Talk:Oath Keepers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oath Keepers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

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.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for Oath Keepers (36 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 23,729 23,729 Organizational history 10,998 35,464 Nonprofit tax status 5,782 5,782 Membership 5,974 18,684 Prominent members 524 12,710 Elmer Stewart Rhodes 1,874 1,874 Kellye SoRelle 1,986 1,986 Charles A. Dyer 2,210 2,210 Richard Mack 1,774 1,774 Wendy Rogers 1,142 1,142 Kelly Meggs 3,200 3,200 Participation in the January 6 United States Capitol attack 15,880 34,821 Seditious conspiracy charges 6,216 17,748 Trial of Rhodes, Meggs, Harrelson, Watkins, and Caldwell 8,779 8,779 Trial of Minuta, Hackett, Moerschel, and Vallejo 1,319 1,319 Trial of Connie Meggs 1,434 1,434 Trial of Michael Greene 650 650 Trial of Donovan Crowl and James Beeks 543 543 Other antigovernment activities 36 11,056 Federal land disputes 28 6,259 Bundy Ranch standoff, 2014 1,435 1,435 Sugar Pine Mine standoff, 2015 2,709 2,709 Crissy Field, 2017 2,087 2,087 Anti-Hillary Clinton threats, 2016 2,048 2,048 Threat of violence towards Oregon State Capitol, 2019 2,713 2,713 Other armed protest activities 73 6,039 Military recruitment center presence, 2015 1,555 1,555 Kim Davis refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, 2015 2,588 2,588 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, 2018 1,823 1,823 Policies, statements and actions on race and religion 5,351 16,287 Opposition to Black Lives Matter and antifa 10,936 10,936 Reception 7,411 7,411 See also 134 134 References 33 33 Further reading 1,023 1,023 External links 950 950 Total 136,947 136,947

What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? 2003:E5:701:ADF7:8874:639E:EC9A:9C1A (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. TFD (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. -Oath Keepers

 Pro government. Constitutional service organization. 2600:1014:B08E:261B:80A6:25FA:22DF:B50F (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incoherent. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your direct support ensures that the stores that matter most, those buried by Big Tech and the mainstream media narratives, will be brought to light. Yeah, no way. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP is useful for checking the reliability of sources. In this case it says "Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts." JaggedHamster (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]