Talk:Patriot movement/Archive 1

Bias
This article is very biased. The majority of references are either from a source known for liberal bias, and most of the points made contain a liberal bias. For instance you admit below that "Credible third-party sources show that adherents of this movement eschew the militant far right and their ideologies" and yet the article constantly refers to militant, racists and the like. This is in no way reflective of the truth about the modern patriot movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatHappenedToAmerica? (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think where the bias creeps in is in having the progressive and liberal groups summarize what patriot groups believe. To make the article fair, someone needs to research what the groups actually say so that they can speak for themselves rather than be straw man for a progressive conspiracy theory. Mrdthree (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Amen. The same situation is STILL happening, and everytime a decent person tries to do something, we are accused of starting an "edit war". I read down below in the talk where it states that the NYT is the "most reliable source you can get". Totally shamefull for an overall un-biased website. I have been using Wikipedia since I was 8 years old, and this is absolutely disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamjamguy (talk • contribs) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect removed
This page originally redirected to Christian patriot movement, which is actually a subcategory within this larger social movement. To disambiguate and improve the subject, I expanded this article and listed several the subcategories within this movement that I am aware of. There is plenty of third-source material out there for anyone wishing to help me improve this article. However, editors should be careful about POV statements made by critics of this social movement that seek to confuse the uninformed. For years groups like the ADL and especially the SPLC (see article) have sought to incorrectly associate this broad movement with the militant far-right fringe. Credible third-party sources show that adherents of this movement eschew the militant far right and their ideologies. As a good NPOV starting point, I drew from some source material at Constitution.org which links to many organizations, articles, published peer-review papers, and much more on the patriot movement. I heartily encourage people to contact me at my talk page and share your personal comments. JP419 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It redirected because that page was moved from this location to address title POV concerns (exactly the sort raised below by Abigail.adamsLives). They should not be separate articles unless a fair number of sources distinguish between the two (which don't exist, to my knowledge). 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk)

Concern
Comment by Abigail Adams of Boston, MA: This 'info' demonizes the US Constitution and love of this Country. It is pure propaganda and I am going to send this link all over the media outlets. Wiki should be ashamed to allow this type of gross 'info' to be published. Its negligent to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail.adamsLives (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are your specific issues with the article? It seems to be sourced sufficently. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Article issues
The articles beginning paragraph is now horribly biased with linked opinion pieces as sources or completely non related sources. Could use a good edit or complete reconstruction. AS it is now, the page doesn't deserve to be open.Percelle

I removed some content that was blatantly plagiarized from. The article still is overly promotional in nature.

I also added a tag for only using self-published sources. A quick search finds some better sources:

MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They're in the news supporting Joe Stack:
 * MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that the lefties are back putting POV back into this article. Dare I ask why this disease isn't being treated? Since when are patriots or a movement of patriots extremist, lunatic, etc? The citations used clearly demonstrate POV because these citations involve publications that do not provide NPOV or fact-based reporting of the subject, just ad hominems. This is sad. JP419 (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which citations? MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire article is still extremely biased and essentially chooses sides with the SPL. BenW (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Comments like "...include organized militia members, tax protesters, sovereign or state citizens, quasi-Christian apocalypticists, or combinations thereof" are just completely bonkers, not because it's not true, but because ALL major political groups include these fringe elements.  These elements, however, are NOT representational of the Tea Party movement as a whole, any more than they're representational of the Democratic or Republican Parties.  Take me for example:  I'm not a member of any organized militia, I pay my taxes, I'm simply a Christian, not some "quasi-Christian," and I'm certainly not an "apocalypticist."  As for the comment about "sovereign or state citizen," whoever wrote that must have failed Civics 101, wherein we learned about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  A quick look at the 9th and 10th Amendment reveals the Bill of Rights' support for individual and state rights and authority over the fed:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  So, is this article biased?  Oh, yeah, VERY MUCH so.04:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.235.36 (talk)

This is a very negative view of the Patriot movement (remember your history? how the US came to be?). The current Patriotism movement is a reaction to the loss of freedoms, out-of-control US Government, anti-Constitutional laws/regulations/Executive Orders. Most Patriots today are not racist and are not terrorists (although the term according to the US Government might apply). Consider the Patriots a body of people prepared to stand up for their "unalienable" rights to own guns and property. Contrary to the US Government's belief that our rights are given to us by the government. Has it occurred to anyone that the growth in numbers of Patriots/militias is NOT a negative thing, that they are exercising their freedom of speech and abiding by the US Constitution? The fact that there are more of these groups shows that there are many citizens unhappy with the direction the US Government is heading. The first part of the 2nd amendment is often ignored: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  Freedom depends on attention to ALL of the constitution, not selective sections.) --Kamelot74 (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I undid your edits because they were expressing a point of view rather than encyclopedic information about the subject. If you have specific source-able information you would like added, that would be much better.  MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Kamelot, you're right on target! Re-introduce your edits.  I'll back you.  MakeBelieveMonster, you're not.  I suggest you apply your "sourceable info" criteria to the incredulous edits heavily biased against those who support our country (it's a republic - says so in our Constitution) and the Constitution upon which it stands, that legal document from which all other U.S. law is derived.  BTW, the term "Republic" simply means "based on rule of law."  The Constitution is that basis.  That's why it's been known as the "law of the land" for well over 200 years.  Get with the program.  Stop making stuff up!05:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.235.36 (talk)

Sources contradicting the SPLC are what is needed to bring balance; one can cite CNN, NPR or lots of news orgs that are essentially parroting the SPLC. I especially take issue with the idea that 'hate groups' radically increased in number after Obama's election, leading some on the political left to believe their opponents are simply racists. Here are potential sources. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343115/splc-and-slant-patrick-brennan   http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-southern-poverty-law-center-splc-and-its-so-called-hate-groups   http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/southern_poverty_law_centers_lucrative_hate_group_label.html   http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/28/isnt-the-southern-poverty-law-center-the-real-hate-group-2/   24.229.98.151 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Partisanship in a quasi-anarchist movement??
This article should have a section explaining how partisanship can exist in movement obsessed with rights and freedoms, when both parties seem about equal in this respect? For example, are the Republicans better at adressing this crowd (not their needs but speaking to) than the Democrat party? Better media relations? Or perhaps it is the visibility of gun restriction (More favoured by Democrats) vs. the invisibility of Republican rights 'infringements' such as spying on Citizens etc...? Someone with the time and knowledge could compile opinions from journal articles and editorials etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.126.113 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page; that's most common practice. As for your question, I've been doing some research and will be adding more info on political views. The group is generally conservative... really, anarchism is quite conservative. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This box contains (unsourced) material I've taken out of the article and will add back if there are sources:


 * Tax Honesty Movement - Citizens within this category are primarily focused upon exposing the American people to the truth about tax law in this country. Having read the law and the federal court cases interpreting tax law, these people believe the American people are ill-informed and misinformed about the nature of the income tax. They assert that the U.S. income tax is misapplied, possibly on purpose. One example of the groups within this broad movement is the We the People Foundation (for Constitutional Education).
 * Non-enumeration and Privacy Rights - This group believes that enumeration of the population, whether made mandatory by law (such as a national ID) or, as a mere "consequence" of Social Security Number usage, is unacceptable. Some hold this view for practical and political reasons, while other object to enumeration on religious grounds. This view is part of a larger movement that focuses on the right of individuals to assert their privacy under the 4th Amendment, including digital (online) privacy. An example of a digital privacy group would be the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
 * Fair Use or Property Rights - These groups focus on the increasing seizure of private property by all levels of government, the restriction of the right of the people to use their private property in a manner that doesn't infringe on the rights of others, or government mandates & regulations that create such a financial burden upon their property rights as to constitute a "taking" of that property under the common law. A special focus of some is Eminent Domain, an issue that gained national attention in the case of Kelo v. City of New London.
 * Christian Patriots - These citizens are deeply concerned about the erosion of America's Christian heritage and the fundamental role it played in the formation of the nation, from the earliest days of colonization through the American Revolution and into the early 20th Century. While some Christian Patriots are part of the Religious Right, not all Christian Patriots share the ideology or agenda of the "religious right"; i.e. "Moral Majority".
 * Tea Party movement - These patriots assert that government spending, particularly at the state and federal level, is completely out of control. Their stated fear is that this undisciplined spending will lead to the collapse of our government and/or our economy, based on the financial crisis that developed in 2008. Some adherents to this cause believe this reckless spending is a deliberate effort. See Cloward-Piven Strategy and fiscal conservatism.
 * Oath Keepers / Constitutional defenders - Some members of the patriot movement serve in the military and as police, and declare their intent to faithfully uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights without exception. This aspect of the patriot movement is a recent development, but is an outgrowth of the "Police Against the New World Order" created by Jack McLamb.

Question about source rules
The assertion that the "political economy" of the movement centers around a "social contract" is sourced to a group called the Constitution Society. Its website names no governing body or officers. How do we know this is an authoritative source? Albert Sumlin (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 


 * We don't. Really, I doubt there exists an authoritative source. I left that text in when I revised the article, since it seems to be at least one perspective they have, but if you want to remove it go ahead. It's essentially meaningless anyway. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The so-called "Constitution Society" aka "Constitution.org" is really a one man website run by Jon Roland who is most famous for his patriot militia group called the "Texas Constitutional Militia". We should be careful using this as a source because it doesn't seem to meet the policy requirement of "third-party (independent), published sources". SaltyBoatr get wet 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I put in a source request for the claim that "The patriot movement is considered to have begun around 1958 with the formation of the John Birch Society". Someone put in a citation to "Confronting right-wing extremism and terrorism in the USA" By George Michael. That book can be Google-searched, and it looks to me that the editor who linked to it is thinking of this : "The current militia movement owes much of its worldview to the legendary anti-Communist organization, the John Birch Society" (which not actually the same as saying the militia movement began with the JBS.) Now my question is this: do we consider the Patriot Movement to be synonymous with the Militia movement? There is a separate article on the Militia movement -- perhaps this claim should be moved to that article. Or if the two movements are really the same movement, perhaps the articles should be combined? Albert Sumlin (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 


 * Yes, based on reading those four pages in the book, the modern militia movement as defined by that author, (among others), is considered to be very closely linked with the patriot movement, if not identical. See page 44-47, on pg 44 "The Christian Patriot movement or militia movement gained much attention..."; this author sees this as one homogeneous group as least as far as the origin goes. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Albert Sumlin (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 


 * Perhaps, though, I think not. I think that author is lumping the modern militia movement into the Christian Patriot Movement, as least for the discussion of their origin. Adherents of the patriot movement that are not all members of a modern militia. Though, most (or all) militia movement members that are adherents of the patriot movement. That said, I think it is sourced that both movements can look to the John Birch Society as important in their common lineage. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the Militia Movement is a subgroup of the Patriot Movement, along with other variations such as the Oath Keepers and the Christian Patriots. It's probably best to keep the articles separate, although this article could certainly do a better job of describing the various subgroups. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be very careful about making overly broad assertions about this movement. It is comprised of a rather motley assortment of groups and individuals who have perhaps a few ideological points in common. The sources that are being cited make some very general statements linking the movement to the JBS or racist viewpoints, which somehow get transformed into far stronger and more specific statements in the article. How can a movement this vaguely defined have a "reformist wing" and an "insurgent wing"? I'm looking at these quotes from "Patriots, politics, and the Oklahoma City bombing" by Stuart A. Wright and I see no assertion that the movement "is considered to have begun in 1958 with the formation of the John Birch Society," just that it is possible to connect the two. We could say that the Birchers took some positions that are reflected in today's patriot movement, but I don't think it is safe to assert - as fact, not opinion - that the movement "began with the Birchers." Albert Sumlin (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 

I should also mention that the article Militia movement seems far more responsible in the kind of assertions made. For example, the way they cover the same issue of the relationship to the JBS is by saying "Many of their views are similar to the John Birch Society, tax protester movement, county supremacy movement, state sovereignty movement, and the states’ rights movement," which I believe is a more careful way of putting it, without overreaching. Albert Sumlin (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 


 * Of course, the difference is that the Patriot Movement is a broader category which includes all of these groups (JBS et al). With regard to the "reformist wing" / "insurgent wing" distinction, we should really clarify the origin of those terms. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Albert Sumlin (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)  sock of banned editor 

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit for bias needed.
The claim that Waco and the OK City bombing being part of the Patriot Movement has to be redacted. A New york Times anti-Patriot is not a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is as reliable a source as you can get. Without checking, NYT editorials are not reliable sources, but articles are.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since article does not make that claim, there is no need for redaction. TFD (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-label or observer label?
In 1994 there are claims of self-identification as a 'Patriot Movement'. A website in 2007+ by a George Wallace seems to suggest this as well but is  not explicit and is not a reliable source. It would be useful to examine the correspondence between the self-label and the observer label, if self-label still exists. Mrdthree (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Should this page be locked?
There are too many Social Justice Warriors and progressive pov-pushers ruining this article, by reverting edits I and several others have made removing such bias. I personally think that this page should be locked to prevent this. User:Hamjamguy (talk) 05:05, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey there, removing a ref'd statement that's 3+ years old, mentioning how you feel as reason, and claiming "bias" that you are cleaning up ticks a lot of checkboxes. As does claiming that I am a "Social Justice Warrior" without cause. Please do occupy your time trying to prove that, the other editors will appreciate the break from your other efforts. Of course, you could also find some refs for your text? Shenme (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Shenme, the source provided was the SPLC website, a known leftist group that aims to group unrelated movements with white supremacists. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll keep reverting your changes until you stop acting like a child. (and by the way, I will revert them, and add to mine a source, just for your convinience. :) User:Hamjamguy (User talk:Hamjamguy) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is far from a WP:RS. Also, please read WP:BRD and WP:EW. --Neil N  talk to me 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We need a consensus
Ok, as you all know, this page has been the target of an editing war over the claim that the group has racial undertones. Specifically, the line in the second paragraph that states the sole reason for the group's anger:Barack Obama. While many of these groups express dislike for the president, he is not their sole target, nor is it a reason of race. Their discontent is best stated in an article not written by their enemy, but by themselves! There is no possible way for a fair message to be stated by the very people that call them extremists! I understand it may seem like a WP:RS, but it shouldn't be a target of debate over what they view! Look at it this way: Would an article on a PlayStation be fair if it was written by Xbox fans? The page for Windows written by Apple lovers? Of course not! This is the case here; and it isn't fair when the intent of the group is stated by their enemy. I am open to discussion, and any (reasonable) changes. Thanks. User talk:Hamjamguy
 * It would help if you did not misrepresent article content. If you do not know what I'm referring to, please read the second paragraph again. And no, subjects don't get to add their unanalyzed justifications to articles. Otherwise we'd have Al-Qaeda as the defenders of true Islam rather than being a terrorist organization. --Neil N  talk to me 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying, but let's flip the hypothetical situation around, because you don't seem to understand that this isn't al-Qaeda. Now, lets say that we had the article for the United States written from the perspective of North Korea. (the US being the subject of the article and North Korea being the SPLC). Well, North Korea would say that the US is a backwards, evil, imperialistic nation that refuses to feed its people, and that we drink melted snow and sleep in tents in the middle of the street. (no joke, this is what they say about us [| (video here)]. The SPLC, along with NPR (though the bias is not as extreme with NPR) say that these groups are racially rooted, and that the Patriot movement is just a bunch of backwards, rebel rednecks. Now, I am not for either side, but I just think we need to stop acting ridiculous and think about this for a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamjamguy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, does this appear un-biased to you? Right off the bat, it calls them racist in the title. See, just because some asshat decides to write an essay doesn't make it credible. (this is the second reference footnote in this article)

Dear Hamjamguy: If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is biased, the SPLC should not be used as a source for describing the "discontent" of members of the Patriot movement. That is not going to be a valid objection. In Wikipedia, the SPLC is a reliable source. The fact that the SPLC is (or may be) biased -- for example, as a left-leaning organization -- would not disqualify the use of the SPLC source. In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be biased.

In Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View (NPOV) does not mean because the SPLC is biased, we cannot use the SPLC to describe the patriot movement. NPOV means that we can indeed use BIASED sources -- as long as the Wikipedia article itself does not take sides as to who is right and who is wrong. That means that the material must be presented in a neutral way. Famspear (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Famspear,


 * The problem is that, the article IS biased. Almost all the sources use biased content. This article is the most pathetic thing on Wikipedia. I just don't know how to put it simply enough: I WANT A FAIR ARTICLE! I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT HARD OF A CONCEPT TO GRASP, PEOPLE! Seriously, though, this is extremely ridiculous. You get my point (hopefully). I don't want to see Wikipedia turn into the biased hell that is Reddit.Hamjamguy (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to Birchers?
Where is the reliable source for this? Certainly, from anything resembling a mainstream point of view the JBS is out there, and has been condemned by everyone from William F. Buckley, Jr. to Noam Chomsky, but it is considerably older than this iteration of the Patriot Movement, and while both are anti-Federal Government and have other similarities, there is not anything near a complete commonality between the mostly-middle class and largely, at least, somewhat well-educated Birchers and the more working-class and rural Patriots other than it is probably realistic to link both to far-right politics rather than directly to each other. 2600:1004:B16A:1E3C:9871:80C:B80D:14FB (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question, what's a JBS? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias again
This article is incredibly biased, comparing the mere ideology of American Patriotism look like domestic terrorism is absolutely insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subsidised Time (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

These are domestic terrorists, why hide it? Call a spade a spade. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SPLC as a source
All material on the SPLC web site is self-published. Insofar as it discloses the evidence on which it bases assertions, that evidence can be considered in arriving at the same conclusion. Assertions that it presents without supporting evidence should be confirmed through a more reliable source. This includes assertions to the effect that "more and more Patriots are believing XYZ." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and immediate after stating this, you removed a source with an edit summary "See talk page. The SPLC source makes assertions going well beyond the evidence that it presents" Oddly, the article you removed shows that it is not a self-published source: The author, Alexander Zaitchik is not the publisher. Vexations (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we have better sources than the SPLC then feel free to present them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're correct that the article in question is not self-published. I regret the claim and, with your permission, would like to delete this section. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)