of source you'd want for a lead. Now you can't prove a negative, but it's striking to me in searching this ("Oath Keepers conservative" on Google) the analyses that don't mention conservatism in any way: SPLC, CSIS, and ProPublica, all post-1/6. There is a just-pre-1/6 Politico write-up that also addresses their relationship with conservatism, but again never calls them conservative. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The ProPublica piece doesn't say "OK is conservative" but it's whole purpose is to analyze the overlap between OK and mainstream American conservatives. As for the rest, so many of them use more specific descriptors, including "far-right", to place OK more precisely on the conservative spectrum. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is your contention as above that "far-right" is "in a strict subset of conservatism," then frankly it was my hope to ignore that. Unless it's been presented in a methodical way elsewhere, it seems like an obstacle worth avoiding. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FOURTH: The founder Rhodes himself has identified his group as conservative. From the CTC Sentinel, Combating Terriorism Center at West Point, December 2021 Volume 14, Issue 10 page 5: "In response to the group’s ban from Facebook, Rhodes fired back in a message on the Oath Keepers website, stating that the move was “an ideological and political purge,” and that “Our goal is to get patriots prepared and ready to defend their homes, towns, and counties from the ongoing Marxist insurrection we now see erupting and expanding nationwide.” Rhodes’ response to a private company’s actions was to lean into conspiracy theories about global Marxism and political witch hunts aimed at conservatives by social media and technology companies." Myotus (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fifth: Other have identified the Oath Keepers as Conservative: Oath Keepers Leader Stewart Rhodes’s Jan. 6 Reckoning, March 8 The Intercept. "Rhodes, a hard-line suspicion of gun control — blocking access to weapons is essential, he says, to any authoritarian push — flows into a more general demonization of liberals. He has championed the idea of a conservative “warrior class” uniting gun owners with members of the military and law enforcement communities" Myotus (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the CTC Sentinel article, you seem to have completely misread what you quoted. The second sentence (mentioning conservatives) is neither a direct nor indirect quote, and does not specifically characterize either OK or Rhodes as... anything. I had linked the Intercept article earlier, and it really has to be read as a whole, as it goes into quite a bit of nuance as to where Rhodes and OK fit ideologically. It could certainly be used to reason a case for this identity, but I just don't know how your interpretation is that these are explicit identifications of OK as conservative.SamuelRiv (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand how you can see that with the CTC Sentinel article. However, I do read it differently. I would like to dig deeper into the source material. However, I am concerned about your second comment as it appears you are now moving the goal posts. Articles - and reliable sources have been found but you don't find them good enough. You appear to keep raising the bar. 23:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Myotus (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course one might wish to label onesself or one's views "conservative". That's a respectable political label. Do you think it's good branding to call onesself a fascist or a violent revolutionary?  Do we find lots off folks self-identifying as fascists? Your FOURTH is irrelevant full stop. Your other points are either mistaken or misleading. I see no reasoned support for inclusion. If none surfaces, the template must stay out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources describe the group as conservative. I don't think that they've gotten less conservative, or that American conservatism has moved away from them, since 2017. I'd be interested to see what sources would support that contention. In any case, the 2020 book Oath Keepers by Sam Jackson also supports "conservative", and explicitly refers to "conservative" and "right-wing" as interchangeable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you're going to cite a non-open source, at least have to courtesy to include full direct quotes. I will do it for you. Luckily, he only has one for each:
 * That was literally the only time he called OK conservative, in full context. I don't know if you have access to the book or just found excerpts, but please present summaries of non-open sources in particular in good faith. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you do admit the founder of of OathKeepers, Stewart Rhodes, called the group conservative. Myotus (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Myotus even if he did, so what? We should believe everything he says? Doug Weller  talk 15:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not making a statement on climate change. He is the founder of an anti-government militia. Statements of ideological leanings by a founder can be considered at least somewhat substantive. Myotus (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Myotus and he'd never say anything to make his organisation sound more user friendly. Doug Weller  talk 16:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we all back up a few steps? @Myotus, I wasn't referring to Rhodes in my previous post – I was clearly referring entirely to Jackson's book. Now everyone: do we all know the difference between a direct quote and an indirect quote? Which of these was used in @Myotus's excerpt from CTC Sentinel above, with regards to Rhodes in the portion that specifically references "conservatives"? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding here to the suggestion that the book doesn't label the group conservative. It does, as your first quote shows, associate the group with a desire to conserve the politics established by "eighteenth-century politicians", and it defines conservation or preservation of older norms and politics to be a unifying part of the definition of conservatism. Your half-quote below is milseading, as Jackson does not associate OK with the "conservatism of 'eighteenth-century politicians as those politicians were pretty radical, but with a focuse on enshringing and preserving their works and ideas (as interpreted by OK/conservatives).As your second quote shows, the author also establishes "right-wing" and "conservative" as synonymous. He uses "right-wing" in this meaning to describe the group, including in the introduction, where he first introduces OK as a "right-wing antigovernment group" (also part of the subtitle of the book).
 * SIXTH: A quick check on just the first couple of lines in the 'People' section in the template reveal that many do not use the word "conservative" their article and are not described as conservative, some like Robert Bork have much to say about him not being a true conservative. Many are appear to be judged by their actions to be conservative.
 * Responding here to the suggestion that the book doesn't label the group conservative. It does, as your first quote shows, associate the group with a desire to conserve the politics established by "eighteenth-century politicians", and it defines conservation or preservation of older norms and politics to be a unifying part of the definition of conservatism. Your half-quote below is milseading, as Jackson does not associate OK with the "conservatism of 'eighteenth-century politicians as those politicians were pretty radical, but with a focuse on enshringing and preserving their works and ideas (as interpreted by OK/conservatives).As your second quote shows, the author also establishes "right-wing" and "conservative" as synonymous. He uses "right-wing" in this meaning to describe the group, including in the introduction, where he first introduces OK as a "right-wing antigovernment group" (also part of the subtitle of the book).
 * SIXTH: A quick check on just the first couple of lines in the 'People' section in the template reveal that many do not use the word "conservative" their article and are not described as conservative, some like Robert Bork have much to say about him not being a true conservative. Many are appear to be judged by their actions to be conservative.


 * Roger Ailes, Mel Bradford, Howard Buffett, Joseph Gurney Cannon, Zachariah Chandler, Henry Clay
 * These have conservative in their articles but questionable usage.
 * Ezra Taft Benson, Robert Bork, Styles Bridges, Whittaker Chambers
 * Inclusion of the template in the Oath Keepers article meets or exceeds the rational these others are included under. Again arguments to remove the template appear to be biased and amount to cherry picking Myotus (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These enumerated points are going down hill. From plausible to unresponsive and preposterous. We follow sources, not self-promotion. for encyclopedic content. Do you have a bunch of independent RS that endorse his self-description as something evoking Reagan or even Goldwater? SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * (EC) I know Ailes, Clay, Bork, and Chambers. Not a big fan of politics – I care about good citations and good graphs. At a glace the only one I'd care to raise a fuss about is Clay (but not before reading more about him) because when you're at the founding of the country, the term "conservative" probably means something a bit different. Also the guy from Illinois, because being from there, I know there's really only one IL political party: Mafia. Also there's some WP guideline about not bringing up other articles – I won't look for it, but it's just not cool to suggest to complain about this article in particular, which has so far required days and tens of thousands of words, is invalid because we haven't also gone through the same process for 10 other articles.
 * There are citation problems throughout the article and it's never getting fixed if every tiny detail of change needs total consensus. Maybe we should just bring in some outside voices, like people who maintain the conservative infobox, or Wikiproject Conservatism (which seems rather lifeless), or just RfC. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with reaching out to Wikiproject Conservatism. However we also need to reach out to WikiProject Politics as the overall group looking at politics and manager of the Liberalism in the United States template. I would bring up this disagreement up as an example for BOTH of the templates. They need to create policies on how they are to be used and what can link to them and they should be fairly tight. I am in different agreement (as you know) with you on it being a citation problem. I think it fits well within how the template is used with other articles. It is not a citation problem it is a policy problem. They cannot pick on favorable articles for their template the way they are using it. Myotus (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If "The article itself doesn't have anything sourced directly linking it to conservatism" then . The O.K. are thoroughly right-wing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Time to remove this template
At this point we don't need to reach out to anybody or any project. There is no consensus to include this and many reasoned arguments against it. The re\insertion should be reverted and if anyone wants to consult other pages or noticeboards, it can always be put back in the apparently unlikely event support appeats. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:STATUSQUO, do not remove until you have consensus for removal. The Conservatism in the United States template has been on the Oath Keeper's page for years. There is no copyright violation. Exactly what is your urgency? Myotus (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's already been addressed. Things change. The OK certainly revealed a different stripe since the now inapplicable template appeared. Please don't keep repeating this vacuous argument. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently there has not been a significant change in leadership, mission or stated purpose. It has been the same since the templates inclusion. Myotus (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see the consensus to remove this, especially since this article is featured in the template. If you want to force the issue, you should start a poll. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We've just had at least enough discussion, and there's no credible support for this template. It does not have tenure. It needs to be removed. It's not a defense simply to say it's been in the article for a while. This is getting repetitive. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to demonstrate consensus to remove it, that's how this works. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Show us 5 recent RS that call OK conservative. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The MISSING sources

 * With the understanding that "far-right" and "right-wing" are simply shades of "conservative", here you go:
 * Let me know if there's anything else you need me to Google for you today. In the future, you might want to check out WP:REFDESK for questions like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confused on this, do you need some help? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Locke ColeI'm struggling with the shades bit. Is far-left a shade of liberalism (American liberalism I mean). Doug Weller  talk 16:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I could see an argument for that. It does seem that "right-wing" is more common in this instance though, and I fail to see how "right-wing" isn't just a synonym for "conservative" (again relating to US politics). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You could see the argument for that? ...Really? Would you like to go add to CPUSA? Endwise (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think there can be an argument for that, but then I studied political science at Yale long ago, maybe things have changed drastically, but I doubt it, Doug Weller  talk 18:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Locke, we need recent sources calling OK "conservative". It appears that there are none. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need that, and I don't know if there aren't any. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the thread you are replying to in its entirety before joining the conversation. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please understand how words work before using them. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The assertions you've made about words in this talk page—that e.g. fascist organisations are just a shade of conservative and that e.g. communist organisations are just a shade of liberal—are false, so I don't think it's appropriate for you to be telling other people that they don't understand "how words work". Endwise (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well clearly I disagree with every single word you said, so.. at the risk of violating WP:CIV, I'll stop here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Locke Cole & Firefangledfeathers, as you both have seen, there are multiple sources tying conservatism to Right wing and its variants of such as Far-right, (as there are sources tying Left Wing and its variants of Far-left to Liberalism). Unfortunately proponents for the removal of the template have attempted to nullify that point by deciding to themselves that "right wing" does not imply "conservatism" and have not provide any strong argument to support their opinion. They appear be to getting the label "Conservative" and "Liberal" confused with the theory of "Conservatism" and "Liberalism" which are spectrums of thought. While OK and others may not use the label of "Conservative" to describe them they do practice variants of conservatism within its spectrum Myotus (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you (or any of us) could make a compelling case for OK being among the spectrum of thought of American conservatism. The issue at hand is one that is pervasive in the citations throughout the article in my random checks of refs: it is either completely unsupported, only tangentially referenced in citation, or the source was misinterpreted, or it was not an RS in this context, or some other improper usage of a citation. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How words work: right-wing, specifically, the synonyms: . Words and their meanings can change over time, and in so far as the US is concerned, right-wing and conservative are interchangeable. The folks demanding this template be removed would do well to crack open a dictionary and learn what words mean before pounding their fists and arguing against something that is easily refuted like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, words mean what they mean at the time. Do sources reall call Trump etc conservative or do they say right-wing should be the issue I think. Doug Weller  talk 19:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Locke Cole what's most sad to me about this is not that you cited a dictionary, but the fact that there is a far superior citation and discussion of exactly what you are trying to argue in this thread already, which means despite repeated requests that you do so, you have not read the thread. Please refrain from commenting further until you have read the entire thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the thread. I'll continue to comment as much as I like. Please stop telling people you disagree with to stop participating because you can't comprehend something as simple as words. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you (or any of us) could make a compelling case for OK being among the spectrum of thought of American conservatism. The issue at hand is one that is pervasive in the citations throughout the article in my random checks of refs: it is either completely unsupported, only tangentially referenced in citation, or the source was misinterpreted, or it was not an RS in this context, or some other improper usage of a citation. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How words work: right-wing, specifically, the synonyms: . Words and their meanings can change over time, and in so far as the US is concerned, right-wing and conservative are interchangeable. The folks demanding this template be removed would do well to crack open a dictionary and learn what words mean before pounding their fists and arguing against something that is easily refuted like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, words mean what they mean at the time. Do sources reall call Trump etc conservative or do they say right-wing should be the issue I think. Doug Weller  talk 19:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Locke Cole what's most sad to me about this is not that you cited a dictionary, but the fact that there is a far superior citation and discussion of exactly what you are trying to argue in this thread already, which means despite repeated requests that you do so, you have not read the thread. Please refrain from commenting further until you have read the entire thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the thread. I'll continue to comment as much as I like. Please stop telling people you disagree with to stop participating because you can't comprehend something as simple as words. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Posting to seek others input

 * I will be posting for other opinions on the both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism Talk page and the WikiProject Politics Talk page. Here is the following proposed text. Did I get the arguments correct? Are there additional arguments?

Myotus (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Specifico stated on my user talk page that it is inappropriate to summarize the arguments which will be evident on the article talk page. I have seen this done with other arguments, however, I am open to just post the opening statement and not the Arguments for removing or keeping. Myotus (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Poll on removing the Conservatism template
Please indicate below whether you support or oppose removing the Conservatism template, based on the arguments, discussion, and sources in this extended thread. I do not think it's necessary to repeat the text from above, so short replies would be appropriate in this case.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to respondents: please read the entire thread before commenting. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, it's possible for everyone to read the entire thread and still strongly disagree with you, right? Also, WP:AGF. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 *  Support Oppose removal of the Conservatism template.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)  Changing my view, per TFD, "Conservatism" in the US has a long history of specious rationalizations of narratives the purpose of which is to sustain the authority of the relatively privileged Americans who populate corporate and civic institutions. In that context, it is not disqualifing that OK pursues such goals by violent vs. civic action. It's also not an accident that the ranks of US Conservatism, from Taft, Buckley and the Bush's through Hawley, Cruz, Rhodes, DeSantis, and Clarence Thomas, are grads of the most elite US universities. So we should broaden our sights and acknowledge that OK is in the US Conservative mainstream.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal. If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them (WP:NAV). To include this article in a template about conservatism in the US (and vice versa), this article needs to contain sources that actually place this group within the conservative movement in the US. From the discussion we've had above, it seems evident there are in fact no such sources. I know you said to keep it short, but I think a quick summary of my viewpoint may be helpful too. Endwise (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal, but what's the point of this poll? There's barely 5 people in the conversation and they've all made their points. Just get an outsider to close discussion, like on WP:CR. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, no valid reason has been provided for removing it. Next we'll have people trying to tell us water isn't wet. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And if this is removed, the sources definitely support adding . —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, For reasons stated above. Agree with SamuelRiv. Specifico, what is your point for the poll? Only six people have chimed in so far. This is why I want to reach out to others. Wikipedia has processes for Dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myotus (talk • contribs)
 * Support removal this is described more as a far-right group, which is fundamentally separate from conservatism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I provided multiple sources above that referred to them as "right-wing". Not simply "far right". —Locke Cole • t • c 23:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Are we discussing the "Conservatism" or "Conservatism in the United States" template? TFD (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Conservatism US is the one being discussed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And just to clear it up more since I understand the confusion now, the template listed at the top of this whole discussion (Conservatism in the United States) is a redirect to Conservatism US. It's not a separate/different template. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Reliable sources say they were Trump supporters. Trump is the leader of the conservative movement in the U.S. In earlier times, they would have supported Goldwater, Reagan and George W. Bush, who were the conservative leaders of their day. TFD (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Trump is still considered to be the leader of the Republican Party (a position he won in what the media widely characterized as a "hostile takeover"; the buzz in D.C. has always been that the party elites hate him and he hates them back). It's interesting you bring up Goldwater because most articles written by conservative thinkers I've seen since W. that bring up his name do so to either shame the party or to mourn conservatism's death. So as I understand it your argument is that OK somewhat-for-the-most-part-ish aligns with Trump who somewhat-for-the-most-part-ish aligns with Republicans who somewhat-for-the-most-part-ish align with conservatism. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @SamuelRiv Definitely. I well remember his campaign. He wouldn’t recognise the current party as having anything to do with what he saw as conservatism and I don’t see how Trump and his supporters can be considered conservatives, they are in many ways radical.  Doug Weller  talk 18:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then do you remember that liberals considered him to be a paranoid racist fascist who would drop the bomb on Russia and start WWIII? Do you remember that establishment Republicans (except Nixon) refused to endorse him and even Nixon was glad he lost? Do you remember that he courted extremists such as the John Birch Society and segregationists? Or that he had to be persuaded by Eisenhower and Nixon to reject the KKK endorsement? Or that he was the first major politician to call himself a conservative? TFD (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. If "The article itself doesn't have anything sourced directly linking it to conservatism" then . Duh. There's no end of sources that the O.K. are right-wing/conservative.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the above thread in its entirety before commenting. If you have a source to add that we have not already reviewed we would genuinely love to see it. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the above thread in its entirety before commenting. If you can't see the list of requested sources you might need to consult with an optometrist before editing in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To just copy-paste from my own talk page: If we have an article anywhere that defines American conservatism only in terms of a "Reagan-Scalia-Romney-Cheney legacy" then that article is bad wrong.  It takes only seconds to find "Oath Keepers" and "conservative" together in innumerable sources . I cannot believe they're all going to be cases of "conservative" applying to some other subject and "Oath Keepers" not being under the "conservative" umbrella.  I think this argument is basically ridiculous, like trying to split hairs in American politics between "leftist" and "progressive".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The links you posted are all links to search results that contain both the words "OK" and "conservative." Would you please do us the courtesy of looking at the links you posted and provide, from within, any sources that explicitly call OK conservative? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SMcCandish, for verification of your view we need recent RS that make that connection. Google hits are not RS for anything, but anyway the comparison would be equating "progressives" with violent Communist revolutionaries. The Oath Keepers are domestic terrorists per this article page. The tradition and the body of thinking, scholarly research, puplication, and political service by Conservatives can't be appropriated by editor opinion -- some of it very uninformed -- to suggest that violent fascist revolutinaries are Conservatives. We serve our readers. That association misinforms them.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support removal, as conservatives aren't the 'only' group that has extremist. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean in proper English? Nothing in this debate has anything to do with whether more than one group has extremists.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already opted for 'removal'. A stance which hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You may wish to give WP:VOTE a read, because one does not simply get to say they "opt" for something without providing at least some reason or response when challenged. Closers of these types of discussions are well within their right to discount or ignore people just voting. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The closer(s) are free to do as they wish. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal American militia movement is a major force in modern American conservatism and the oath keepers are a major player, perhaps the major player, in that. I don't see any harm from the template being there nor do I agree with those supporting removal that there is a lack of RS coverage of the oath keepers as conservative. The article itself needs significant improvement as it currently reads as a "Best-Of" compilation rather than an in-depth and comprehensive article on the OK. Good luck with that and hope y'all enjoy your weekend :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is no "lack of RS coverage of the OK as conservative," then please provide an RS, preferably one we haven't already reviewed in this thread. I agree this article is a POS, which is why we have to have this stupid WP:COLORWAR – because every single citation in this article needs to be checked, but every single removal of unsupported content gets reverted (see threads above). SamuelRiv (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The MISSING sources. You're welcome. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the ones already reviewed as RS coverage. Reasonable minds may disagree, and there's no need to incorrectly compare this to a color war or postulate that it is a necessary dispute. There are better ways to improve an article than expecting and encouraging a petty food fight. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Removal . I can't say as the inclusion or removal of this template makes or breaks the article, and as others have pointed out, there are surely other issues here which could better benefit from editor/community attention.  That said, looking at the sources offered I'd say the WP:WEIGHT burden has been met.  While there are nuances between the terms 'conservative' and 'right wing' as a political descriptor, I've looked at not just the sources listed above, but also a few dozen others that I found pretty easily with the simply worded search queries where the Oath Keepers are mentioned in the same breath as conservatism.


 * Bear in mind here that we are not discussing whether the express and specific statement "The Oath Keepers are a prototypical conservative organization" can be supported by precisely that exact language in particular RS. Rather the question is whether or not there is significant enough association between the group and socially and politically conservative forces to justify the inclusion of the template.  Keeping that point in mind,  I don't think it's even a particularly close call, when you look at the overall corpus of sources clearly noting the relationship between the Oath Keepers and conservative politics.   So while there are certainly many permutations of a statement associating the two subjects that would probably cross the line into synthesis, I do not believe the inclusion of the template imputes any kind of original research; no matter how you parse the idiomatics of the sources here, a connection is born out in the sources as a whole that is sufficient to support the template.  Again, it wouldn't be a terrible blow to the article if it were absent, but weighing this close case, I feel this is editorially justified under policy. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with placing templates based on political association, and not on verifiable ideology, campaigning, a historic retrospective, or something else more intrinsic, is that most of politics is about making associations with people you don't like. True, stenches do tend to linger for a bit. Political advocacy groups (and political... non-advocacy groups?) also tend to try to make associations with mainstream powerful people. With current U.S. political polarization, and how that reinforces the ability of party policy to shape public opinion, it can seem empirically reasonable to look at a set of chracteristics of a group that overlap significantly with a partisan pole and conclude there's some general convergence of ideology. But if that's your criteria for including an ideological template, then what else gets brought in? The thing is, we don't need to make some empirical justification – for OK, their ideology has been largely documented and reported, and no in-depth report has labeled them "conservative" (with one exception that all of you should already know about because if you are reading this then you have already read this entire thread). SamuelRiv (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The problem with placing templates based on political association, and not on verifiable ideology, campaigning, a historic retrospective, or something else more intrinsic, is that most of politics is about making associations with people you don't like. True, stenches do tend to linger for a bit. Political advocacy groups (and political... non-advocacy groups?) also tend to try to make associations with mainstream powerful people. With current U.S. political polarization, and how that reinforces the ability of party policy to shape public opinion, it can seem empirically reasonable to look at a set of chracteristics of a group that overlap significantly with a partisan pole and conclude there's some general convergence of ideology."
 * Most of that is as self-evidently true as it is irrelevant to the editorial determination here--to the point that I'm surprised you didn't understand that your links to sources describing these well understood (indeed, cliche) facets of American politics would come off as far more patronizing than informative. But whether we trust the world of political analysis to be perfectly unbiased or not, associations reported in RS are a part of the story, and in the narrow application here, a template reflecting those associations just does not come off as inconsistent with said sources, or our obligation for neutrality.  Even with few (or even were it zero) RS stating expressly the precise statement that the "the Oath Keepers are a manifestly conservative group", we additionally have literal scores of RS discussing the connections between the group and conservative firebrands and politicians and support of conservative thinking, principles, and priorities.  Reflecting that co-discussion in our coverage of the sources is more consistent with neutrality than the alternative here, honestly.  Especially when there are additionally a number of RS that also expressly describe the group as conservative.


 * Of course, such content calibrated carefully, but again, we're not talking about synthing together a statement describing the group in terms not found in any particular source. We're talking about a template, based on the ubiquity with which elements of the conservative movement get mentioned as a part of the coverage of the Oath Keepers.  I do get where your concerns come from, but taking the totality of the numerous sources discussing one or another aspect of overlap between the Oath Keepers and this or that conservative topic (or even expressly describing the group as 'conservative'), and considering the format of the content in dispute, this seems a reasonably justified and WP:DUE application of the template. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * . We've got sources for "conservative", "right-wing", and "far-right", so take your pick. One of the major features of coverage of this group in news media and academic books is its connections with American conservatism. PS: I don't have this page watchlisted, so please ping me if you need me.) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please inform us which sources you are referring to as the "sources for 'conservative'." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * News sources: NBC, San Francisco Chronicle, High Country News, and Mercury News. Book: Oath Keepers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those were addressed in the thread. Is it the conservatism of "eighteenth-century politicians" from the book that you use to make your case or the passing mentions in tangential stories in newspapers all from more than five years ago? SamuelRiv (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to stop responding to every editor you disagree with. It is detrimental to consensus-building and makes editors hesitant to join the conversation. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Addressed" is true, but other interested editors should read the counter-arguments themselves. In the spirit of keeping things here brief (per your note, and SPECIFICO's), there's no sourced argument to suggest that OK has gotten less conservative since the news articles were published, and you're misconstruing the book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but that sounds kind of like saying there's no source stating that a kangaroo is not a bird. "Gotten less conservative"? It's not a matter of more or less conservative. Like the marxist revolutionaries of the 1960's, OK has stepped outside of the continuum of American politics "liberal-conservative" or however it's labeled. The pillar of support for the template in this long thread that "far-right" or "right-wing" is the same thing as "conservative" is -- let's be frank -- sadly ignorant of the most basic facts and history of political thinking, discourse, and leaders in America. That assertion is simply not in line with mainstream reliable sources in the real world. Like all fringe or erroneous views, it comes back to the kangaroo not a bird problem. RS don't rebut every false claim, and it's normal course of business that there are no published refutations of all kinds of nonsense and misstatement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There haven't been, as far as I know, any reliable sources saying that kangaroos are birds, making the analogy inapt. There are no sources saying that OK has gotten less conservative because exactly the opposite has happened. Unlike the Marxists of the 60s, OK abondoned much of its anti-government rhetoric when Trump was elected and began "protecting" his rallies and other prominent conservatives. They have become more associated with conservatism since then, not less. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So please give us some RS citations stating that the group has become more associated with conservatism. Could you also clarify why "protecting" is in scare quotes? Do you think the Capitol insurrection was also "protecting" something or other? I presume you're aware that POTUS has adequate protection w/o scare quotes provided by secret service and hundreds of protocols and procedures.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have any such RS. I'm indicating my opinion on why you'll be unable to find RS to support your opinion. The part about the insurrection I can't follow at all. Maybe you're misconstruing my point? You seem to be ascribing to me the exact opposite of my belief. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well per WP:BURDEN it would be your assertions that need to be backed by RS that you would provide. I've already said why I would not expect there to be any to be found, so I think we can move on. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably oppose -- conservatism is a big tent stretching from small govt libertarianism to all-consuming authoritarianism. Who are we to tell these people they can't be conservatives? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What leads you to understand "all-consuming authoritarianism" as being American Conservatism? Either RS or examples of your own would be a start. Oklahoma City bomber? Church and Synagogue shooters? KKK? Unite the Right?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many more that could have the template added to them (and probably should have the template added). As I said before and will keep saying the issue is with how the poorly the Conservatism and Liberalism in the U.S. templates are used when added to articles. The work needs to be done with them to set up unbiased guidelines for placement and have a fairly tight criteria for placement (for both templates). No longer should these templates be used for fanship. Your arguments to try to knock apart RS citations tying Oath Keepers to conservatism are increasingly appearing weak and lacking rationality. Not only is there no consensus to remove the template but it appears the balance is in favor of keeping the template in place with the arguments and citations to back them up. Myotus (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * are you thinking that the Oath Keepers are the same as the Oklahoma City bomber, Church and Synagogue shooters, and KKK? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The similarity is that they are not acting within the civic institutions and political framework that relate to "conservatism" etc. It's vastly documented what's included in the broad range of views that fall within conservatism, -- both moderate and extreme views within the context of American law and institutions. No source has been provided that characterizes secessionists, insurrectionists, and armed anti-government paramilitary organizations as conservative. The Oath Keepers as currently constituted and described in RS and the text of this article are not called "conservative". The fact that a misinfomed or under-informed IP tag-bombed the template a few years back does not mean we should misinform our readers. The only pro-template argument made on this thread -- that "far-right" etc. is the same as "conservative" -- is nowhere supported in RS or mainstream thinking.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, I thought we had sources, but they were unilaterally declared invalid because of their age? So which is it? We have RS that call them conservative, or we don't? in addition to being a logical fallacy, you're not WP:AGF.. you probably should be careful about WP:ASPERSIONS. After the "tag-bomb", there were 420 edits by more than 100 editors to the template, so clearly you're saying all those other editors are also "under-informed" (surely if they were "informed" they would have promptly removed the Oath Keepers from that infobox)? I have a thought, since we do seem to have "old" sources that call them conservative, can you provide new sources that document when they stopped being conservative? Or are we going to let you conduct original research in assuming they stopped at some indeterminate point? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd object to the notion that "secessionists, insurrectionists, and armed anti-government paramilitary organizations" can not be conservative (or liberal for that matter). If the law has been corrupted so that voting in elections is no longer functional, Second Amendment solutions are expressly considered. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not have mainstream Reliable Sources for the proposition that "second amendment remedies" are anything other than WP:FRINGE in the USA, let alone conservative. I am afraid that your statement disqualifies the view you express about encyclopedic content. Thanks for your forthright participation, however.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't read so far into it my friend, my view holds even if Second Amendment is not applied. And "Second Amendment" is capitalized, out of respect for the Constitution. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * U.S. conservatism is not an ideology, it merely refers to the right side of the U.S. political spectrum. Hence whereas in the rest of the world, politics might be placed along a left-right axis, in the U.S. it is placed along a liberal-conservative one. So Bernie Sanders and AOC are considered very liberal, although they are democratic socialists, and Ronald Reagan, who pioneered neoliberalism, is called a conservative. A writer for the National Review once called this the "great American semantic confusion." I guess since the term conservative has become respectable, establishment Democrats now want to disparage them by saying they are not real conservatives. But the article should reflect common usage, not DNC talking points. TFD (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, first, I have seen no sources stating that Democrats do not wish to call the Oath Keepers "conservative" -- so unless there's a source you wish to share, that one lives only in your personal worldview . But more importantly for this poll, please explain how it is disparaging to Conservatism for anyone to make clear that violent fascists are not "conservative". I would think that is preserving the well-established meaniing in America that conservative means like Senator Taft, Senator Goldwater, Reagan, and that stream. None of them were armed fascist insurrectionists, again exluding your personal beliefs.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sen. Taft never called himself a conservative, he called himself a liberal. And I don't see how Goldwater, who had to be persuaded to renounce KKK support and Reagan, who honored fallen SS soldiers, are conservatives, while their most vocal supporters are not.
 * I guess you missed Margaret Sullivan's Jan. 4 2021 article in the Washington Post, "We must stop calling Trump’s enablers ‘conservative.’ They are the radical right." She argues that since conservative has positive connotations, it's time to stop calling them that. The irony is that the reason they were called conservatives by New Dealers is that it was at the time a term of abuse.
 * I noticed incidentally that MMfA uses the term right-wing or variants of it instead of conservative to describe Republicans.
 * This reminds me of H. Clinton's campaign to "take back" the word progressive and stop using it for Sanders supporters.
 * TFD (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, that is such a garbled and contradictory rumination there can be no direct response. But I will repeat the central point it fails to address. None of the previous versions of mainstream conservatism were armed fascist militants who stormed the capital to overthrown the US Government. I wouln not call KKK or the unabomber "conservative" either but as to the question of this thread, there is no recent sourcing that calls them Conservative. You are quite misinformed as to US Senator Taft.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot find anywhere in Taft's writings or speeches where he called himself a conservative, just references to Herbert Hoover and himself as liberals. That's probably because he died in 1953, before the U.S. Right adopted the term. While you may want to redefine conservative as the tiny never-Trumper wing of the Republican party, it merely means the U.S. Right. Where are you getting your definition of U.S. conservatism anyway?
 * I don't know if Roger Stone's henchmen at the Brooks Brothers riot were armed, but they don't seem to meet criteria for conservatives either.
 * TFD (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of doing your WP:OR poring through random speeches of Senator Taft, I suggest you consult the mainstream literature on the subject. Just a quick sample of the first search results would be the following:
 * ''American Conservatism from Taft to Trump',' "Conservative hero Robert Taft"
 * Heritage Foundation, "Taft led the conservative Republican resistance to liberal Democrats..."
 * Roots of Modern Conservatism "Taft emerged as the more conservative..."
 * There are innumerable other published works that are more germane than a quick personal looksee.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

None of these sources support your claim. Lee Edwards, the in-house historian for modern conservatism wrote, "In fact, Kirk gave the conservative movement its name. In 1951, when William F. Buckley Jr. published his controversial best-seller “God and Man at Yale,” he described himself as an “individualist,” rejecting the label of “conservative.” However, when he launched his magazine National Review in 1955, two years after the appearance of “The Conservative Mind,” he identified National Review as a “conservative journal” and called himself a “conservative.”" Taft died before this semantic shift. Many political terms are adopted long after the movement has begun. TFD (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal, as per Endwise.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal they appear to be an important part of the Republican/MAGA-Trump movement. Andrevan@ 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal the template is just an effort to paint conservatism as far-right. Antifa (United States) does not have the Liberalism template below it, no reason this article should either. Bill Williams 16:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal pretty clearly a good fit to retain. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

History
The template was added with this edit (2019-07-10T19:16:45) by with the edit summary. So nearly three years ago, and apparently it has remained ever since until recently. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oath Keepers was added to (the template being discussed here) with this edit (2017-05-15T00:02:12) by  with no edit summary. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That IP link-bombed the Conservatism template (a thinly watched or participated page) with a long list of dubious entries including white supremecist and other inappropriate entries. Not the strongest pedigree, as if there were longstanding widely discussed consensus entries within, or with respect to, this template..<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be immensely helpful if you stopped putting words in my mouth. I took no position, nor did I make any inferences on this, I simply wanted to provide participants context. Now that you've decided to strawman this though, I will say that even though it was link bombed, it's telling that in the 5+ years it has been in the template nobody thought to remove it. It's also worth mentioning that one need not "watch or participate" at the template to see the entries listed on conservative articles where this is transcluded. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you please remove it from the template. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not while this RfC is open. WP:FAITACCOMPLI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

New ADL report
. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Orders Oath Keepers will not obey
This is central to oath keeper ideology but I don't see it specified anywhere, I think it can further illustrate their opposition to things like immigration.


 * 1) We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
 * 2) We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
 * 3) We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
 * 4) We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.
 * 5) We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
 * 6) We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
 * 7) We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
 * 8) We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
 * 9) We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
 * 10) We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

From the ADL report on the OathKeepers: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/The-Oath-Keepers-ADL-Report.pdf

-- 219.88.235.157 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We generally avoid including extended mission statements like this for the reasoning outlined in WP:MISSION. It being mentioned by the ADL isn't adequate reason to go against this. VQuakr (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That may be, but the inclusion, even if only on the talk page, may be useful to people trying to understand the ideology of the group. While we're at it, somebody needs to include something about Rhodes "We The People" tattoo and it's increasing popularity among law enforcement officers - It's showing up in news video with alarming frequency. How would you feel if you called for police assistance and all the officers showed up sporting fascist tattoos? You certainly will want to have enough knowledge to avoid becoming an unwitting victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:49 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Far-Right
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 Wikipedia 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. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are still incorrect in saying that. -Conservative Alabamian (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Conservative Alabamian Which of our guidelines and policies make you think Acroterion is incorrect? Doug Weller  talk 07:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, which is different. If you have multiple independent reliable sources 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. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Conservative Alabamian is now User:HistoryGuy94 and pinging their old username doesn't work - and I think the software should be fixed so it does. Doug Weller  talk 09:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022
Please change his name to Elmer Stewart Rhodes or give me access. Thank you. Dreed503 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "change his name", and what is your source for this? 331dot (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 01:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Elmer Stewart Rhodes
should there be a separate article on Elmer Stewart Rhodes, as an individual Patbahn (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Might get redirected (again), but stub at Stewart Rhodes --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhodes
The first use of his name the article is at: Prominent members > Elmer Stewart Rhodes and links to this article, please pipe to Stewart Rhodes also please link the same in the info box, which leaves the redirect alone for it own uses as prescribed. thanks 2404:4408:638C:5E00:59:1B5B:5ADB:6C25 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Declutter the lead
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. [4]

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. [4]

166.205.97.48 (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Claim that Oath Keepers support "Sovereign Citizens" and "Posse Comitatus"
Instead of just reverting without justification, please provide a single quote from the sources that actually states this, or the notion that they think sheriffs are the highest authorities of the land. I read through the entirety of the sources and never do they specifically state that the Oath Keepers' leadership or most of their members support these views. Do they not obsess over Donald Trump, someone who certainly isn't a sheriff, and attacked the capital in support of him? I'm confused where that even comes from the sources. Bill Williams 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Prior discussion at Talk:Oath_Keepers/Archive_2. I'm also not sure where you're getting anything about "most of their members". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an article about the Oath Keepers, this claim is relating to the Oath Keeper leadership, and there is nothing in the sources that ever claims the Oath Keeper leadership supports any of this. My point is that there is no source stating that the majority of Oath Keepers support this either, so if neither the leadership nor a majority of Oath Keepers believes this then why is it in the lead? Bill Williams 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally if you look through the past discussion, as I have repeatedly stated none of the sources ever specifically connect the Oath Keepers to the claims that are in the lead of this article, the sources just mention the Oath Keepers in one part of their article and then mention some other people who support Sovereign Citizens/Posse Comitatus in a different part of the article, never claiming they are Oath keepers. Bill Williams 16:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read through the sources, the most any of them say relating to this claim is that "one Oath Keeper" has views that "echo those of the Posse Comitatus," never claiming he is leadership or that even a substantial portion of the group agrees with this, while another source states that again "one member" of a different group that is "sovereign citizens" went to a speech given by an Oath Keeper. This does not support the claim expressed in the lead of this Wikipedia article, and it completely violates WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE because "sovereign citizen" and "posse comitatus" isn't even mentioned anywhere in the entire body of this article, just the one sentence in the lead. Bill Williams 16:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first and third references specifically state what you say they don't, that OK are part of the PC and sovcit extremistspectrum and share some of their beliefs. We don't accept self-referencing from within an organization's ranks, and in fact we discourage it. The other two sources are in my view over-citing, but they generally support the "constitutional sheriff" ideology, which is a core belief of the organization.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of claiming the sources "specifically state" what I am contesting, can you please quote the part where they actually state this? I specifically quoted the only portions of the sources that ever relates to the claim, and it never proves the claim at all. This has nothing to do with "self-referencing," the sources literally do not claim that the leadership of the Oath Keepers supports sovereign citizens, Posse Comitatus, or the random nonsense about sheriffs. Bill Williams 17:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I've removed the word "leadershp." I believe that addresses your concern.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the referencing, the whole lede is overcited, which is commonplace in articles about extremist groups, where there are many attempts to water down content to something anodyne. Please remember that the lede is a summary of the sourced body of the article, and doesn't stand on its won.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You still have yet to do the one thing that I have asked, which is to provide a single quote that connects the Oath Keepers to anything in the lead. "The group has ties" is not an actual claim by the SPLC and it is false to place this in the lead, all the SPLC did is state that a single person out of an estimated 5,000 members supported something, while a different article states that a single person from a different group went to a single speech and tried to recruit some Oath Keepers to support something. Pretending like that is notable for a substantial portion of the lead, when once again it is not even in the body of this article because you cannot provide a single quote that actually claims the group has any significant ties to any of this. It is WP:OR to paint one person in the Oath Keepers or one person outside of the Oath Keepers as showing the movement has "ties" to anything. The second source doesn't even mention the term "posse comitatus" or "sovereign citizen" a single time in the entire source, so that shouldn't be included as a source in the lead. Bill Williams 17:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'm not going to, because I'm not keen on editors who make such demands when they can read the references themselves, and who jump into contentious articles to demand that other editors accommodate them, when the burden to persuade and find agreement rests with them. All of the references (which are too many) discuss the mingling of OK, PC and sovcit philosophies, and the first one explicitly discusses the convergence of the PC idea with Oath Keepers concerning the idea that sheriffs are the highest authorities. See para 8, and the end of the third reference. You appear to be trying to make a narrow case that such ideas represent the views of single individuals, which in the context of the articles is nonsense. The articles discuss movements, not individuals. However, I think the "chiefly" might place too much emphasis on that single element, when the thrust of the paragraph and the sources simply covers the mingling of philosophies.
 * Personally, I think that part of the lede should be a section of the article, which can then be summarized into a shorter lede, and that the discussion should more fully emphasize the convergence of ideas rather than specific elements like the sheriff supremacy idea, although that is all but explicit in the OK's "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey," which are shaded toward rejection of federal and state authority in favor of local authority. However, I would caution you that there should be a consensus found first for such a change. In any case, please suggest specific wording, rather than tag-bombing sources when your concern primarily appears to rest with article content.
 * I think the article is starting to show its age, based on my reading of the voluminous material from Stanford, which shows a drift into overt political involvement rather than passive resistance to state and local authority.

 Acroterion   (talk)   01:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stanford discussion of the history and philosophy of the Oath Keepers
 * You can't even provide a single quote from any of the sources that backs up what is currently in the lead, even though I have repeatedly asked you to do so. Once again, the sources don't actually back up what is in the lead, and the lead currently implies that "sovereign citizen" and "posse comitatus" leadership controls the Oath Keepers when no evidence for this exists. They are a dangerous movement and misrepresenting their views doesn't benefit anyone. Bill Williams 12:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I still await a single quote of anything that says "the group... espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen and Posse Comitatus movements, chiefly, that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in the United States" when only two of the four citations even relates to this at all, and they simply state that a single Oath Keeper believes this, literally one person and never stating that the group as a whole believes this. I think misleading readers about the beliefs of a dangerous group is a bad idea, and see no reason why this content belongs in the lead; it is completely UNDUE and has zero sentences in the body which violates the concept of the lead summarizing the body. Bill Williams 23:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've stated, the body should incorporate the material referenced in the lede, and the lede should be condensed. As for your interpretation concerning the sources assertion of collective philosophy, I've already given you an answer. That you disagree is not my concern, you still need to find consensus for any changes of that kind, including your extremely narrow interpretation of the article's emphasis. Illustrative interviews are not grounds for a narrow attribution to the individual being quoted. The SPLC is the source that makes the strongest link between sovcit and OK, and is quoted widely in other coverage. The statement in the article is correctly attributed to the SPLC, rather than making a broad statement. The lede should probably be more focused on OK as part of a conspiratist and anti-government continuum, and the SPLC statement should be moved down into the article body.
 * However, since you keep bringing it up, here are more sources that concern the convergence or overlap of OK and sovcit: "In practice, the group is more akin to extreme sovereign citizen and other far-right movements" and "This report ... highlights the activities of the Oath Keepers, a right-wing anti-government extremist group that blends sovereign citizen and white supremacist dogmas and theories" from Middlebury College Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, "One of the Oath Keepers’ oldest relationships to anti-government movements is its relationship with the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA).61 The founder of CSPOA, Richard Mack, was also a founding member of the Oath Keepers.62 CSPOA is premised on a belief that overlaps with sovereign citizen ideology that the county sheriff is the highest authority in the county, capable of overriding even the federal government.", from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, and "Along with national militia organizations like the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters (whose core beliefs overlap significantly with sovereign citizens)" from Oregon Public Broadcasting.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a lengthy discussion of the links between and historical continuity between OK, PC, CSPOA and sovcits in this Rolling Stone article   Acroterion   (talk)   02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering you just quoted none of the four sources currently cited in the lead, are you admitting that they contain none of the supposed content that they are citing? I believe if you add your sources with their content to the body then it's fine to keep it in the lead, my objection was to using completely irrelevant sources to include this information in the lead. Bill Williams 18:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to stop treating discussions as personal contests for some form of winning. This is a discussion page for article improvement. I've explained at length what I think about your demands, how the articles interpret the statements, and have provided additional sources to back up the assertions int he SPLC articles that you are trying to interpret as statements of individual opinion rather than the broader context that is supported by all sources. You are trying to apply an individual interpretation to a standard journalistic technique of making a statement and backing it up with quotes. In any case, I trust that we've settled the matter of the continuum between the groups and ideologies mentioned. I still think the article needs reorganization adnd updating.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A previous religious affiliated organization?
I seem to remember a previous organization named (iirc) "Oath Keepers" (I don't think it is related to this organization).

IIRC, I ran into the organization at various church functions, and, iiuc, their focus was on father's fulfilling their fatherhood (my choice of words).

Does anybody remember that organization? Did I get the name wrong? Does it still exist? Is it related or somehow a predecessor of this organization?

Thanks for any information! I'm sorry if this entry doesn't meet the criteria for appearing on a talk page -- hmm, but if there is another organization with the same name, I think it should be mentioned (and "disambiguated" somewhere (if not related to this organization)).

Rhkramer (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Promise Keepers. At the top of this article there is a "not to be confused with" cross-link. They are unrelated except for the similar name. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I was (indeed) confused. Rhkramer (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Include sources in the template
"Ideology" and "Allegiance" need source and notes. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023
Adding sources for the ideology parameter. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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
 * These ideologies in the infobox need sources:
 * American nationalism
 * Conservatism
 * Right-libertarianism
 * White supremacy (alleged, denied by the organization)
 * Trumpism 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @93.45.229.98 Edit requests are not for asking other people to do work for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts I can't edit the article there is a block, so I made an edit request. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @93.45.229.98 Yes, but it's your obligation to provide sources, not the person answering your edit request. Please review WP:ER and WP:ERSAMPLE, provide reliable sources, and then reopen your edit request per the ER instructions. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts No, maybe I wasn't clear. In the infobox, the ideology parameter has no source to support the ideologies (see WP:OR). If there are no sources please remove it (this is the edit request). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have described the organization's politics as all of those things, as reflected in the article. There doesn't need to be a citation for every point in the infobox. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts In the article the terms "right-libertarianism," "white supremacy," etc. appear only in the infobox (and in the infobox there are no sources). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick google search uncovers several reliable sources that describes the Oath Keepers using those (and other) terms. FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of pushing to delete things where sources exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts Firstly, the sources must be cited in the article (not simply exist outside Wikipedia), secondly I can only make editing requests (because the article is protected), and third none of the sources you quoted describe Oath Keepers as "white supremacist."
 * In the first source "white supremacist group" refers to the Proud Boys; in the second source idem - article speaks of distinct groups KKK or neo-Nazi skinheads (white supremacists) and Three Percenters and Oath Keepers (far-right militias); CSIS article mentions islamophobia and nativism which is different from white supremacism.
 * The only source I found - similar to white supremacism - is in The Conversation in an article by a scholar who accuses both Donald Trump and Oath Keepers of being "white nationalists," ergo WP:FRINGE.
 * As I said it would be a case of putting sources for the rest of the ideologies as well. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023
I was a juror in the trial of Rhodes, Meggs, Caldwell, Watkins and Harrelson. This topic isn't covered well so there isn't much to edit, but, one thing that is wrong in the Oathkeepers post is that Thomas Caldwell, was not an Oathkeeper, he just knew them and supported them, but if I put on a Ravens Jersey and go to a game, it doesn't mean I'm a Baltimore Raven. Thomas Caldwell met them at a rally in Virginia and allowed them to camp at his farm in Berryville. His only other connection was staying at the same hotel with them and wearing a shirt for a picture on the morning on Jan 6. For the hotel part, he made a reservation there as he lived locally and gave advice to others that it was a good place to stay and those from Florida and Ohio, made a reservation at the same Comfort Inn, he didn't store his weapon with theirs, which according to him was an antique rifle that he brought only to show Ranger Doug. The Oathkeepers have a formal process to join their organization and Thomas Caldwell didn't complete it, he never should have been grouped as a "leader of the organization" and tried with them. I wish we could have found him not guilty of everything but he did go "out of bounds" on capitol grounds so we found him guilty of obstruction of a procedure and he deleted a bunch of Facebook messages the day that Jessica Watkins was contacted by the FBI so we found him guilty of destruction of evidence as from that point he reasonably could have assumed that he was going to be investigated. 216.81.94.73 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR: Crypto-fascism
It is yet another ideology that is inserted without any source. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023
Remove crypto-fascism per no sources. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)