| Revision as of 03:45, 19 June 2020 editNotTheFakeJTP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,681 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020: Responded to edit request (EPH)← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:07, 19 June 2020 edit undoCommunity Tech bot (talk | contribs)Bots267,918 edits Files used on this page or its Wikidata item are up for deletionNext edit → | ||
| Line 297: | Line 297: | ||
| Good evening. I am writing to request that I be allowed to edit the "boogaloo movement" page. It contains a large amount of misinformation, and I seek to edit it for accuracy. It seems that people are spreading lies to discredit our liberty movement. ] (]) 03:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | Good evening. I am writing to request that I be allowed to edit the "boogaloo movement" page. It contains a large amount of misinformation, and I seek to edit it for accuracy. It seems that people are spreading lies to discredit our liberty movement. ] (]) 03:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :] '''Not done:''' this is not the right page to ] additional ]. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have ], you can wait until you are ] and edit the page yourself.<!-- Template:ESp --> '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | :] '''Not done:''' this is not the right page to ] additional ]. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have ], you can wait until you are ] and edit the page yourself.<!-- Template:ESp --> '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-06-19T13:07:22.121488 | Virginia 2nd Amendment Rally (2020 Jan) - 49416109936 (cropped).jpg --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:07, 19 June 2020
 |
Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boogaloo movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boogaloo movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
"Stream sniping" misinformation
Whether or not some misinformed social scientist claims something is irrelevant. This page completely mischaracterizes what "stream sniping" is.
https://www.polygon.com/2017/7/30/16059138/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-stream-sniping-ban
Suspiciously, the only Google results which include both the phrase "stream sniping" and "boogaloo" are this article and the quoted Washington Post story. Very strange for a term supposedly used by an online movement. 75.69.101.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- The misinformed social scientist is notable Harvard academic Joan Donovan being interviewed by The Washington Post, one of Misplaced Pages's highest quality sources per WP:RS/P. Hits on google don't establish notability on Misplaced Pages, it is from high-quality independent reliable sources. thank you, Britishfinance (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I see that you took out the reference to Joan and "steam sniping" (above) here. Although Joan seems to be the only person to use the term in relation to the movement, she is notable as an academic covering such organizations, and several of the references I have read on the movement note that they often unexpectedly "pop-up" at various events that they are not specifically associated with - E.g. . I think that Joan's term is useful in this regard? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: Sorry, the ping didn't work and I only just now saw this. No objection to you re-adding it if the phenomenon is covered in additional sources, I just thought it an odd thing to include since it was such a small portion of that WPO article and I hadn't seen it mentioned in any other sourcing. Although that Insider article seems to refer to them showing up unexpectedly at events, but not necessarily for the purpose of inserting themselves into livestreams. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare:, let me try a re-do this emphasizing that they tend to turn up unexpectedly at events (there are other references to this as well as BI), and note that Joan (an expert in this area) has specifically labeled it as "stream sniping"? I will stick it in but if it doesn't work, take it out again. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: No objections from me. Though there's a dangling quotation mark at the end of your addition, is part of that a direct quote? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, that is a typo; fixed now. thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, that is a typo; fixed now. thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: No objections from me. Though there's a dangling quotation mark at the end of your addition, is part of that a direct quote? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare:, let me try a re-do this emphasizing that they tend to turn up unexpectedly at events (there are other references to this as well as BI), and note that Joan (an expert in this area) has specifically labeled it as "stream sniping"? I will stick it in but if it doesn't work, take it out again. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance: Sorry, the ping didn't work and I only just now saw this. No objection to you re-adding it if the phenomenon is covered in additional sources, I just thought it an odd thing to include since it was such a small portion of that WPO article and I hadn't seen it mentioned in any other sourcing. Although that Insider article seems to refer to them showing up unexpectedly at events, but not necessarily for the purpose of inserting themselves into livestreams. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't say that hits on Google establish notability. I said it's clear evidence that the information is wrong. She's making a claim that the term is used that way on the internet, and yet the internet only has her being quoted saying that. So the only person doing so is her. Being a Harvard academic doesn't make her an expert on gaming culture or internet memes. It is completely irresponsible to include this nonsense in this article. 75.69.101.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I actually happen to agree with our IP friend here—the common understanding of "stream sniping" (I believe) refers to, when playing against an opponent who is livestreaming their gameplay, watching their livestream to learn information about their location, etc. I think the best thing to do would be to retain Donovan's description of the behavior, but omit the "stream sniping" quote to avoid confusion with the alternate, more commonly-used definition of the phrase. I'm going to do that now, though if you disagree feel free to revert and we can discuss further here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- No problem with that GW and happy with your version. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I actually happen to agree with our IP friend here—the common understanding of "stream sniping" (I believe) refers to, when playing against an opponent who is livestreaming their gameplay, watching their livestream to learn information about their location, etc. I think the best thing to do would be to retain Donovan's description of the behavior, but omit the "stream sniping" quote to avoid confusion with the alternate, more commonly-used definition of the phrase. I'm going to do that now, though if you disagree feel free to revert and we can discuss further here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
A source for the edit requests regarding varying views
Not sure how much you'd like to incorporate, but I noticed a lot of people mentioning libertarian leanings and such being denied since they didn't provide sources. Just found this so I figured I'd share.
'On one end, members want to embrace multi-racial anti-government advocacy and are “legitimately libertarian in an individualism-above-all-else-including-race kind of way,” Newhouse said.'
Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/05/boogaloo-far-right-organization-george-floyd-protests/3155528001/ 24.192.63.225 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, really appreciate you coming here with a source! The problem with these edit requests is they've largely asked for the "far right" descriptor to be replaced with the libertarian descriptor. There's no issue with including the fact that some groups are libertarian; it's already in the article as it stands right now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, the pool of reliable sources is definitely leaning towards the image portrayed in the article, so in that sense the article is an accurate reflection. I was mostly just adding this here in case someone else wants to compile more sources that might eventually shift the overall "mood" of the collective sources such that, for example, the lede (right phrase?) might eventually include mentions of other "factions" within the "movement" rather than just calling it strictly alt-right. The "individualism-above-all-else-including-race" part in particular is my own personal impression, but that's not exactly wiki-worthy. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I actually have been working over the past hour or so to adjust the lead and ideologies section to better reflect that there are many views held across the various groups. Not sure if you have any thoughts, but as always I welcome feedback on the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's admittedly difficult to give objective feedback when I've known of the "movement" well before it was anything other than gun memes, and particularly "autistic" (as they're described therein) ones at that. This is back in ~2014. And you can't include anecdotal things like that. If anything, perhaps "largely alt-right" rather than just "alt-right" in the first sentence? There's anarchists and far-left types too, but again that's all anecdotal and I haven't read all of the sources to see if that'd be an accurate representation. Ultimately it seems you're doing your best to keep it apolitical and true to sources, and the fact that I think some of those source are full of it is irrelevant. Keep on keepin' on. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is where Misplaced Pages is at it's most frustrating. All these "reliable sources" push a narrative and it's the only information that can be be added to the article because of Misplaced Pages's rules.98.247.222.39 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the lede now captures the range of diverse views in this group, around its core beliefs of a pro-gun citizen militia ethos. That ethos is going to attract a lot of far-right and white supremacist-type elements, and based on the quality sources quoted in the article who have been actively investigating the group (and the recent activity at protests), that is borne out. We have a lot of quality independent international sources reporting the same views on the group, from Reuters to British papers like The Independent, which are used in the article. The movement has gotten a lot of press over a short period in the last month, so it is possible that as time goes on, more quality sources will revisit the movement and refine views. If views change, then we can amend the article accordingly – certainly highlight any such sources here. Thanks for your involvement and comments. Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance GorillaWarfare The issue with the first line of the lede as it stands is that it implies all groups associated with the term "boogaloo" are far right. This is disputed by many sources and people who study extremism, who associate it with general anti-police and anti-government sentiment that includes wide varieties of groups. Even the ADL, a source no friend to the right wing, does not designate these groups as necessarily "far right" or even right wing. https://www.adl.org/blog/the-boogaloo-extremists-new-slang-term-for-a-coming-civil-war MWise12 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence acknowledges that it is a loosely organized group, while also accurately reflecting the sourcing by describing them as far-right. The article is quite clear that they generally self-identify differently, as well as explicit about all the various groups they have also been associated with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Saying it is loosely organized doesn't address the main problem with the sentence, which is that it implies the term "boogaloo" is inherently for a "right wing movement". The sentence needs to add qualifiers that it is not just right wing. MWise12 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The movement is described as far-right by the majority of the sourcing, and so this article reflects that, including in the first sentence. I understand that plenty of the groups would rather describe themselves as libertarian or whichever other label they choose, but that does not change that coverage largely describes them as far-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- In this page there are three sources that describe them as anarchist, and two that describe them as libertarian. At what point are you determining that coverage "largely" describes them as far-right? MWise12 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- In my reading of the sources used in this article, the sources that mention libertarianism or anarchism tend to do so when describing how a singular group self-identifies. When described as a whole they have generally been described as far right. I only included three inline sources in the lead to avoid citation overkill, but am happy to add more if you wish. They are perfectly abundant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Can you cite them here so I can take a look at them? Keep in mind, we should be giving far more weight to sources that actually study extremism than media outlets just regurgitating claims from other media outlets. MWise12 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the sources already being used in the article. 3, 4, and 5 are the ones cited inline, but even looking at the titles alone, sources 10, 12, 18, 22, 28, and 29 describe them unequivocally as "far right". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea that a group of media outlets all cross-citing from eachother (and not experts who actually study movements/extremism) gives them authoritative weight to declare what something is or is not. Especially in this case where there isn't even uniformity among what media outlets consider the "boogaloo movement". I may be open to a compromise where we change the first sentence from speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice to phrasing such as "has been described by various news outlets as being"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWise12 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- These media outlets are reliable sources. However, if it assuages your concerns at all, I will note that the researchers at Middlebury, Bellingcat, and the SPLC also describe it as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Middlebury cites Bellingcat for its use of the term "right wing", ironically, and Bellingcat openly states; "Open source materials suggest that, for now, the apocalyptic, anti-government politics of the “Boogaloo Bois” are not monolithically racist/neo-Nazi. As we have observed, some members rail against police shootings of African Americans, and praise black nationalist self defense groups."
- I will say I think some of these contradictions come from the fact that boogaloo may have started as a mainly right-wing phrase used online, but it has in the past 2 years (as BellingCat notes) gone mainstream and today is used by a wide variety of generally anti-government groups. MWise12 (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- These media outlets are reliable sources. However, if it assuages your concerns at all, I will note that the researchers at Middlebury, Bellingcat, and the SPLC also describe it as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with the idea that a group of media outlets all cross-citing from eachother (and not experts who actually study movements/extremism) gives them authoritative weight to declare what something is or is not. Especially in this case where there isn't even uniformity among what media outlets consider the "boogaloo movement". I may be open to a compromise where we change the first sentence from speaking in Misplaced Pages's voice to phrasing such as "has been described by various news outlets as being"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWise12 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the sources already being used in the article. 3, 4, and 5 are the ones cited inline, but even looking at the titles alone, sources 10, 12, 18, 22, 28, and 29 describe them unequivocally as "far right". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Can you cite them here so I can take a look at them? Keep in mind, we should be giving far more weight to sources that actually study extremism than media outlets just regurgitating claims from other media outlets. MWise12 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- In my reading of the sources used in this article, the sources that mention libertarianism or anarchism tend to do so when describing how a singular group self-identifies. When described as a whole they have generally been described as far right. I only included three inline sources in the lead to avoid citation overkill, but am happy to add more if you wish. They are perfectly abundant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- In this page there are three sources that describe them as anarchist, and two that describe them as libertarian. At what point are you determining that coverage "largely" describes them as far-right? MWise12 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The movement is described as far-right by the majority of the sourcing, and so this article reflects that, including in the first sentence. I understand that plenty of the groups would rather describe themselves as libertarian or whichever other label they choose, but that does not change that coverage largely describes them as far-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Saying it is loosely organized doesn't address the main problem with the sentence, which is that it implies the term "boogaloo" is inherently for a "right wing movement". The sentence needs to add qualifiers that it is not just right wing. MWise12 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The first sentence acknowledges that it is a loosely organized group, while also accurately reflecting the sourcing by describing them as far-right. The article is quite clear that they generally self-identify differently, as well as explicit about all the various groups they have also been associated with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance GorillaWarfare The issue with the first line of the lede as it stands is that it implies all groups associated with the term "boogaloo" are far right. This is disputed by many sources and people who study extremism, who associate it with general anti-police and anti-government sentiment that includes wide varieties of groups. Even the ADL, a source no friend to the right wing, does not designate these groups as necessarily "far right" or even right wing. https://www.adl.org/blog/the-boogaloo-extremists-new-slang-term-for-a-coming-civil-war MWise12 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the lede now captures the range of diverse views in this group, around its core beliefs of a pro-gun citizen militia ethos. That ethos is going to attract a lot of far-right and white supremacist-type elements, and based on the quality sources quoted in the article who have been actively investigating the group (and the recent activity at protests), that is borne out. We have a lot of quality independent international sources reporting the same views on the group, from Reuters to British papers like The Independent, which are used in the article. The movement has gotten a lot of press over a short period in the last month, so it is possible that as time goes on, more quality sources will revisit the movement and refine views. If views change, then we can amend the article accordingly – certainly highlight any such sources here. Thanks for your involvement and comments. Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is where Misplaced Pages is at it's most frustrating. All these "reliable sources" push a narrative and it's the only information that can be be added to the article because of Misplaced Pages's rules.98.247.222.39 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's admittedly difficult to give objective feedback when I've known of the "movement" well before it was anything other than gun memes, and particularly "autistic" (as they're described therein) ones at that. This is back in ~2014. And you can't include anecdotal things like that. If anything, perhaps "largely alt-right" rather than just "alt-right" in the first sentence? There's anarchists and far-left types too, but again that's all anecdotal and I haven't read all of the sources to see if that'd be an accurate representation. Ultimately it seems you're doing your best to keep it apolitical and true to sources, and the fact that I think some of those source are full of it is irrelevant. Keep on keepin' on. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I actually have been working over the past hour or so to adjust the lead and ideologies section to better reflect that there are many views held across the various groups. Not sure if you have any thoughts, but as always I welcome feedback on the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, the pool of reliable sources is definitely leaning towards the image portrayed in the article, so in that sense the article is an accurate reflection. I was mostly just adding this here in case someone else wants to compile more sources that might eventually shift the overall "mood" of the collective sources such that, for example, the lede (right phrase?) might eventually include mentions of other "factions" within the "movement" rather than just calling it strictly alt-right. The "individualism-above-all-else-including-race" part in particular is my own personal impression, but that's not exactly wiki-worthy. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is well described in this article that the boogaloo movement is anti-government, and that there are individual groups self-identifying as all kinds of things, with racists and anti-racists alike. No one is arguing you on that point. But they are still generally described as far-right, including by bellingcat: On the internet, meanwhile, a largely white, and far right movement publicly contended over what risks its members should take to support a black man killed by police.....In recent weeks, the term “Boogaloo” has gone mainstream after months of growing popularity in online far-right communities. Nationwide anti-lockdown protests have provided an opportunity for right-wing militias to rally, armed, in public.
GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Would you object to the qualifier "The boogaloo movement, adherents to which are often referred to as boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois, is described as a loosely organized American far-right extremist movement." ? I think there's enough contradicting claims among sources (I counted at least 10 in the article that describe the movement and don't use the term right wing) to disqualify making a purely flat statement in Misplaced Pages's voice. MWise12 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I would. It adds nothing to the article besides making people go "described by whom?", and if we add "described by extremism experts and journalists" then it would be (rightfully) questioned why we're adding in-text attribution to a well-sourced claim. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's described by some journalists and extremism experts. You're simply ignoring the large, notable portion of sources that contradict your insisted "far right" designation. MWise12 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am not ignoring the other journalism; hell, I added most of it to this article myself. But I do disagree with your summary of it. You say that the other sourcing "contradicts" the sources that say they are far-right, as if those sources are saying "the boogaloo movement is not far right", but that's not the case. The sources that do not describe the movement as far-right often either a) don't describe the movement in general terms at all, b) specifically indicate how the movement self-describes, or c) focus on an individual group/person in the movement and describe their specific politics.
- We seem to be at an impasse here. I think the best thing for us to do now is wait for some of the other folks who actively edit this article (and hopefully watch this talk page) to weigh in on the conversation. (Not the SPAs, though, please.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The current wording seems fine. It is inclusive of the spectrum of ideologies, though I think the racist roots of the group could be emphasized more. gobonobo 03:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The first few sentences from the "Beliefs and Structure" section should just replace the first lines of the lead. They're actually more accurate than it is. MWise12 (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Per my comments earlier, I also think the current wording is fine. Diversity of views aside, the term right-wing appears very frequently to describe the group per the references. I have not seen any credible source try describe it as left-wing. Britishfinance (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with British Finance, "right-wing" is the usual identifier used with this movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think I agree with MWise12 here, the movement mostly defines itself as a libertarian movement, the fact that there are a few neo-nazis individuals involved don't make the whole movement far-right, that would mean that ANTIFA is an extremist far-left movement, when most of the members subscribe to far-left ideologies such as communism, anarcho-communism, and whatnot, but that doesn't make the whole movement far-left nor extremist, the same occurs here. Some journalists may consider the movement far-right, but there are others that don't, the same happens with (my apologies for the redundancy) ANTIFA, some media outlets consider it to be far-left while others don't. --Fvoltes (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- How a movement describes itself is often very different from how a movement is widely described. It certainly is in this case, and you often see it with other right-wing individuals and groups (as well as elsewhere in the political spectrum). As discussed above, media and extremism researchers tend to describe the boogaloo movement as far-right, so this article does the same -- while also pointing out, of course, that the movement tends to self-describe as libertarian, and that it is a heterogenous movement with individual groups holding all sorts of views. I will point out, by the way, that Antifa (United States) describes the movement as left-wing in the lead, though you are correct that it appears in that case "far-left" is not supported by the sourcing to the same degree it is here, and so the discussion of that is relegated to the article body. I haven't edited that article in any substantial way, so I have no idea what the history is there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get your point, but again, I think we can't describe a movement as being far-right when there's an ongoing debate whether it's a far-right movement or a libertarian movement, the fact that most of the media outlets cross-reference each other saying it's a far-right movement , as someone mentioned before, proves that a group of journalists consider it to be that way, but there are also other journalists who consider them to be libertarian. Anyway, I think we should get consensus. Fvoltes (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The second source you point to does not really support your point that media is describing them as "libertarian" over "far-right". I also don't agree that "most of the media outlets cross-reference each other" with respect to their political leanings. As for consensus, that's what this section has been attempting to do. If you want to start something more formal, be my guest, though I wonder if it's really a great time for it. The coverage of this movement has been very recent (mostly cropping up in the past three weeks) and starting a ~30-day RfC might be unwise as the coverage is continuing to evolve. Your call, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Fvoltes: Whatever you decide to do, please do not make unilateral changes to the lead, against past consensus, with a misleading edit summary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I won't do anything for now, it's too early as you said. Fvoltes (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I'm really sorry for what I just did, before we were talking I had already made the changes but hadn't published it, then while reading the article again I realised that the article was being related to the Patriot Movement, and I wanted to change that, however, I forgot I had made changes before, it was a foolish mistake by my part Fvoltes (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah okay, not a problem. No harm done. Though I'm not sure I follow why you think the Patriot movement see also link ought to be removed. For one, they have been mentioned in articles alongside the boogaloo boys (e.g. ). Secondly, regarding your edit summary that "libertarians aren't conservative and hardly ever patriot": there are absolutely conservative libertarians (see Libertarian conservatism and Paleolibertarianism), and the Patriot movement article mentions paleolibertarianism directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I'm really sorry for what I just did, before we were talking I had already made the changes but hadn't published it, then while reading the article again I realised that the article was being related to the Patriot Movement, and I wanted to change that, however, I forgot I had made changes before, it was a foolish mistake by my part Fvoltes (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I won't do anything for now, it's too early as you said. Fvoltes (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Fvoltes: Whatever you decide to do, please do not make unilateral changes to the lead, against past consensus, with a misleading edit summary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The second source you point to does not really support your point that media is describing them as "libertarian" over "far-right". I also don't agree that "most of the media outlets cross-reference each other" with respect to their political leanings. As for consensus, that's what this section has been attempting to do. If you want to start something more formal, be my guest, though I wonder if it's really a great time for it. The coverage of this movement has been very recent (mostly cropping up in the past three weeks) and starting a ~30-day RfC might be unwise as the coverage is continuing to evolve. Your call, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get your point, but again, I think we can't describe a movement as being far-right when there's an ongoing debate whether it's a far-right movement or a libertarian movement, the fact that most of the media outlets cross-reference each other saying it's a far-right movement , as someone mentioned before, proves that a group of journalists consider it to be that way, but there are also other journalists who consider them to be libertarian. Anyway, I think we should get consensus. Fvoltes (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- How a movement describes itself is often very different from how a movement is widely described. It certainly is in this case, and you often see it with other right-wing individuals and groups (as well as elsewhere in the political spectrum). As discussed above, media and extremism researchers tend to describe the boogaloo movement as far-right, so this article does the same -- while also pointing out, of course, that the movement tends to self-describe as libertarian, and that it is a heterogenous movement with individual groups holding all sorts of views. I will point out, by the way, that Antifa (United States) describes the movement as left-wing in the lead, though you are correct that it appears in that case "far-left" is not supported by the sourcing to the same degree it is here, and so the discussion of that is relegated to the article body. I haven't edited that article in any substantial way, so I have no idea what the history is there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The current wording seems fine. It is inclusive of the spectrum of ideologies, though I think the racist roots of the group could be emphasized more. gobonobo 03:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's described by some journalists and extremism experts. You're simply ignoring the large, notable portion of sources that contradict your insisted "far right" designation. MWise12 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I would. It adds nothing to the article besides making people go "described by whom?", and if we add "described by extremism experts and journalists" then it would be (rightfully) questioned why we're adding in-text attribution to a well-sourced claim. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
References
- https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/12/i-became-unreasonable-bloody-message-scrawled-on-car-at-ben-lomond-ambush/
- https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-the-boogaloo-movement-from-eccentric-distraction-to-domestic-terror/
- https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-53018201
Refloop and precedents
Regarding "far right" vs variance, I would like to point out that the amount of sources repeating a bit of information does not make it automatically the one that Misplaced Pages should go with (for example: an outdated information on a subject may have more refs than an updated information, or a pseudo-history may have more refs than a more-scientific history; WP:RSBREAKING, WP:SOURCETYPES). The authority of the source matters. For example a book or academic paper with detailed research and depth may be more prominent than 10 web articles that are not in-depth, or similarly a web article that has depth should weigh more than a web article that is merely a brief overview. This depth can be observed from the size and content of the article, the sources they use including interviews and expert opinions. Many news articles don't use any sources or minimal expert opinions. Also note WP:REFLOOP, this is when news articles use Misplaced Pages itself as source for information and then editors use that as sources on Misplaced Pages. This is a big concern and likelihood. DA1 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would also point out the precedents of more established articles such as 'Anarchism'. Anarchist ideologies and groups are overwhelmingly left-wing but there are also right-wing Anarchist ideologies and groups as well. The Misplaced Pages article's lede of it does not label the movement as "left-wing" or "far-left" like what the article for Boogaloo currently does. The article for 'Libertarianism' also refrains from describing the ideology as inherently "left wing" in the first lede but rather, in its second lede, gives a chronological overview noting it originally being left-wing but later also including "right-wing" ideologies. I believe the Boogaloo article should refrain from using "far-right extremist" exclusively in its first lede but leave it blank as the aforementioned has done while elaborating the variance in ideologies in the second lede and article body. DA1 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- One of the lines in the second paragraph lede is too vague:
Some are white supremacist or neo-Nazi groups who believe that the impending unrest will be a race war; however other groups condemn racism and white supremacy.
- Rather then the un-elaborated phrasing of "however others groups condemn racism and white supremacy" alone, the article should reference the anarchist, left anarchist, libertarian (and other) presence/aspect of the movement. That is missing completely from the lede and is only briefly referenced in the article body in one line under the second section. The non-far-right elements should be given their due weight in the lede rather than excluded outright. DA1 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I could not support that view. The scale of high-quality SIGCOV refs calling the group right-wing, and the diversity of high-quality SIGCOV refs calling the group right-wing (per my comments above), is just too great for it to be REFLOOP. REFLOOP happens with lower-grade sources, and/or sources not doing proper SIGCOV pieces. I don't see a case for that here (in fact, the refs are overwhelmingly the opposite). The term extremist also features regularly, and certainly more than anarchist (which hardly features). The actions of the movement (per the article), and their ideology, are undoubtedly extreme. The article captures what the group label themselves as (e.g. citizen-style libertarian militia etc.), however, it is important that their label is kept separate from what independent high-quality sources call them. If there is a left-wing element in the movement, it is to date minor and not prominent. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- As I have already mentioned further up in this conversation, the term is supported both by the news sources and the extremism researchers, so there is both quality and quantity in the sourcing here. Regarding books and academic sources, I think this movement is largely too new to be covered in either of those types of publications, though if you've found anything I'd love to see it. I agree with Britishfinance that this does not appear to be a REFLOOP issue. I was the person who created this article, and the sources that existed prior to this article were quite clear in describing the movement as far-right. You will also notice that all of the sources currently cited inline to support the "far-right" sentence were published before this article was created. As for your concerns with the line about white supremacy/condemnation of racism, I'm not sure I follow why you want to replace that wholesale with a sentence about anarchism/libertarianism (especially when libertarianism is already mentioned in the lead). In my reading of the sources, the discussion of racism (or lack thereof) among the movement is quite prominent. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance, GorillaWarfare: The non-far-right element may be minor but it is not absent. It should be elaborated in the lede as well. There has been sources speaking of it, briefly mentioned in the article body (WP:LEDE "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Here is another article that interviews a Boogaloo movement participant, , from CNN.
- Which brings me to a related point, the article's information seems to be exclusively from third-party viewpoints. Have you considered including some reference and quotes from first-party participants? The entire article seems to have only one statement of that nature albeit that is also unattributed to any group or persons in particular ("Some participants in the movement claim that the group and its ideology are nothing more than online jokes"). DA1 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would argue that your (accurate) description of the non-far-right element as "minor but not absent" is precisely why it is mentioned in the article body but not in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD:
As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
However, I'd be happy to hear your suggestion for what wording change you're thinking of -- it is easier to discuss in specifics. As for including first-party participants, what would you suggest be included? We have to be very careful about primary sourcing (WP:PRIMARY), and not use quotes as a way to overstate a particular group's viewpoint as belonging to the whole movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would argue that your (accurate) description of the non-far-right element as "minor but not absent" is precisely why it is mentioned in the article body but not in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD:
- @GorillaWarfare: I did not say it should be replaced; I stated the second part of the line should be elaborated. It shouldn't just stop at a vague "other groups" wording and have no elaboration on what some of those "other groups" are. DA1 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies for misunderstanding you. How would you suggest elaborating on it? I don't know what other information we would give; some boogaloo groups are white supremacist/neo-Nazi, some others are anti-racist. I'm not sure there are additional unifying threads between those groups that we could pull out; for example I don't believe the sourcing supports a claim that all of the anti-racist groups are also libertarian, or anarchist, or whichever else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- One of the lines in the second paragraph lede is too vague:
Connection to the Turner Diaries
I think it should be noted that despite all the apologists, Boogaloo is a far-right movement built upon white supremacy. Oftentimes there is a link between their worldview and that of William Luther Pierce who wrote the racist speculative fiction novel "The Turner Diaries."
In this article from the Independent it is noted that Boogaloo adherents sometimes utilize memes from the Turner Diaries like "the day of the rope":
Boogaloo memes have also appeared among white supremacists, signalling that a civil war is not just against liberal governance but will accelerate social collapse to make way for white dominance, the Anti-Defamation League reports.
"Some promote boogaloo-related phrases alongside hashtags such as #dotr or #DayOfTheRope, both of which are references to neo-Nazi William Pierce's The Turner Diaries, a novelised blueprint for a white revolution," the organisation reports.
I would like this fact added to the page.
Thank you.
Loknar (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Loknar: If you ctrl-f "dotr" you will see that this reference is already included in the article, with a wikilink to The Turner Diaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi GorillaWarfare, it looks like those references were removed from the wikipedia article. Doing a search for "dotr" in the article with control-F shows nothing. Please re-add the Independent article and the connection to the Turner Diaries. Thanks again!Loknar (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Loknar: You may need to refresh—it was briefly removed earlier today but I restored it a half hour or so ago. Second sentence of the "History" section:
This usage of the term is believed to have originated on the fringe imageboard website 4chan, where it was often accompanied by references to "racewar" and "dotr" (day of the rope, a neo-Nazi reference to a fantasy involving murdering what the posters view to be "race traitors").
GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)- @GorillaWarfare: Understood. Thanks again! Loknar (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Loknar: You may need to refresh—it was briefly removed earlier today but I restored it a half hour or so ago. Second sentence of the "History" section:
- Hi GorillaWarfare, it looks like those references were removed from the wikipedia article. Doing a search for "dotr" in the article with control-F shows nothing. Please re-add the Independent article and the connection to the Turner Diaries. Thanks again!Loknar (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Boogaloo movement is not a Far Right Extremist group, we are libertarian. We are not left, nor are we right, we are down. Down for the people. We believe everyone should have the right to peacefully protest against the crimes of the government and their civil servants but we also believe small business owners livelihoods should be protected. Both the protesters and shops are being protected by the Boog Boys. We do not want a civil war. Please stop slandering us when you have no idea what we're really about, clearly no research was done outside of media news outlets. Please let us tell everyone who we really are. 24.222.246.23 (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- While that's true, the challenge is that the subject is meme heavy. The advocates aren't publishing a lot of formal, reliable sources. The "reliable sources" are all critical. So, for example, there's the claim that the name is a reference to a sequel to the Civil War. That claim is popular with critics since it paints the advocates as a bunch of racists who long for the days of slavery. On the other hand, in the wild the advocates more often refer to either "1776 part 2: Electric Boogaloo" or "Revolutionary War part 2: Electric Boogaloo", since they see themselves as heroes seeking freedom. None of that stuff consists of encyclopedic sources though. Given that, to remain NPOV while still being encyclopedic I'd suggest the article should be circumspect about what claims it includes, even if they have "reliable" sources. 75.69.101.95 (talk)
- Boogaloo has always been about a second civil war. I've been following this for some time and any claims for it being a "second American revolution" are attempts to whitewash it. All claims to explain it away as meme-related are unfounded. Yes, this is my own experience but I wanted to counter the OR above. Loknar (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- We maintain NPOV by
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic
(emphasis mine), not by modifying the article (including by being circumspect) based off of our own observations of the movement or claims made in unreliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- We maintain NPOV by
- Here's another "we are libertarian" news source for ya, Gorilla: https://www.wisn.com/article/armed-libertarians-join-milwaukee-protesters/32771798. Or this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-libertarians-join-milwaukee-protesters/ar-BB153o4a 24.192.63.225 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those two links are the same article, one is just syndicated to MSN. What specific change are you hoping to see made based on this source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ideally? The eventual shift of the article from “this is a far-right group of crazies” to “this is an non-homogenous group of barely-affiliated libertarian-leaning individuals who think boog memes are funny.” Do I ever fully expect that? Of course not—-there are reliable sources that say the opposite. I’m largely just posting ones contrary to the popular narrative when I find them and leaving the specifics to your discretion. I can suggest specific edits if you’d like? I’m new to this. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, specific edit suggestions are ideal. WP:Edit requests has some more information if you need. But as for shifting the article, the source you've provided describes one group as libertarian, and makes no comment on the overall politics of other groups in the movement. When there are a lot of sources saying "boogaloo groups are generally far right" and a handful saying "there are some libertarian groups" or speaking about one specific group, you end up with an article like what we have now, which says largely the same thing: that the boogaloo is generally far right, but there are individual groups with various other leanings (libertarian, anarchist, etc). I will also point out that libertarianism and rightwing beliefs do not necessarily contradict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ideally? The eventual shift of the article from “this is a far-right group of crazies” to “this is an non-homogenous group of barely-affiliated libertarian-leaning individuals who think boog memes are funny.” Do I ever fully expect that? Of course not—-there are reliable sources that say the opposite. I’m largely just posting ones contrary to the popular narrative when I find them and leaving the specifics to your discretion. I can suggest specific edits if you’d like? I’m new to this. 24.192.63.225 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those two links are the same article, one is just syndicated to MSN. What specific change are you hoping to see made based on this source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's another "we are libertarian" news source for ya, Gorilla: https://www.wisn.com/article/armed-libertarians-join-milwaukee-protesters/32771798. Or this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-libertarians-join-milwaukee-protesters/ar-BB153o4a 24.192.63.225 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove “ label of far right movement, that label is contradicting the later stated libertarian view of the boog. 2605:6000:1202:1117:20E0:A137:C30A:CB64 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: per every other nearly identical request we've gotten since George Floyd was killed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Would recommend you read the section directly above this one for more details on why this change won't be made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove "members" from the article
The article referrs to "members" of the movement but the movement is an autonomous, decentralized ideology and not one with "members". This should instead be changed to something akin to "participants". SJMccarthy (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Done Except in cases where the reference was to members of specific groups, as opposed to the movemenbt in general, I have changed "members" to "participants", "adherents" and "believers", as seemed appropriate for the context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Anything mentioning far right or racialist movement, it’s not it’s a libertarian movement ffs 141.126.167.33 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done Please provide citations from reliable sources for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Boogaloo Bois are actually a peaceful group of Libertarians. Some extremist have used the term "boogaloo" but do not represent the group "boogaloo Bois" The page should reflect accuracy of the Libertarian movement that includes all races and advocates for peaceful protests against tyranny and police brutality. Even this article tries to vilify peaceful boogaloo groups but if you are to be neutral then you can see through the obvious false assertions in these links to the facts stated by its members.
"This local group declared they were not Alt Right or white supremacist but “a libertarian movement; pro-liberty, pro-2A (second amendment) and pro-individual rights.However, reports around the country have provided information that this loosely knit philosophy of accelerationism is popular with militias, gun activists and some white supremacists have also adopted the “boogaloo” identity."
Example of peaceful and thoughtful people supporting black lives matter stated from members in this article:
"Justin Mishler, a Boogaloo follower from Belvidere, Illinois, who attended a Milwaukee protest last week, said he and other group members were not bothered by the mistrust they encountered from protest leaders.
"It's their protest," said Mishler, who carried a semi-automatic rifle at the march.
Mishler, 27, said he was a student at Northern Illinois University and complained he cannot carry a gun on campus. He said carrying weapons at protests serves as "a deterrent against the police abusing their power."
He said he knows that some people view Boogaloo followers as racists or domestic terrorists, characterizations he disputed.
Friedfeld said there are two factions in the movement: one follows a white supremacist philosophy and is clearly anti-Semitic and racist; the other, which includes followers trying to join Black Lives Matter protests, believes in taking down the government.
"They view themselves as the protector of the American people and the one who will lead the uprising against tyranny," Friedfeld said.
"They have this inherently anti-police stance," he said.
The movement is trying to use the protests to change its image and align itself with Black Lives Matter, according to experts who follow the Boogaloo and similar movements."
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/reports/2020/06/10/boogaloo-boys-get-cool-reception-at-milwaukee-black-lives-matter-marches/5323664002/ Cme111 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: Both of these appear to be interviews of members of the group. In any case, I don't think that these two relatively poor sources are sufficient to override the fact that reliable ones such as NBC, The Times, and others have qualified this movement as far right. In any case, this page is not about the "boogaloo bois" but about the movement as a whole, and if there are sub-groups of this which do not share the violent ideology then those may be mentioned with WP:DUE weight in a subsection. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Cme111: This article already reflects what your source says: that some groups are anti-racist, and that some groups are white supremacist. It also reflects that the groups generally self-identify as libertarian. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
"The movement is trying to use the protests to change its image and align itself with Black Lives Matter, according to experts who follow the Boogaloo and similar movements"
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Steven Carrillo
Not sure where it should go in the article, but Steven Carrillo, who has been arrested for murder after ambushing and killing Damon Gutzwiller, a Santa Cruz deputy, left references to the boogaloo movement scrawled in blood on the hood of a car, so it probably deserves a mention somewhere in the article. NBC: "Before he was apprehended, Carrillo scrawled the word 'boog' and 'I became unreasonable' in blood on the hood of a car. 'Boog' is short for boogaloo, a far-right anti-government movement that began on the extremist site 4chan and aims to start a second American civil war. The phrase 'I became unreasonable' has become a meme in public Boogaloo communities on Facebook, which discuss weapons and fantasize about a second civil war. One recent meme on Facebook shows a man holding a Boogaloo flag at a protest, along with the phrase 'Become unreasonable.'" It is also worth noting that the FBI is investigating whether Carrillo could have been the shooter in the 2020 shooting of Oakland police officers (article about the link), which currently redirects to the George Floyd protests page, so it may be best to include this in that section of this page, but I'm not sure about that. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- They've now charged Carrillo for both murders. There was also an US flag with an igloo. I've added a bit under the George Floyd protests section using your source. I've also put a mention of "I became unreasonable" on the Marvin Heemeyer article, as he inspired the phrase. gobonobo 19:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I've made a few edits, including moving the section out from under the George Floyd protests section—the Mercury News article mentions they may have been using the protests as a distraction, but quotes the agent in charge of the investigation as saying they were not intending to join the protests, so it probably makes sense to treat them as unrelated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please edit this page. The information is incorrect. As a member of the Boogaloo movement, I can assure you that our members are not white supremacists. Those that portray that type of bigotry are oust from our community once discovered, just like cops were in the recent riots involving our brothers and sisters in the BLM movement. We do not tolerate people who are incapable of tolerance. Please correct your information. May power always be with We The People. 2001:5B0:2B13:ECA8:8D5E:6FDE:1C28:EB5D (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- We report what relaible sources say. If you have cotations fromo reliable sources which support your position, please post them here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sources are key. Personal testimony is original research. Pikavoom (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a part of this article that claims boogaloo is a white supremacist group, but the citations provided say nothing of the sort. I believe this was done to create stigma against pro 2nd amendment groups. NorCal2506 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done @NorCal2506: Since you evidently weren't able to find them yourself, I will quote the sources clearly cited inline after the sentence about "white supremacy" in this article (emphasis mine):
Experts on extremism warn that “boogaloo boys” are reaching a wider audience of disaffected young men during the coronavirus pandemic as they are drawn by memes into the subculture of insurrection. Some of those involved are white supremacists who believe the coming civil war will be a race war but most are simply anti-establishment rebels frustrated with tightening US gun laws and lockdowns.
The Times“This movement is evolving and their views are very much in flux. The next few weeks will show where they are,” Newhouse said. “But white supremacy is part of this movement. Even as they try to navigate away from it, it’s always going to be there in the background.”
Milwaukee Journal SentinelThe term “Boogaloo,” which began to predominate in far-right web spaces in early 2019, began as a shorthand for civil unrest following potential local or federal firearms confiscation, and has been embraced by antigovernment and white nationalist communities.
SPLCHowever, in recent years, it has caught on among far-right militia and white supremacist communities who use it to refer to what they foresee as a coming revolution: “Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.”
Middlebury Institute of International Studies
- Additional sources already used in the article also support the claim, though aren't cited inline, if you prefer them. The NBC, ADL, Vox, The Guardian, Insider, Reuters, The Independent, and Tech Transparency Project cites could all be used to support the claim, and I've only gone through the first half of the sources used here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The information is completely false, it's propaganda. The boogie boys protect protesters. They are of all colors and creed's. White supremacist and alt right labeling is asinine. People who will fight for the liberties of all, should not be degraded this way. Ctbull816 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done @Ctbull816: Misplaced Pages articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the current sourcing, or show that it is contradicted by additional reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Removal of image
@Netoholic: Between the photographer specifically identifying the subjects as members of the movement, and multiple reliable sources describing members of the boogaloo movement being present at the 2020 VCDL Lobby Day dressed in fatigues and Hawaiian shirts and carrying with long guns, I think it perfectly appropriate to include that image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Who is the photographer and why in the world would he be considered a WP:RS for such a potentially defamatory assertion? Unrelated sources which state boogaloo was there somewhere is not reliable source for these specific pictured individuals to be identified as such. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Legal issues which says we don't use random pictures to caption someone as a "drug dealer" - and that's a far tamer example than given the implication on this page. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- So to be clear, the argument here is that the photographer is either mistaken or lying about the subjects of his photos, and he somehow managed to photograph some other group of people wearing military fatigues, Hawaiian shirts, and carrying long guns at this rally where the boogaloo boys were reliably reported to have been, wearing and carrying those same things? I will note that this photographer's images have been used at other articles including alt-right without this same objection, so if this is the argument you're going with you may have some other images to discuss as well... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- The argument is that he is not a reliable source by our standards (wrong, lying, whatever, it doesn't matter what I think), and that is particularly aggravating the issue that we are identifying these specific pictured private individuals in our article describing them as part of a movement in a manner where our WP:IUP does not allow us. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on the alt-right image? (File:Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' Rally (35780274914) crop.jpg) I'm not trying to bring it up as a "gotcha" or anything, I'm just trying to figure out if there's something about that image that makes it acceptable while this one is not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Is Netoholic's issue that the photographer's photograph may be correct (e.g. valid photo taken at that specific protest), but that even though they are heavily armed men wearing Hawaiian shirts, the photographer is potentially defaming them by calling them Boogaloo members (as if he called them drug dealers)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: At first pass, the main difference is that, in the alt-right image, the participants are displaying iconography presumptively associating them with particular affiliations, but its possible that may not be enough if fairly evaluated in regards to WP:IUP#Legal issues. But that is not the case here. An amateur photographer's assumption that these specific pictured people are "boogaloo" is not a reliable source. If you have a reliable news source that uses this exact Crider photo and captions it in this way (to avoid WP:CIRCULAR, from before your insertion of it on May 30), then add that citation to the caption here. Otherwise, it is defamatory and should be removed. Images for illustration are just not so important as to potentially get it wrong by implying private individuals are part of a movement. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The argument is that he is not a reliable source by our standards (wrong, lying, whatever, it doesn't matter what I think), and that is particularly aggravating the issue that we are identifying these specific pictured private individuals in our article describing them as part of a movement in a manner where our WP:IUP does not allow us. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- So to be clear, the argument here is that the photographer is either mistaken or lying about the subjects of his photos, and he somehow managed to photograph some other group of people wearing military fatigues, Hawaiian shirts, and carrying long guns at this rally where the boogaloo boys were reliably reported to have been, wearing and carrying those same things? I will note that this photographer's images have been used at other articles including alt-right without this same objection, so if this is the argument you're going with you may have some other images to discuss as well... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
- @Netoholic: I would argue that the fatigues/Hawaiian shirt/rifles combo is similarly identifying (in addition to the photographer's identification of his subject). However, perhaps a better solution is available that will resolve your concerns while also retaining an illustration for the article. File:Blue Igloo in Raleigh (49841914728).jpg is another photograph by this same photographer, which has been used by various media sources with captions identifying the subjects as members of the boogaloo movement: , , . While I think the current image is a better illustration (as the Hawaiian shirts are the particularly stand-out identifier of the group), the second has the captions/news articles to support it. There is also an image of a Hawaiian-shirted person at the same "Blue Igloo" (boogaloo) rally as this photo, but I haven't seen that photo used in reliable sourcing anywhere: File:Blue Igloo in Raleigh (49842745367).jpg—though a tweet by the online extremism researcher Megan Squire does use it, if that would be sufficient. These two images have the added benefit that their subjects are slightly less recognizable, as they are wearing face coverings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance and Beyond My Ken: also pinging to get your input. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: So does that mean every non-WP:RS picture of people dressed in all-black with masks would be appropriate for Antifa/black bloc articles? No. No picture from that amateur photographer of an identifiable person is acceptable under WP:IUP, and its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup). -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- ...What? Did you read past my first sentence? I'm pinging Britishfinance and BMK because they've supported maintaining the current image in the discussion below, and I've just suggested changing it to a different image to try to accommodate your concerns. That is not "pinging for backup", nor is that "disinterested in doing the right thing". You said above
If you have a reliable news source that uses this exact Crider photo and captions it in this way (to avoid WP:CIRCULAR, from before your insertion of it on May 30), then add that citation to the caption here.
, and so I've offered you images that meet those criteria. Why are you now saying no image by him is usable? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)- Those alternatives are just as afoul of WP:IUP because the people are identifiable not just anonymous in a crowd (see WP:IUP#Examples). Also IUP says
Some tabloid newspapers and magazines have had legal issues with respect of original copyright for sake of getting their stories out, and images from such sources may be problematic to use on Misplaced Pages for both legal and moral reasons.
. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)- I still don't understand why the goalposts just moved, but alright... They are both images of a couple of people at a rally, if anything the new photo I suggested is more anonymous (because of the face coverings), not less. And it is supported in the caption like you asked. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up copyright, the image is clearly released by the photographer under a compatible CC license and was properly imported from Flickr. The photographer links his Flickr from a few places, so it's not some sort of license laundering setup.
- I thought I'd found an alternative option that would satisfy all parties, but evidently not. Either way, it seems like consensus is forming below to retain the current image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The point is we would need a RS for the claim that these specific identifiable people are part of this movement. If they were pictured anonymously from the back or part of a larger crowd, clearly showed identifying insignia, were identified by authorities as part of the movement, or were interviewed in a WP:RS and openly stated their affiliation. Why is it you need a clear picture of someone's face in an article about a movement, when so many of WP:IUP policies say to avoid that? We don't use identifiable people in articles which would unjustly defame them. No response to my black mask/clothes point? I don't at all care about what you assess "consensus" as... that does not make your stance legal or moral in accordance with IUP. -- Netoholic @ 03:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, first you said that a caption was sufficient, but that's apparently now changed. I don't need a picture of anything in this article, but I do like to have illustrations in articles where possible, as is generally encouraged. As for your decision about IUP, it appears to be out of line with others' interpretations of the policy, at least here. It's fine as you disagree with the emerging consensus here, so long as you either choose to respect it, or find a broader consensus to override it. But it seems this particular discussion is finished, as I'm not interested in trying to jump through moving hoops to find a picture you're okay with when everyone else commenting says the current image is fine. Nor am I interested in arguing false equivalencies about people wearing black vs. people wearing a very specific combination of Hawaiian shirts over cold weather and military gear, and carrying rifles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- The point is we would need a RS for the claim that these specific identifiable people are part of this movement. If they were pictured anonymously from the back or part of a larger crowd, clearly showed identifying insignia, were identified by authorities as part of the movement, or were interviewed in a WP:RS and openly stated their affiliation. Why is it you need a clear picture of someone's face in an article about a movement, when so many of WP:IUP policies say to avoid that? We don't use identifiable people in articles which would unjustly defame them. No response to my black mask/clothes point? I don't at all care about what you assess "consensus" as... that does not make your stance legal or moral in accordance with IUP. -- Netoholic @ 03:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Those alternatives are just as afoul of WP:IUP because the people are identifiable not just anonymous in a crowd (see WP:IUP#Examples). Also IUP says
- ...What? Did you read past my first sentence? I'm pinging Britishfinance and BMK because they've supported maintaining the current image in the discussion below, and I've just suggested changing it to a different image to try to accommodate your concerns. That is not "pinging for backup", nor is that "disinterested in doing the right thing". You said above
- @Netoholic: I would argue that the fatigues/Hawaiian shirt/rifles combo is similarly identifying (in addition to the photographer's identification of his subject). However, perhaps a better solution is available that will resolve your concerns while also retaining an illustration for the article. File:Blue Igloo in Raleigh (49841914728).jpg is another photograph by this same photographer, which has been used by various media sources with captions identifying the subjects as members of the boogaloo movement: , , . While I think the current image is a better illustration (as the Hawaiian shirts are the particularly stand-out identifier of the group), the second has the captions/news articles to support it. There is also an image of a Hawaiian-shirted person at the same "Blue Igloo" (boogaloo) rally as this photo, but I haven't seen that photo used in reliable sourcing anywhere: File:Blue Igloo in Raleigh (49842745367).jpg—though a tweet by the online extremism researcher Megan Squire does use it, if that would be sufficient. These two images have the added benefit that their subjects are slightly less recognizable, as they are wearing face coverings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Courtesy pinging Britishfinance here too, since the edit war appears to be continuing... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The photographer (Anthony Crider) is a professor of astrophysics in North Carolina , but has his own site since 2010 , that links to his flickr site , that records various protests he has photographed (location, time etc.), and what he saw. Not a professional, but a credible figure nonetheless. Britishfinance (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Crider has been profiled for this work on photographing protests , and other newspapers have used his photographs and given him attribution for them, even for other Boogaloo members such as this , and this . Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is Lawfare using Crider's photograph of Oath Keepers (and using that term in the caption), at another protest in 2019. . Britishfinance (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Profiled in his own school's website? Not WP:RS. Photos used elsewhere? Not WP:RS for this specific image. He is an amateur photographer, even prolific, but he is not a WP:RS for determining what, if any, affiliation these specific individuals are part of. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- But he is being used as an RS by papers, and even legal ones, as I point out above; here he is on the Southern Poverty Law Centre with more controversial figures: . As also pointed out above, his own twitter and flickr site identifies the location and time of this specific photo and the protest in question. All three are heavily armed and all three are wearing Hawaiian shirts – it is clear what they are. Unlike some random amateur photographer, Anthony Crider is a credible public figure in the area of photographing controversial events, and whose photos and captions of such events are used as RS by good third party news sites. Britishfinance (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance:
"wearing Hawaiian shirts – it is clear what they are"
is exactly the kind of WP:OR which could be remedied by finding an actual WP:RS that these specific identifiable people are part of the movement which this image's placement in this article implies. Crider is not a reliable source for identifying, by clothing alone, what affiliation a person belongs - and neither are you. It is the sources which used his photos that are making that identification. In this case, there is no secondary source... just his photo dropped directly to Misplaced Pages. -- Netoholic @ 13:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)- If Crider was an unknown person with no credibility I might lean towards your view, although it would still require an extreme reading to assume that heavily armed people wearing Hawaiian shirts at a recent protest were not Boogaloo movement. However, Crider is a credible photographer whose work on photographing protests is properly sourced, and whose photos and captions are used in other RS (per above). I could not support a view that considered both of those statements to be false. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Britishfinance:
- But he is being used as an RS by papers, and even legal ones, as I point out above; here he is on the Southern Poverty Law Centre with more controversial figures: . As also pointed out above, his own twitter and flickr site identifies the location and time of this specific photo and the protest in question. All three are heavily armed and all three are wearing Hawaiian shirts – it is clear what they are. Unlike some random amateur photographer, Anthony Crider is a credible public figure in the area of photographing controversial events, and whose photos and captions of such events are used as RS by good third party news sites. Britishfinance (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Profiled in his own school's website? Not WP:RS. Photos used elsewhere? Not WP:RS for this specific image. He is an amateur photographer, even prolific, but he is not a WP:RS for determining what, if any, affiliation these specific individuals are part of. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) The photographer (Anthony Crider) is a professor of astrophysics in North Carolina , but has his own site since 2010 , that links to his flickr site , that records various protests he has photographed (location, time etc.), and what he saw. Not a professional, but a credible figure nonetheless. Britishfinance (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the obvious interpretation of this article's lede image is that the people in it are dressed up as Boogaloos for Halloween.</sarcasm> Photo is fine, arguments for removing it are lame. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support keeping the photo of people openly wearing obvious Boogaloo garb in public, unless evidence emerges that these were actors pretending to be Boogaloo followers. The photo illustrates the article very well. Photos are not "reliable sources" and are not held to that standard. No evidence has been presented that this photo is faked or misleading in any way. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Cullen328's points. Reasons for deleting it seem to be exaggerated in importance. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't find that either Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Moral issues or Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Legal issues applies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, it is illustrative. Maybe crop out the guy on the right whose face is maybe recognizable. The rest of the people there are masked or obscured anyway. Pikavoom (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo in the word "Particiants in the boogaloo movement often wear..." It should be "Participants" Rywright (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done Thanks, fixed! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This entire page is false. I’m sorry to say. Boogaloo does not mean civil war. It’s used by vets for those who anticipate a fire fight with terrorists at home. Such as antifa. 2600:8801:9200:B69:E1E6:5070:E7B9:21AF (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. Conflicts with what the references say. There is little mention of Antifa being terrorists or the main target of the Boogaloo movement; instead, the main focus is an anti-government bias. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles reflect what is published in reliable, independent sources. Please submit those along with any specific changes you are hoping to see made to the article text. If you are hoping for content already in the article to be removed, you will need to explain why it is not supported by the current sourcing, or show that it is contradicted by additional reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Good evening. I am writing to request that I be allowed to edit the "boogaloo movement" page. It contains a large amount of misinformation, and I seek to edit it for accuracy. It seems that people are spreading lies to discredit our liberty movement. Theluauproject (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Categories:_-_49416109936.jpg){kind=link}
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Unknown-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- B-Class gun politics articles
- Unknown-importance gun politics articles
- Gun politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- B-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles