User talk:Hhvazquez

Hello, I'm Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Regarding Oath Keepers
The wording on that page is (a) sourced to reliable sources and verifiable, and has been arrived at by consensus. Plus, your edits mirror a lot of previous edits by IP-based and new-account vandals, and your very few edits only exist on that article trying to re-apply the actions of vandals while the page was recently protected due to editors doing what you were doing. You're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page for the article, but suffice to say: the "Oath Keepers" point of view is well documented on the page already. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much for the speedy response and willingness to dialogue the article. As you are no doubt aware, there has been more than a little discussion on media bias, even within reliable sources. Taking into account your referenced sources, there seems to be a consensus, however from a skewed and biased perspective. As an example of a more balanced rendering of some events, I would recommend you read the following: http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-ferguson-blacklivesmatter-michael-brown-black-lives-matter-second-363994 -- Also, users on the talkbalk page for the article have also provided lucid and valid arguments, e.g., "Even the SPLC article admits that the movement's founder "was no conspiracy theorist" (strangely, this bit didn't make it into the Wikipedia's voice summary). The fact that this kind of movement is going to attract nutters is real, but also trivial, and indeed mostly a problem for the people supporting the movement (while it is free ammunition for their detractors). The idea that US federal politics has moved away from the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution is perfectly sane, as is the idea to appeal to the oath taken on the Constitution as something to be taken seriously. This doesn't make the movement a "radical" one in any way, nor is it "anti-government", as far as I can see it self-describes as actually pro-government in the sense that they do want a stable government dedicated to upholding the constitution. Nothing of this is to deny that no matter how sane their foundational principles, they then go on to attract all kinds of nutters and radicals, and it is perfectly fair to cover that, as long as it is done explicitly and neutrally. ::--dab (𒁳) 06:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)" It doesn't seem that a person can both be an "oath keeper" and anti-government, that is quite a stretch and I daresay, a false and misleading narrative. My recommendation is merely to provide balance by providing more sources regarding the organizations and their activities. I would be glad to conduct this research and provide you the data, should you be willing to consider them. I would like for Wikipedia to be a voice of reason, above the usual-biased fray that has unfortunately permeated true discourse. Hhvazquez (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (A) it's pretty clear that you are someone's sockpuppet and
 * (B) you're re-hashing things that the history of the talk page make clear were hashed out long ago.


 * As for "It doesn't seem that a person can both be an "oath keeper" and anti-government", that's not true. Many of these so-called "oath keepers" claim that the federal government is either (a) illegitimate or (b) in danger of becoming so and therefore in need of overthrowing by violence. Many of them also subscribe to "sovereign citizen" theories like the idea that the federal government was replaced by a fake one and the constitution by a fake one. And as for the founder being or not being a conspiracy theorist - the SPLC page on him makes clear that he is.


 * https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/elmer-stewart-rhodes-0


 * But just as central is the group’s list of 10 “Orders We Will Not Obey,” a compendium of much-feared but entirely imaginary threats from the government — orders, for instance, to force Americans into concentration camps, confiscate their guns, or cooperate with foreign troops in the United States. These supposed threats are, in fact, part of the central conspiracy theory advocated by the antigovernment “Patriot” movement of which the Oath Keepers is a part — the baseless claim that the federal government plans to impose martial law, seize Americans’ weapons, force those who resist into concentration camps, and, ultimately, push the country into a one-world socialistic government known as the “New World Order.”


 * If anything, your quick return following the page's semiprotection expiring shows why the page needed semiprotection until today due to either your or one of your friends' earlier vandalism attempts, and why I made the right decision in re-listing as you immediately returned to try pushing your POV agenda again on the page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)