This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Redoubt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the sake of balance and NPOV, I added mention of a newspaper op/ed piece that was critical of the Redoubt movement. [1] Another wiki editor removed this, calling it a "opinion piece in a local paper by a nobody". Perhaps a more authoritative voice of dissent can be found, but for now, I believe this one should stand. After all, Wikipedia's rules put a premium on third party hard copy sources. DiligenceDude ( talk) 03:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Inclusion of diametrically opposed "See Also" wiki-links is not in the best interest of fair and un-biased WP editing. If doing so were valid, then we should get busy and add these See Also links:
- A link to the KKK page at the NAACP page.
- A link to the Sharia Law at the Campus Crusade for Christ page.
- A link to the Communist Party USA page at the Libertarian Party page.
I hope that you can see that this sort of linking could be construed as a smear tactic. ArdentBravesFan ( talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the claim that Rawles is 'anti-racist' because one of the only sources cited simply reproduces that claim verbatim with no evidence provided, but even what remains ("outspokenly pro-Israel") seems of questionable relevance in context. Should it just be removed outright or am I just not seeing how it's relevant? Anarkinsey ( talk) 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I also restored the properly-referenced mention that Rawles is outspokenly anti-racist. Newspaper articles are valid references for WP. And, BTW, his novels features lots of black, Asian, and Mexican-American characters in a favorable light. From the very beginning, Rawles has has done his best to not associate with racists, neo-nazis, and other radicals who are racially intolerant or who are intolerant of Jews. To leave this article with no mention of his stance on association or disassociation would leave doubts about the motivations of the American Redoubt movement. DunwoodyWoody ( talk) 00:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
American Redoubt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I see a couple of editors (whose IPs reveal they are writing from the Redoubt) stifling the various points of view on the Redoubt Movement. These editors are pushing a POV that follows a narrative that Rawles lays out. Let's be clear: their view absolutely must be heard. But so too must the other voices, and I would ask the editors to kindly review WP:NPOV and understand that controversial articles will necessarily include voices that they may view as flat-out wrong or invalid. Nonetheless, that is the way political discourse is. We don't have to agree with everyone, but in Wikipedia-land we have to accurately convey that various people are saying various things.
If these editors are Redoubters who worry that people are "mischaracterizing" what the Redoubt is all about, it's better to lay out those alternate voices and misconceptions. Squelching the voices just leads people to an opposite conclusion -- that the Redoubt really is about control and limiting the voices...especially those of the (political) minority.
It's ironic that some of the editors are championing an ideal of freedom but are wary of letting that freedom -- of speech -- play out on a subject close to their hearts.
Best regards from nearby,
GetSomeUtah ( talk) 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Redoubt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of the core tenets of the Redoubt in this article (from the survivalist blog), please note that I did not merely do a copy/paste (as the other editor asserts) but only selected and summarized several of the key tenets. There is no copyright vio, but I don't do edit-warring, and will leave others to judge, if they're interested. If not, I guess it doesn't meet the notability threshold, right? Best regards. GetSomeUtah ( talk) 11:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
These tenets are just copies of the northwest front movement. This whole article was written by Jim Rawles. Please Mark for deletion, NPOV, notability and COA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.77.167 ( talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Redoubt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the sake of balance and NPOV, I added mention of a newspaper op/ed piece that was critical of the Redoubt movement. [1] Another wiki editor removed this, calling it a "opinion piece in a local paper by a nobody". Perhaps a more authoritative voice of dissent can be found, but for now, I believe this one should stand. After all, Wikipedia's rules put a premium on third party hard copy sources. DiligenceDude ( talk) 03:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Inclusion of diametrically opposed "See Also" wiki-links is not in the best interest of fair and un-biased WP editing. If doing so were valid, then we should get busy and add these See Also links:
- A link to the KKK page at the NAACP page.
- A link to the Sharia Law at the Campus Crusade for Christ page.
- A link to the Communist Party USA page at the Libertarian Party page.
I hope that you can see that this sort of linking could be construed as a smear tactic. ArdentBravesFan ( talk) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the claim that Rawles is 'anti-racist' because one of the only sources cited simply reproduces that claim verbatim with no evidence provided, but even what remains ("outspokenly pro-Israel") seems of questionable relevance in context. Should it just be removed outright or am I just not seeing how it's relevant? Anarkinsey ( talk) 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I also restored the properly-referenced mention that Rawles is outspokenly anti-racist. Newspaper articles are valid references for WP. And, BTW, his novels features lots of black, Asian, and Mexican-American characters in a favorable light. From the very beginning, Rawles has has done his best to not associate with racists, neo-nazis, and other radicals who are racially intolerant or who are intolerant of Jews. To leave this article with no mention of his stance on association or disassociation would leave doubts about the motivations of the American Redoubt movement. DunwoodyWoody ( talk) 00:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
American Redoubt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I see a couple of editors (whose IPs reveal they are writing from the Redoubt) stifling the various points of view on the Redoubt Movement. These editors are pushing a POV that follows a narrative that Rawles lays out. Let's be clear: their view absolutely must be heard. But so too must the other voices, and I would ask the editors to kindly review WP:NPOV and understand that controversial articles will necessarily include voices that they may view as flat-out wrong or invalid. Nonetheless, that is the way political discourse is. We don't have to agree with everyone, but in Wikipedia-land we have to accurately convey that various people are saying various things.
If these editors are Redoubters who worry that people are "mischaracterizing" what the Redoubt is all about, it's better to lay out those alternate voices and misconceptions. Squelching the voices just leads people to an opposite conclusion -- that the Redoubt really is about control and limiting the voices...especially those of the (political) minority.
It's ironic that some of the editors are championing an ideal of freedom but are wary of letting that freedom -- of speech -- play out on a subject close to their hearts.
Best regards from nearby,
GetSomeUtah ( talk) 22:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Redoubt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of the core tenets of the Redoubt in this article (from the survivalist blog), please note that I did not merely do a copy/paste (as the other editor asserts) but only selected and summarized several of the key tenets. There is no copyright vio, but I don't do edit-warring, and will leave others to judge, if they're interested. If not, I guess it doesn't meet the notability threshold, right? Best regards. GetSomeUtah ( talk) 11:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
These tenets are just copies of the northwest front movement. This whole article was written by Jim Rawles. Please Mark for deletion, NPOV, notability and COA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.77.167 ( talk) 05:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)