This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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 first problem I notice with the article is what I would call a misrepresentation of the Oath Keepers organization as being anti-government. This seems extreme - especially as the very name of the organization delimits it to being PRO-government, that is, provided we're talking about the US Government, having the US Constitution as its basic law.
To pillory such a large organization (which is highly respected in some-circles, by a broad swath of the population) by misrepresenting their most basic tenet, leaves a bad taste in a lot of our mouths.
In the interest of neutrality I would remove it. 2603:7000:C901:5F00:C1BE:4026:A63D:2EF7 ( talk) 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Should "Affiliation with militia group" be changed to "Affiliation with the Oath Keepers"? I feel as though the specific militia is more significant than generic affiliation with a militia group, and would better inform the reader about the contents of that subsection. Thewritestuff92 ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Referring to her court case as being hagiographic is a big stretch. She won the case, plain and simple. It is neither positive or negative, it is just the verdict. Why are you fighting to remove the results of the case? It is the same as getting a test results for having the flu, it is not flattering or derogatory, it is just the results of a test. As you shoot down anything that is remotely positive about her, it seems very obvious to me that you want to do her as much damage as possible I am just trying to state factually what she has and has not done.
I still feel this biography needs to be taken down as it is clearly only meant to be a hit piece. SterlingSpots ( talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)SterlingSpots SterlingSpots ( talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
She won the case, plain and simple.She won an AZ appeals court decision, which was then appealed to the AZ Supreme Court, where it remains pending:
A Superior Court judge found in Young’s favor, but an appeals court overturned that verdict. On Sept. 27, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case. [1]
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz ruled in Young's favor, but a 2-1 decision by the state Court of Appeals last year overturned that ruling, even as the opinion acknowledged Young had a "sterling reputation." Young then appealed to the state Supreme Court. [2]
Referring to her court case as being hagiographic, I said your referring to her as "Wendy" rather than by her last name, as is standard here, suggests partiality. soibangla ( talk) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been aske[d] to try and improve the tone ofthis article. Well, that's...interesting. soibangla ( talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
you seem to refuse anything of a positive nature to stay upis flatly false. Are you now willing to concede that your insistence
She won the case, plain and simpleis wrong? Will you concede that your whole approach of interpreting a legal decision, a primary source, was wrong and the reason it was properly removed? Do you agree that calling her "Wendy" in the article text and saying
I have been aske[d] to try and improve the tone ofthis article is peculiar?
I would like to add some balance to the articleYou can certainly do that, as long as it's within the bounds of policy. soibangla ( talk) 17:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Legitimus Thank you for your input. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide in the appeal. SterlingSpots ( talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
Thewritestuff92 ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I took a stab at improving the final paragraph of the lede by better summarizing the article content and adding a reference to Rogers' prominent role in promoting 2020 election conspiracies. I would welcome any feedback :)
Thewritestuff92 ( talk) 05:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted a message describing the Buffalo massacre as a "new false flag." Wendy Rogers has repeatedly promoted and defended Fuentes. She also spoke via video at a conference he organized in February in Orlando.
On the same day as the 2022 Buffalo shooting she posted to her Gab social media account "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E ( talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), a member of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, appeared to endorse an unevidenced conspiracy theory that the Buffalo shooting was a government operation. Rogers wrote Saturday on the right-leaning social media platform Gettr that “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo.” Rogers’ post—a play on the title of a Chet Hanks song—alluded to the conspiracy theory that government agents, or “feds,” secretly orchestrate mass shootings to create support for gun control laws or to distract from other issues. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E ( talk) 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Soibangla: The 2022 Buffalo shooting and the Robb Elementary School shooting are different events. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it can certainly be considered an antisemitic dogwhistle (especially since Zelensky is Jewish), but globalist doesn't always refer to Jews and it doesn't look like Rogers explicitly mentioned Jews or a Jewish conspiracy. Neutrality, thanks for improving the article, but I think it needs attribution for who is drawing this connection. ( t · c) buidhe 22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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 Wikipedia, 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 first problem I notice with the article is what I would call a misrepresentation of the Oath Keepers organization as being anti-government. This seems extreme - especially as the very name of the organization delimits it to being PRO-government, that is, provided we're talking about the US Government, having the US Constitution as its basic law.
To pillory such a large organization (which is highly respected in some-circles, by a broad swath of the population) by misrepresenting their most basic tenet, leaves a bad taste in a lot of our mouths.
In the interest of neutrality I would remove it. 2603:7000:C901:5F00:C1BE:4026:A63D:2EF7 ( talk) 21:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Should "Affiliation with militia group" be changed to "Affiliation with the Oath Keepers"? I feel as though the specific militia is more significant than generic affiliation with a militia group, and would better inform the reader about the contents of that subsection. Thewritestuff92 ( talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Referring to her court case as being hagiographic is a big stretch. She won the case, plain and simple. It is neither positive or negative, it is just the verdict. Why are you fighting to remove the results of the case? It is the same as getting a test results for having the flu, it is not flattering or derogatory, it is just the results of a test. As you shoot down anything that is remotely positive about her, it seems very obvious to me that you want to do her as much damage as possible I am just trying to state factually what she has and has not done.
I still feel this biography needs to be taken down as it is clearly only meant to be a hit piece. SterlingSpots ( talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)SterlingSpots SterlingSpots ( talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
She won the case, plain and simple.She won an AZ appeals court decision, which was then appealed to the AZ Supreme Court, where it remains pending:
A Superior Court judge found in Young’s favor, but an appeals court overturned that verdict. On Sept. 27, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case. [1]
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz ruled in Young's favor, but a 2-1 decision by the state Court of Appeals last year overturned that ruling, even as the opinion acknowledged Young had a "sterling reputation." Young then appealed to the state Supreme Court. [2]
Referring to her court case as being hagiographic, I said your referring to her as "Wendy" rather than by her last name, as is standard here, suggests partiality. soibangla ( talk) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been aske[d] to try and improve the tone ofthis article. Well, that's...interesting. soibangla ( talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
you seem to refuse anything of a positive nature to stay upis flatly false. Are you now willing to concede that your insistence
She won the case, plain and simpleis wrong? Will you concede that your whole approach of interpreting a legal decision, a primary source, was wrong and the reason it was properly removed? Do you agree that calling her "Wendy" in the article text and saying
I have been aske[d] to try and improve the tone ofthis article is peculiar?
I would like to add some balance to the articleYou can certainly do that, as long as it's within the bounds of policy. soibangla ( talk) 17:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Legitimus Thank you for your input. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide in the appeal. SterlingSpots ( talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Two thoughts:
Thewritestuff92 ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I took a stab at improving the final paragraph of the lede by better summarizing the article content and adding a reference to Rogers' prominent role in promoting 2020 election conspiracies. I would welcome any feedback :)
Thewritestuff92 ( talk) 05:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted a message describing the Buffalo massacre as a "new false flag." Wendy Rogers has repeatedly promoted and defended Fuentes. She also spoke via video at a conference he organized in February in Orlando.
On the same day as the 2022 Buffalo shooting she posted to her Gab social media account "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E ( talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), a member of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, appeared to endorse an unevidenced conspiracy theory that the Buffalo shooting was a government operation. Rogers wrote Saturday on the right-leaning social media platform Gettr that “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo.” Rogers’ post—a play on the title of a Chet Hanks song—alluded to the conspiracy theory that government agents, or “feds,” secretly orchestrate mass shootings to create support for gun control laws or to distract from other issues. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E ( talk) 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Soibangla: The 2022 Buffalo shooting and the Robb Elementary School shooting are different events. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it can certainly be considered an antisemitic dogwhistle (especially since Zelensky is Jewish), but globalist doesn't always refer to Jews and it doesn't look like Rogers explicitly mentioned Jews or a Jewish conspiracy. Neutrality, thanks for improving the article, but I think it needs attribution for who is drawing this connection. ( t · c) buidhe 22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)