| Revision as of 19:08, 2 December 2009 edit70.173.152.197 (talk) →false information on Oath Keepers: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:17, 16 September 2024 edit undo24.113.220.5 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Oath Keepers/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi | date = 11 August 2015 | result = '''keep''' | page = Oath Keepers}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Nevada|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|long}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Allegiance to Trump? == |
|
==Addition of material, discussion of Tags== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? ] (]) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
I have aded a couple of cites from both CNN and the Nevada SOS to the article, and done some minor rearrangement to get the ball rolling. I think is is critical to review to wording to remove and POV material and hold onto relevant information that conforms to NPOV. Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
:Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. ] (]) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I am so glad... this is such a horrible group and I am so happy to see[REDACTED] has uncovered them. They are a very racist group and are making a private army... isn't it interesting that only the army are in the Oath keepers? They all have guns. I hope the poverty center arrests them or something before they do real serious harm to our country. It is horrible that people from the army are getting together and talking about a revolution and scary. How is that legal? I have two kids to worry about and I'm worried that their future is in jeopardy because of anti-Obama anti-government gun wielding groups like this. It has to be tracked so we know. Thanks for listening. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 == |
|
::No, you have been misinformed by this[REDACTED] article. It is not only the army who are members. Police, firefighters also make up a large portion of the Oath Keepers membership, and citizens such as yourself are members. Women are members. Mothers are members. I would actually suggest your follow some of the links at the bottom of the article and read up about the organization yourself. We are only advocating that our members stand down when given unlawful orders. Please see the Oath Keepers website for more information. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Oath Keepers|answered=yes}} |
|
== To say "public safety" or "law enforcement" personnel? == |
|
|
|
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. |
|
|
-Oath Keepers |
|
|
Pro government. Constitutional service organization. ] (]) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is incoherent. ]] 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Blaze == |
|
Which is more neutral language? In The Los Angeles Times they say "public safety personnel" but in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle they say "law enforcement personnel." ] (]) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Both sound pretty neutral, in my opinion. --] (]) 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze. |
|
:I agree, although I'd point out that there's a subtle difference between the two. "Public safety personnel" would include non-police personnel, such as firefighters and EMT's, where "law enforcement personnel" wouldn't. --] (]) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says |
|
== Buchanan == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834 |
|
Pat just wrote an article on this subject. Good for sources: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091019_alienated.htm <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
== false information on Oath Keepers == |
|
|
|
:{{tq|Your direct support ensures that the stores that matter most, those buried by Big Tech and the mainstream media narratives, will be brought to light.}} Yeah, no way. ] (]) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] is useful for checking the reliability of sources. In this case it says "Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts." ] (]) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
Oath Keepers is no longer teamed up with the liberty summit and the post has been taken off the website. |
|
The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct.
-Oath Keepers
I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze.
