Jump to content

Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Redirecting readers within the article?

Question for some of the other editors here: when I reorganized this article a bit yesterday, I split out much of the text from the "George Floyd protests" section into a "Criminality and violence" section, which I also merged with some other non-Floyd protest-related incidents that have happened involving boogaloo adherents. I do still think this is an improvement (though am very open to input if folks disagree) but it also means that a lot of Floyd protest-related content is outside of the section with that title.

Is there any precedent for redirecting readers within the article so that they know there is additional content related to the Floyd protests in the Criminality section? It seems a little bit like... I don't know, breaking the fourth wall? to say something like "There were a number of criminal incidents related to boogaloo adherents attending the George Floyd protests, and are described at #Criminality and violence." But perhaps this is done elsewhere on Wikipedia and I'm not aware of it–this article certainly can't be the only one with that issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Specifically calling out a subsection is WP:SELFREF we avoid. Probably solvable by some creative linking, like "There were a number of [[#Criminality and violence|criminal incidents related to boogaloo]] adherents attending the George Floyd protests" - just as an example, not saying I endorse that specific usage without seeing the final proposal. Keep in mind though that that kind of subsection linking is difficult to maintain as headings are renamed, the links get broken, so maybe a custom WP:Anchor would be better. -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I like the re-organization, and it should be helpful to readers to navigate this article. It is useful to separate out the more serious issues of criminality etc. I have no problem with the internal link (like an slink) and agree with Netholic that a WP:Anchor is set up to maintain the link. No issues of SELFREF as it is just internal article navigation. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Any objections to me introducing Netoholic's proposed wording, but with an anchor link? Pinging Netoholic since they said they wished to see the final proposal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Works for me. Britishfinance (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
{{done}} Absent any objection, I've made the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have made an edit to place activities (online and offline) as subsections under History (and re-labeled the first existing History section as "Emergence"). I feel that all of these sections are linked by way of being chronicled in time, so are natural fits under a large History section? I would help future editors decide where to add new text? Revert if you feel is it not an improvement :) thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No objections to your change, I agree that's a nice grouping. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS

Recently, the Department of Homeland Security tweeted this in regards to Politico's coverage of their report that they (the DHS) were warning of the "Boogaloo movement". The DHS contradicted their report that the group was "right wing" in the tweet, saying; "Another work of fiction by @politico. The @DHSgov intel bulletin does NOT identify the Boogaloo movement as left-wing OR right-wing. They are simply violent extremists from both ends of the ideological spectrum."

In what way can we incorporate this tweet and its sentiments into the article? MWise12 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, unless it's covered by secondary sources. I would be surprised if it isn't in the next day or so, given the DHS just attacked a media outlet for their characterization of the group as "far-right", which they didn't attribute to the DHS. That's really the noteworthy thing about the tweet, in my opinion, as well as the fact that the historically apolitical DHS made a distinctly Trumpian follow-up tweet bashing the "mainstream media". But it is up to secondary sources to decide that it's noteworthy, and not something we can decide as editors based on the primary source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The Politico article is being used as a source here, so the DHS tweet should be included right next to that citation for balance. -- Netoholic @ 01:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
To support what? No information contained in the tweet is being included in the article, nor should it be until secondary sources describe it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with GW. Using the tweet is problematic on its own, however, given that the information being used in the tweet regarding Politico is not used in the article, it makes it even more redundant. Better to see if the DHS tweet influences the quality secondary sources, and they amend their views on this issue. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As I suspected they would, secondary RS have begun to report on the tweet itself: "Homeland Security Department claims 'boogaloo' extremists aren't right-wing, attacks press in weekend tweet", The Week. It's a pretty short story but I expect more will come. I don't think the one short source is enough, but if the tweet itself continues to get coverage like this ("The tweets raised eyebrows because U.S. federal agencies don't typically adopt Trump's 'fake news' idiolect in public statements and because they incorrectly downplay right-wing violence and elevate left-wing violence.") we might want to include a brief discussion of the Politico report, the DHS's tweets, and the various commentary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hence are the troublesome effects of trying to write articles live as news happens. With proper perspective and the passing of time, better sources emerge and we save a lot of effort. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, articles get much better the greater the time distance between the events and the references, however, the quality of references on this subject are now quite good (lots of SIGCOV pieces), and I think the article constructed (by GW mostly), is a very useful service to readers wanting to get an overview of this emerging topic. My God, I noticed over 150,000 people read this article on a single day last week (most WP articles won't see that number in their lifetime)? Definitely worth the effort. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, it was the eight most viewed page on the entire project on that day. Pretty unreal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Take a bow GW :) Britishfinance (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
You as well! This page has been a collaboration and you've been a major contributor yourself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It has been a pleasure. Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If any of the sources here are publishing "fake news", I suggest you take it to WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Once condition for a reliable source is a track record for corrections... but if you are including sources published the same day, or even the same hour, then you've given up on that. In the rush, we risk ourselves being the source of misinformation as thousands of visitors come to read an article based on unproven, sensational sources. This then reinforces and gives legitimacy to that sensationalism and potential for inaccuracy or bias. And then we see that early Wikipedia page being used to inform future coverage. Its a feedback loop. If Wikipedia were smart, we'd ban breaking news and require a 30-day waiting period for any source to be used - to give time for corrections and temperance. -- Netoholic @ 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, not sure why this conversation is happening here. If you're looking for a sitewide policy change rather than a restriction on a specific source, then you want WP:VPP and not WP:RSN, but the point remains that neither of those things is productive to discuss on an individual article's talk page as those kinds of decisions are not made per-article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Netoholic is simply attempting to negate what reliable sources say by making the claim that they're not reliable unless we give them some period of time after they publish for possible mistakes to be corrected. Of course that's ridiculous on its face, since the vast majority of articles from media reliable sources never do get corrected, simply because there's no need to, and that's due to another aspect of being a reliable source, which is a reputation for accuracy. Taking pains to be accurate in reporting -- which is what reliable sources do -- means that we can repeat what they say with the knowledge that for the rare times they make a mistake, they will correct it, and we can then correct our article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The quality and diversity of sources in this article is very high – and their consensus around the movement is reasonably high. Hardly "fake news"? Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Religion

What is their general attitude toward religion? That would be very useful to include in the article, because I see some parallels with Matt Shea (who also, allegedly, wanted there to be another civil war so that he could be installed as leader of an explicit theocracy). 97.116.88.75 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I've seen any sourcing on the boogaloo movement that discusses religion at all. Either it is not a defining characteristic of the movement, or the researchers and media have not covered it. If you (or anyone else reading this talk page) know of any reliable sourcing discussing their thoughts on religion, I'd be interested to read it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I've seen limited reporting in very marginal sources (e.g. Task & Purpose) on the overlap between (some) boogaloo-ers and folks who want [the Boogaloo to be] a "holy war" or "racial holy war", and ... that's about it. As GorillaWarfare says, there doesn't seem to be coverage of the topic. -sche (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

“Followers of the boogaloo movement seek to exploit public unrest

to incite a race war that will bring about a new government,” reports NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/technology/facebook-ban-boogaloo.html

soibangla (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Can you clarify what, if any, change you're hoping to see made based on this source? The article does state that some boogaloo groups hope the boogaloo will be a race war, though I don't think the sourcing is there to state that that is a characteristic of the whole movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I’m just adding this to the body of reporting. Editors can take it or leave it. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha, thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible source

Here's an article linking police officers to racism and a need for a civil war. The word boogaloo isn't mentioned, but it is contemporary use of invoking another civil war in light of other recent events of the past month. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not usable; there's nothing in that article to suggest that the boogaloo movement was related in any way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I was concerned about that. Thanks for the response. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Daily KOs is a site I wouldn't normally source from for an article like this. However, David Neiwert is pretty well-respected and often-cited for his work on the radical right, and I believe that his columns are on the part of the site with editorial oversight (not the 'user blogs'). Given these considerations, these articles might be useful if used carefully. Jlevi (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we get into trouble if we use Kos or TPM as sources, while denying similar right-wing sources status as reliable. If other media outlets pick up on what Neiert writes, they can be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh well. Haven't found a huge amount from Neiwert yet. Two pieces from Salon, but that's all I can find: [1][2]. Certainly not enough yet, I think. I'll keep an eye out, however. Thanks for your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security's statements

Now that several sources have reported on the DHS's clarification that Boogaloo groups are extremists "from both ends of the ideological spectrum", I think the weight of this disqualifies the lead's explicit "far right" designation. The official government operatives charging actual Boogaloo-linked crimes have now directly rejected the argument that they're mainly far-right. This source reports it pretty accurately. Also, though the DHS obviously has the most weight, a researcher from the Tech Transparency Project who studied boogalooo group Facebook activities also stated; "it's not really a right or left mentality for these guys so much as anti-government". MWise12 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This is now the second time you have tried to unilaterally remove the "far right" descriptor from the lead. The first time is excusable, as perhaps you didn't know that there had been substantial discussion about it here. But why on earth would you do it again, after having participated in these discussions, knowing that you're making a controversial change against consensus? Your edits to this page continue to border on outright disruptive.
Anyway, the most recent conversation about this wrapped up about ten days ago, and I haven't seen a substantial shift in the weight of how sources are describing the movement. I disagree with you that "the DHS obviously has the most weight", particularly when the DHS source is a tweet attacking a media outlet and not any kind of official report. It's also not really accurate to say that several sources have reported on the DHS' tweets—I actually expected they would (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS). But so far all I've seen is a small report by The Week, which I pointed out there, and now your source from VOANews. As I wrote in the previous discussion, I didn't think the report by The Week alone was sufficient to justify talking about the tweet in the article, and from what I can tell VOANews is unusable as a source ("Some commentators consider Voice of America to be a form of propaganda.") It seems that, by and large, media sources have either not noticed the tweets or not found them worth reporting upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with MWise12 - there is not a consistent description of this movement as "far-right" enough in sources to describe so matter-of-factly as GW desires in the lead. The only other use of "far-right" in the article (which the lead is meant to summarize) makes it clear members are of a wide range on the spectrum. -- Netoholic @ 04:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare Things have significantly changed since the last time this was discussed. Previously, the chief US government agency responsible for categorizing the ideological motives behind boogaloo-related attacks had not directly come out and contested the "far right" designation. They now have. Let me emphasize that - the Department of Homeland Security directly disputed the characterization of the boogaloo movement as "far right".
I also disagree that Voice of America is not a reliable source. It's a public outlet similar to the BBC, which is a reliable source. Further, in this case they're not even saying something in their own words, they're simply reporting the facts of a tweet that we all know was sent. MWise12 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I looked at WP:RSN for discussion of VOA, but didn't find anything at all. But the fact that they are considered by some to be "propaganda" makes me believe at the very least they'd need in-text attribution. A RSN discussion might be wise. And yes, I am quite aware of what the DHS tweeted—I just disagree that that somehow overrides all of the reliable sourcing. We certainly have people in government saying all kinds of wild things, but we don't throw out all the other sourcing when that happens.
Adding to address your edit: my concern is not so much with the verifiability of the VoA source but with the WP:WEIGHT. Like I said, it appears so far only they and The Week have reported on the tweet—I didn't even know VoA had until you added it, it didn't crop up in my standard Google News search. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Netoholic: Just so I'm clear, do you disagree with the assessment by myself and a few others at the conversation I linked, or are you saying the situation has changed since then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare Similarly to VOA, the BBC is also often accused of (even by figures noted on its own Wikipedia page) being propaganda, yet it's still a reliable source. I read the sources cited that claim VOA is accused of propaganda, and some of the criticisms date from decades ago, and are strongly contested in the same sources. I thus think upon verification that VOA is a fine source.
The reason we shouldn't have to rely on larger news outlets to report on this tweet is due to the fact that it's precisely their mischaracterizations that the DHS was correcting. Politico isn't going to be rushing to report how the DHS corrected one of their reports. This isn't even a fuzzy issue since the tweet's contents are easily seen and verified.
Ultimately, the DHS and the Tech Transparency Project researcher's statements are two more of what I would call significant sources who contest the "far right" designation and support a less specifically ideological designation such as "anti-government". They add to the many that already exist, which at this point is enough to shift the weight toward not using the "far right" designation in the lead. Perhaps far right can still be in the lead somewhere (such as "X and Y have described it as far right..."), but it shouldn't be stated that the boogaloo movement is far right in Wikipedia's voice as if it's a matter of fact. MWise12 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: 10 days is a long time, and I disagree that there is -currently- consensus to call them exclusively "far-right" in the lead. That line in the lead is NOT supported in the main body. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The term boogaloo alludes to the 1984 cult film ... The word more likely alludes to Larry Neal's 1969 book "Black Boogaloo: Notes on Black Liberation". Essentially, this appears to be a white supremacist movement, and further characterizations (far-right, extremist) seem superfluous. --83.137.6.229 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP editor. Wikipedia articles summarize what published, reliable sources say about the topic. So, please provide links to reliable, published sources that make the connection between the 1969 book and the contemporary movement. Otherwise, it cannot be included in the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is as yet no consensus to use the DHS tweet (per earlier archived discussion on this specific point). It is a single tweet and conflicts with the high majority of other quality sources who have done SIGCOV pieces on the movement, and who use the term right-wing to describe it. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

After reading this recent WPO article As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement, I think it is now very inappropriate to use DHS tweets (or even any other DHS material). Perhaps the thing worth chronicling here (in the body, not lede), are attempts by the Trump Administration to downplay labelling of right-wing groups, in favour of labelling of left-wing groups, of which the Boogaloo movement is an example? Britishfinance (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Britishfinance The only reason there wasn't concensus on the DHS tweet before was because no sources had reported on it. At least two now have, making that previous discussion moot. Secondly, it most certainly does not conflict with other quality sources - in fact, a huge portion of them align perfectly with the DHS in stating the boogaloo movement is not specifically "far right". If you really want me to post the dozens and dozens of sources that align with the DHS's statements, I will do so, but really this should be obvious since many of them are on this very page.
In regards to the Washington Post article, it's meaningless in regards to the DHS since 1) That article came out before the DHS had made any statements. 2) The DHS is a law enforcement organization, not a political one. MWise12 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Netoholic, I have re-reverted your revert (again) of this edit for which there is no consensus (and there is evidence per above, that the DHS tweet is not appropriate as a source here). Please discuss the issue further and get consensus before any re-reversion. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Britishfinance:: Not sure why you think the DHS tweet is the only thing that this involves. The ONLY other description of boogaloo as "far-right" in the main body says "generally described as far-right or alt-right, although some groups have also been described as libertarian.", so the issue is that the sentence in the lead (meant to summarize the main body) is misleading. Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1 shows -repeated- requests and discussions about removing "far-right" from the lead. There is no consensus to include it, and the WP:ONUS is on you to prove otherwise, most probably via an RfC. Self-revert. -- Netoholic @ 14:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Netoholic. Two things regarding your edit that I (and others) have re-reverted:
* The majority of sources (as discussed above, and in the archived discussion), describe the movement as far-right. I added a new one from Washington Post above, but here is USA Today, Wired, NPR, Business Insuder. I could probably list over 20 RS with SIGCOV pieces on the movement and with "far-right" in the title. You should not attempt to remove "far-right" again.
* The DHS tweet conflicts with the high majority of all quality sources on the movement and is at a minimum, UNDUE. In addition, per As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement, it is now possible that the DHS tweet is also not a reliable source on this subject and clearly not appropriate for labelling the movement.
thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Britishfinance:: You're making your arguments for its inclusion, but you aren't providing clear proof that a consensus exists. I look at this section and see it as 2-2 right now, and adding on all the edit requests and discussion on Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1 about the use of "far-right", I do not see a consensus. This claim is highly-charged, and clear consensus must be demonstrated - not just dogged defiance and edit re-re-re-reverts on your part. -- Netoholic @ 15:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Britishfinance: I can also provide 20 RS that don't describe the boogaloo movement as far right or specifically mention that it isn't just far right. The fact is there is not concensus among the professionals, let alone on this page, to call the movement far right and thus Wikipedia shouldn't be stating in its voice that the movement is "far right". MWise12 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
You really need to quit edit warring. If you didn't agree that consensus was established in the previous discussion, then the thing to do would have been to continue that discussion or ask for formal consensus. Now you ("I can also provide 20 RS") and Netoholic ("a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days") have both claimed that the sources have overwhelmingly shifted away from describing the movement as "far right", but neither of you has presented any of these sources, aside from the VoA one. That's not how consensus is formed, you can't just handwave about sourcing existing to claim that consensus achieved ten days ago is suddenly moot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I reject that there was even a consensus to begin with. I was busy with real life events so was unable to continue arguing on here for hours on end. I could have gone into far more detail explaining why the lead should not say far right if I knew the discussion would be archived so quickly. MWise12 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, we all have real-life draws on our time. But the thing to do in that case would be to un-archive or start a new discussion, not continually edit war. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm planning to do a thorough audit of the sources used in this page, and a look through what's come out in the more recent days, to get a clear picture of how each one describes the movement. I'll post my findings here once I'm finished. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that so many different sources have either not called boogaloo groups far right or have directly contested that they're mainly far right should disqualify the designation being used in Wikipedia's voice in the lead. We need to acknowledge there is not consensus within the public consciousness on this. MWise12 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: - do what you like. But also start an RfC on the exclusive use of "far-right" in the lead. WP:ONUS is on you, not us. I reject your assessment of the consensus level. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I plan to do my audit first before determining where I stand on the inclusion. If it appears the weight of sourcing still supports "far-right" as the descriptor in the lead I will start an RfC. However you cannot just handwave around new sources being published, without even linking to said sources, and edit war your changes in. I've started a discussion at ANI about this behavior and related disruption at this page; though I've already formally notified you and the others involved, I'll link it here for anyone else: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I've gone and added a list of a variety of sources, as well as their direct quotes, in a new section. MWise12 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just finished going through all the sources used on this page, and I've uploaded my notes in my userspace since it's far too long to put on this page: User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources. Just for raw numbers, I found that 22 23 of the 59 sources here specifically describe the group as far-right. This is not counting a few sources where it's a little unclear (for example in the case of this source where it's not clear if they're calling the movement far-right, or a singular person) nor is it counting two sources that use "right-wing" descriptors but not "far-right" (Associated Press, Fox News). It's also interesting to note that 19 sources describe the movement as anti-government. These sources are not mutually exclusive; 10 11 sources use both descriptors.

To move past the numerical discussion, I only found two instances in which anyone seemed to directly refute the far-right characterization: the DHS tweet, which has already been mentioned here, and in a quote from Facebook in the Reuters source. In my opinion, both of these groups seek to benefit from minimizing the group being far-right: the DHS because Trump and others have been criticized (for example, by Politico) for blaming violence on left-wing protesters while much of it has been committed by right-wing people, and Facebook because they have been criticized for being light on right-wing extremism on the platform. I was also interested to find a handful of cases in which the movement is described as "far-right", but other descriptors are also used, including libertarian (SPLC) and anarchist ([3]). I was also very interested to see Al Jazeera directly refute some of the claims made here and elsewhere that because some members or groups in the movement support BLM, they can't be far right: the article describes the boogaloo movement in no uncertain terms as far right, and then later says Purported members have been seen at protests bearing signs saying "The Boogaloo stands with George Floyd". While many far-right groups have a supremacist element, it isn't always the case.

As for MWise12's three sources which he claims contradict the "far-right" descriptor, one is the DHS tweet which I've mentioned above. Another is Katie Paul of the Tech Transparency Project, who is quoted in VOANews as saying "These individuals made an effort to capitalize on both, which shows that it's not really a right or left mentality for these guys so much as anti-government". To me this appears to mean that she believes they are more focused on the anti-government themes than the left–right political spectrum, not that she believes there are members throughout the spectrum. The Tech Transparency Project's report on the subject does associate the boogaloo with the far-right, though it mostly discusses "boogaloo" as a term used among far-right groups, rather than as a movement itself. As for Robert Evans, his Bellingcat piece clearly describes the group as: a largely white, and far right movement. A link and a timestamp to the podcast would be useful so I could more easily review that.

My conclusion based on this review of the sources is that the far-right descriptor still belongs in the lead without couching it in any kind of "sometimes described as" language. I have no objection to "anti-government" also being added to the lead sentence if it can be done in a readable way, but I do object to it replacing the "far-right" descriptor.

I will start an RfC lower down on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: C'mon - 22 of the 59 is not even half. That standard fails even basic WP:WEIGHT because its a minority view. The standard "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" applies - attribute the term to prominent adherents, and present the contradicting views also, with attribution. A line like "XYZ consider the movement far-right, ABC consider it libertarian, and DHS says there are extremists on both ideological sides." -- Netoholic @ 00:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
We can discuss this at the RfC. However my observation from the review was that the sources that did give any broad-strokes description of the movement described it as "far-right" and/or "anti-government". There were quite a few sources that either did not describe the boogaloo movement at all (and are used on the page to support other claims), or ones who described the meme but not the movement. The latter tended to describe its popularity among far-right groups as well, but I did not count them as describing the boogaloo movement as far right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No one other than DHS seriously says that any leftist is part of the Boogaloo movement; their opinion appears to be a fringe outlier. In addition, this analysis strictly looks at the term "far-right" - I count half a dozen other sources which discuss the movement as right-wing, or specifically opposed to the left. For example, the Network Contagion Research Institute says Boogaloo involves "an uprising against the government or left-wing political opponents." NBC News says Boogaloo involves "targeting liberal political opponents and law enforcement." FOX News says "Authorities say the boogaloos are right-wing extremists bent on starting a civil war." Associated Press: "Far-right gun activists and militia groups first embraced the term before white supremacist groups adopted it last year." SPLC: "In other words, the boogaloo remains a right-wing fantasy." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll raise your logical fallacy appeal to majority with logical fallacy appeal to Authority. "A variety of extremist and fringe movements and subcultures have adopted the word “boogaloo” as shorthand for a future civil war." that's off the ADL page "including those who support the 'Boogaloo,' " Barr's memo. Note the wording doesn't apply to a group known as the burgeroo. It's being used as a VERB. This article has no intention of dealing with or distilling down reality. This is an entirely political motivated attack destroying wikipedia's reputation as reliable,as a side effect, to further a political agenda. Note none of your highly reliable sources provide a link to the actual memo. "I'll read it and interpret for you" types of highly reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:2837:7862:8777:7C91 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

...burgeroo? I'm not sure why you are cherrypicking one source which describes the boogaloo meme as though it refutes that there is also a movement based around the meme, which is adequately supported by tens of sources in this article. As for a link to the actual memo, it is quite intentional that we are relying on secondary sources to do any interpretation of primary sources: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. (WP:PRIMARY)
I would suggest you familiarize yourself with our WP:NPOV policy, which requires editors to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Determining the weight of the sourcing as we have been doing in this disccussion and others is not an "appeal to majority", it's a fundamental part of how Wikipedia editing works. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest you guys lay off the wikipedia kool-aid. " a radical right-wing group whose adherents openly anticipate civil war" thats a quote from Washington post. I suspect it's cited source is this article. That's a citation feed back loop. Where Wikipedia cannot be used as a source by it's own rules. However if lazy journalism uses wikipedia as a source it can be used as a source here thus validation occurs through the logical fallacy appeal to majority. "cherry picking" "we do it on purpose". We know you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:2837:7862:8777:7C91 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That quote comes up in two Washington Post articles, "Federal authorities file charges against 3 alleged Boogaloo followers in Nevada" and Barr forms task force to counter ‘anti-government extremists’. Neither is used as a source in this article. I think you'll find we'd all be happy to discuss improvements to this article, but if you're only going to tilt at windmills like that it won't be a good use of time for anyone, yourself included. As for your accusation that we intentionally use circular sourcing, try again; in fact I just recently removed a source that I suspected to have been drawing from this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It won't be good use of time for anyone with an inability to engage in independent critical thought. For instance if you cite the supposed burgeroo boi that was starting a "spartan militia", uncovered through fact checking the source, you'll be accused of cherry picking. Except you can do this with every instance of a supposed "burgeroo boi" arrest. You do that 10 times here and you're accused on not enough sources. Too many sources and you're accused of plagiarisms. This is the kool aid. The tools used to create false narratives here and engage in censorship. Complete waste of time. Hence why I'm not touching your main article with a ten foot pole. Don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:2837:7862:8777:7C91 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, well you know where to find us if you want to try having a constructive discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Jo Jorgenson

Came across this ref from today in The Guardian re Jo Jorgenson and the movement: Libertarian 2020 candidate appears on podcast tied to ‘boogaloo’ movement. Never heard of Jorgenson (although I see she has a WP page), and therefore not sure of the materiality? Should we include this (e.g. involvement in political activism sub-section)? Britishfinance (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The only other place I've heard of Jorgenson is from an SPA on this talk page. Google turns up the briefest of mentions in a Washington Post article: [4] but not much else. I could go either way on whether to include it—there's not much other coverage of her relating to the boogaloo movement, but the Guardian piece is fairly in-depth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

connection to Hamas

some Boogaloo members offered Hamas their serveries. sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/boogaloo-hamas/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-men-allegedly-linked-boogaloo-accused-offering-work-hamas-n1239400 https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/members-of-far-right-boogaloo-bois-arrested-attempting-to-support-hamas-641138 https://kstp.com/news/2-self-proclaimed-boogaloo-bois-charged-with-attempting-to-support-hamas/5851661/?cat=1 This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ed0:5902:e500:4fb:baa8:ca51:3ead (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} I've added a sentence about it: [5] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Boogers

The term "booger" is increasingly used to refer to members of the boogaloo movement by its opponents. I think this fact should be included in the article. It's an insulting term, but so was "Nazi" (originally the name of a bumbling character from "Bavarian jokes").--Ultrademocracy (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ultrademocracy: Do you have any reliable sources supporting this claim? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

“Booger” and “Boogalooer” are not what the groups would use to describe themselves. They use the term “Boogaloo Boi” “Boog Boi”, and lately “Journalists” as they have changed their terminology to that of media companies such as CNN and MSNBC to avoid social media filtering. Professorjefferson (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Boogaloo boi" is already mentioned in the article. Like I said to Ultrademocracy, the other terms would need a reliable source to be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "Far-right" in the first sentence of the lead

Firm consensus to describe Boogaloo movememnt as far-right as per overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the first sentence of the lead describe the boogaloo movement as a "far-right" movement? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support describing the group as a far-right movement per my reasoning at User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources#Conclusion, which I will try to more briefly summarize here. I have done a detailed analysis of the sources, preserved at User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources#Notes, and found that the sources that describe the movement in any sort of broad strokes tend to use the "far-right" and/or the "anti-government" labels (which, as I have outlined in discussion above on this page, are not contradictory). I was also interested to see that there were sources such as the SPLC and The Post and Courier that broadly describe the group as far-right, but also describe elements of it as libertarian or anarchist, suggesting that those labels are not in conflict as some have claimed.
    Only three sources have been presented, plus one more I dug up in my review, that say anything at all which conflicts with the "far-right" label. Two of these stand to gain from the movement being portrayed as something other than far-right (the DHS and Facebook); the other two are researchers making statements that, if interpreted the way MWise is interpreting them, appear to conflict with their organizations' conclusions on the boogaloo movement. One appears to be being interpreted incorrectly, and one I have so far been unable to confirm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    To respond to the claim that it's "only 22 of 59" (actually 23 of 59) sources that describe the movement as far-right: this is why I stated that out of the sources that broadly describe the movement, they largely use "far-right" as the descriptor (plus a few more that use "right-wing"). But not all 59 sources describe the movement in broad strokes, and not all 59 even describe the movement—some of the sources on this page describe the meme but not the movement, some are used to support other claims (for example, there are sources used to verify information about the killings of law enforcement officers that were published before the boogaloo connection came out, and so don't even mention the term). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out in the related discussion above that I took a conservative approach to counting these sources, and that additional ones make similar claims. Only two sources contain anything to contradict the "far-right" descriptor in any way, and those are sources containing statements by the DHS and Facebook, which I've described above as questionable due to their interest in the movement being portrayed differently. As with most things on Wikipedia (NOTAVOTE, etc.) raw numbers is not the way to go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Requires attribution - Even taking GorillaWarfare list of sources at face-value, its only 22 of 59 that use that term - perhaps a significant minority, but not enough to state in WP:VOICE. Per WP:WEIGHT/WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that claim must be attributed to prominent adherents of that view. Likewise, alternate or contradicting views, such as the DHS ("extremists from both ends of the ideological spectrum"), must also be included and attributed. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - "Far-right" as a descriptor is very well sourced, and previous consensus discussions have agreed that it is appropriate. Nothing has changed in that regard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stating "The boogaloo movement, (. . .) is a (. . .) far-right extremist movement" in the lead is a dramatic oversimplification of what the sources are saying. It strips the description of any context or nuance; nuance which is important to understanding the evolution of this movement and the nature of the danger it poses. Personally, I would suggest something along the lines of "The boogaloo movement is an American extremist movement with significant far-right elements." ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Suppport, as this descriptor is well-sourced and very widely used by reliable sources. I'd also support including the term "anti-government" as it too is well sourced and widely used. Yilloslime (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the sources provided, and others I've seen, it seems like there is some variation in whether adherents are (for example) neo-Nazis, but it does seem like (per ample sources provided above) they are far-right; hence, support the proposal. I think the description is so widely used that it does not need in-text attribution to specific sources, but I think it would also be defensible (again per sources) to qualify it like "generally far right"/"mostly far right" if that would address the concerns of oppose !voters like ONUnicorn(?). (I was summoned here by a feedback-request bot.) -sche (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: The sources pretty clearly support that they are far right. Not necessarily neo-Nazi or white supremacist (in fact, reading between the lines they appear to be primarily right-libertarian gun advocates), but inarguably far-right. Loki (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Upon further reading, I think I'd like to amend this to support rewording to mostly far-right per sche's suggestion. Several of the sources describe small non-far-right currents within the movement that I feel like we should at least acknowledge. Loki (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about that reasoning. Reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the group as explicitly and firmly on the far-right. Bacondrum (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Some examples:
  • Source 43, from the ADL: "While boogaloo supporters hail from a variety of movements..."
  • Source 4, The Economist, marked as far-right=TRUE: "Some among the far-right style themselves as “Boogaloo Boys” or “Boojahdeen”. " (rectangle-square problem: says far-right belong to the boogaloo movement but doesn't say anything about the overall composition of the boogaloo movement)
  • Source 7, from Bellingcat, marked as far-right=TRUE: "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." (One of the authors of this article has also said publicly several times that he would not characterize the Boogaloo movement overall as "far right": see mention of Robert Evans in the discussion above.)
  • Source 33, from Raw Story, marked as far-right=TRUE: "The nascent boogaloo movement is not monolithic, Friedfeld said, and it draws from spectrum of groups from the right wing to the far right, from militias and anarcho-capitalists to white supremacists."
and on and on; these are four in a row sorted by chronological and I'm sure I could find many more like this. Loki (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Just noting it here because I've seen it mentioned elsewhere also: I'm pretty sure that otherwise unusual comma in the Bellingcat statement is to show that "largely" applies to "white" but not "far-right". As for Raw Story, it describes the boogaloo movement as far right in the title: "‘They want their civil war’: Far-right ‘boogaloo’ militants are embedded in the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis". It's a difficult movement to nail down, that's for sure (and some of the sources describe this as intentional). The fact that they self-describe as all kinds of things only muddies the waters. But I do think the weight of the sourcing supports "far-right" without equivocation, though I see your point of view as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The headline of the Raw Story article is again a rectangle-square problem: the militants embedded in the protests are both far-right and boogaloo, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the boogaloo movement overall is far-right. And the reason I don't interpret the comma in the Bellingcat article like that is mainly because one of the authors of the article has said in multiple places that he doesn't consider the boogaloo movement to be "far-right" overall. Loki (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess my point is that far-right is not a meaningful term by itself. In the boogaloo context does it mean neo-nazi? Then say far-right neo-nazi or simply neo-nazi. Does it mean far-right libertarian? Then say far-right libertarian or just libertarian? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A lot of the refs simply use the term far-right on its own, and in a prominent fashion (headline, byline etc.). Some will add "extreme" (or "extremist") to this as a qualifier. After that, the frequency of other terms being used prominently in the refs drops off. Many will use versions of "the movement describe themselves as ....", and then have combinations of "libertarian" and "militia" (or "citizen militia"). Terms like "neo-nazi" and "white supremacist" are used, but not prominently like in the headline (unlike far-right), and with a caveat that it only applies to sections. Britishfinance (talk)
  • Britishfinance has summarized the sourcing well; many use "far-right" or "far-right extremist" but do not add further descriptors. I disagree that "far-right" alone is not useful—far-right politics gives a lot more context that "anti-government" does not. "Anti-government" describes the boogaloo movement well but it also describes some anti-fascists and others on the far left; "far-right" helps to clarify where the movement falls on a different axis of the political spectrum. The term is also widely used in this way on-wiki. To grab a few examples, One America News Network, QAnon, American Independent Party, and Patriot Prayer all use "far-right" without other descriptors. There are certainly cases in which we can be more specific (I've seen lots of articles that say a group or person is a "far-right white nationalist", etc.) but in this case the sourcing only supports that kind of additional detail being applied to individual groups within the movement rather than the movement as a whole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources; a large number of WP:RS/P directly call the movement far-right right-wing in the headline (or byline) of SIGCOV pieces, including: Washington Post, USA Today, Wired, NPR, Wall Street Journal (I could list many more). Britishfinance (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Right wing = far right? Good to know. Thanks for proving my point. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment. It doesn't. Read the refs. E.g. Washington Post headline As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement, first sentance A far-right extremist movement born on social media and fueled by anti-government rhetoric has emerged as a real-world threat in recent weeks, with federal authorities accusing some of its adherents of working to spark violence at largely peaceful protests roiling the nation. WPO is an WP:RS/P, they understand these terms. Britishfinance (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Comment I guess sarcasm is hard to sense in text form. You used the term right-wing in your comment rather than far-right, which is what this RfC is about. Then you chose to switch back to far-right with the WaPo quote, which would imply that you think they are the same thing.Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any and all RfCs of the form Should the first sentence of the lead describe X as Y? without clear and well-sourced article content related to the issue. Fix the incoherent "Beliefs and structure" section (which does not even mention firearms or 2nd amendment and barely hints at anti-government!) with some consensus text, then ask if 'far-right' is appropriate. All this effort going into a labeling debate would be much more beneficial if it instead were put to improving article content. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Obsoleted by GW. fiveby(zero) 19:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - very well sourced, as User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources indicates exhaustively. To the extent corresponding adjustments should be made to the body, those of course can be made. I would also be OK with -sche's proposed wording. Neutralitytalk 15:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per GorillaWarfare and -sche. Well sourced, verifiable. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support there's an almost inexhaustible number of news articles and academic papers that describe them as such. As far as I can see their far-right politics and related criminal activity is all they are notable for. Bacondrum (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - GorillaWarfare and Britishfinance have made the case and then some. - MrX 🖋 20:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The sourcing here is convincing. The majority of the sources say far-right when they are discussing the movement. gobonobo + c 11:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 'Boogaloo' is essentially a meme within many firearms communities, interpretation and meaning will vary wildly between individuals and groups. There's no official body that sets policy positions. Characterising it as effectively far-right is too reductionistic, similar to how claiming BLM are far-left would be much more an opinion than substantiated encyclopaedic fact. It's not clear-cut enough to conclude that, as User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources make clear. Anti-government label seems justified, as does Libertarian/Conservative with strong pro-constitution (and obviously pro-2A). However, I would be worth noting that the movement covers a broad range of politics, including some far-right and supremacist factions. I'll take a look in some left-leaning 2A communities to see what perceptions of "Boogaloo" are there. atcp (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Is your opinion based in the sourcing or in your own views on the movement? I ask because both "libertarian" and "conservative" are much less often used in the sourcing, and there is surprisingly little discussion of the second amendment in there also. As for asking in some left-leaning 2A communities, feel free, but it won't be usable here with out coverage in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I came to this discussion expecting to be arguing that the description should be toned down, but the source analysis convinced me that "far-right" is appropriate. Details and qualifications (the possible splinter factions, etc.) can be described more fully in the article body. We don't need to try and cram them all into the opening sentence of the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Personal anecdote incoming. The Boogaloo, big luau etc pages on social media lean true middle. Various pages were flooded with Anti-Trump memes, moreso than leftist memes (besides being anti-communist). Many support Jo Jorgensen the Libertarian Presidential Candidate and vehemently oppose big government. The extremist descriptor is not in opposition, but the far-right is. Opienet (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Opienet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Do you have any policy-based arguments for opposing this change? Personal anecdotes without support in policy and sourcing are not useful in RfCs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Everyone has made good arguments for support. It's well-sourced, and it's not Wikipedia's place to do original research. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, with caveat: The boogaloo movement has largely been reported on as a far-right movement, and is largely connected to far-right groups. It is categorized as a far-right extremist threat by the FBI, no? I would say "which has been characterized as a far-right extremist movement" is fully reasonable and non-biased to be in the lead sentence. This is like QAnon: can I verify for sure that all of QAnon is far-right? No, absolutely not. I've seen leftist groups supporting the conspiracy theory. But it has still been characterized largely as a far-right theory, and this characterization by experts should be reflected. PickleG13 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    My objection to the caveat is that saying "has been characterized as a far-right movement" begs the question of "by whom?" And the answer to that question is an enormously long list. We could pick a handful of experts to attribute the characterization to, but I think that lends the impression that it is a not-so-widely held belief. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment by this metric, should the similarly anti government Sovereign citizen movement be labelled far right? Several sources describe them as such, including Vox and The New York Times. The SPLC notes that the movement is rooted in racism and antisemitism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Probably a better conversation to have at Talk:Sovereign citizen movement. I haven't read that many of the sources; similar to this article I'd base my decision on the weight of the sources that describe it as such, as well as whether there are contradictory statements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: backed up by sources as presented in this RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Claiming that the "boogaloo" is far right is the equivalent of saying that BLM is far-left since there are obviously some far-left people involved in BLM, that, however, doesn't mean that the movement is far-left per se, as hardly none of them are. The same occurs with Boogaloo, there may be far-right neonazi members (I'm not actually sure if that's the case, but nevertheless plenty of users say that), but that doesn't mean that the movement is far-right. I think it would be less controvesial and more appropiate to label them as anti-government or libertarian since almost all of them are libertarian and label themselves that way as well. Fvoltes (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Fvoltes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    If the majority of sources described BLM as far-left, as the majority of sources describe the boogaloo movement as far-right, then I would support that too. Is your vote based on reliable sourcing or on your own views of the makeup of the movement? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BLM and Boog Bois march together, many members are from the John Brown Gun Club. Labeling them as far-right gives them a negative connotation of racists, which they are not. It is one of their goals to weed out and expose racists with their organization. It is a Libertarian movement that expresses Left and right ideals, with hopes of a social civil war to change the government for the better. Their are people from Anarco - Communists to Anarco-Capitalists. Stalk their pages, read their posts, you would see that. Or just look at the fact that Boog Bois walk with BLM and Antifa. DocShortBus99 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC) — DocShortBus99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose Many sources refer to Boogaloo groups and individuals as "anti-government", without stating far right, and in some cases sources explicitly dispute the far right designation. I have linked many of these sources previously on this Talk Page. Recent events (protesting alongside Black Lives Matter) are yet another example that shows Boogaloo groups/individuals/etc hold a wide variety of political leanings and can't be painted over with the broad brush of "far right". I'll also remark I find GorillaWarfare's speculation about the DHS and Facebook's motives undue at best. We can just as easily argue it's in the interest of the sources who are describing Boogaloo groups as "far right" to be doing so, particularly outlets who are known for trying to make actual right wing groups or movements look as negative as possible. Or they are simply trying to prevent any left wing oriented Boogaloo-related crimes from being accurately categorized as left wing. MWise12 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC). — MWise12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose: “far right”, as others have said is an Ill-defined to describe this movement. There is a variety of political ideologies that take the moniker of “boogaloo”, but the most common descriptor I have seen (and I was a member of the largest boogaloo Facebook and discord groups before they were banned) is anti-big government and constitutionalist. Libertarian is a much more accurate descriptor.
    “Extremist” may be accurate depending on your definition of the word, as members are willing to defend themselves with deadly force against perceived constitutional infringements, however as Thomas Jefferson said and Boogaloo adherents are fond of quoting, “ The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” I take this to be evidence that this is within the norm of behavior intended by those who founded the government of the US.
    If only I could source to discord, unfortunately the corporate powers pressured social media platforms to disenfranchise the boogaloo movement and remove their communities. Professorjefferson (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Professorjefferson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Even if Discord did not remove boogaloo communities, Wikipedia articles are written based on reliable, independent sources—not on original research of the communities themselves. Furthermore, how these communities describe themselves often differs from how they are described by independent researchers. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of self-descriptive terms "militia" or "citizen militia"

I often see the movement describe themselves, and be described as, a "militia" or "citizen militia". E.g. Business Insider, Wired, The Verge, etc (there are quite a few more). I had used these terms in the article earlier (in the same sentence in the lede, and in the body, where it is noted that they often describe themselves as "libertarian"), but it seems to have gone. Is this due to a disagreement with the term or other? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That was me who removed it from the lead ([7]), when I was going through to make sure the lead accurately reflected the article body. Not sure when it was removed from the body, though. I also wasn't seeing it in the cites following that sentence in the lead, so I wasn't sure it was well-supported.
No objections to it being re-added if it is supported by the sourcing, but I'm not sure those sources support that they self-describe as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I am far less interested in how they describe themselves than how RS describe them. A collective like this has a strategic motive to use obfuscation, subterfuge and stealth to render themselves amorphous and undefinable, so they do not appear as a “hard blip” on anyone’s radar screen. They are likely just another one of various militia groups over the years, like Oath Keepers, that keep dissolving, regrouping and rebranding themselves. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Britishfinance g'day mate. We don't let the subject describe themselves other than as an attributed quote. First, they are a primary source. Second, the subject is likely to describe them self in the most positive terms possible, if they describe themselves as the best at everything and friend to all, that doesn't make it so. Of course a far-right extremist organisation is going to refer to itself as a "concerned citisens group" or "citizen militia", that sounds heaps better, it's PR (also weaselly). That's why we look to reliable secondary sources, if we let the subjects describe themselves Wikipedia would be a flowery mess of self aggrandising nonsense. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: This article does say that The groups and individuals often self-identify as libertarian, however individuals have also described themselves as adherents of other ideologies, including anarchism. Are you saying that should be removed, or just objecting to the addition of "citizen-militia"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Regarding your recent edit, can you clarify if you were taking issue with the "self describe as libertarian" bit, the "boogaloo is a second Civil War" bit, or both? I think it's important that we describe what "the boogaloo" means among this movement. As for the libertarian self-identification, that's supported in the article body by note #3, and perhaps that just needs to be moved up to be used in the lead also? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey GorillaWarfare, yes I was just about to reinstate the "boogaloo is a second Civil War" bit and explain deleting the libertarian bit, when I got a phone call 😂...so, I thought I'd better check the sources. And the four cites provided do not back The groups and individuals often self-identify as libertarian, however individuals have also described themselves as adherents of other ideologies, including anarchism claim at all - one mentions "libertarians" and one mentions "anarchism", but at no point are the used to say what we are claiming. The first source, The Times describes them as "a growing movement of armed anti-government extremists" and “The Boogaloo is a loose-knit movement of anti-government extremists who are agitating to overthrow any government officials or entities who attempt to impose laws and rules they don’t like,” The second source, the ADL says this "The boogaloo meme has spread to other movements with anti-government beliefs, primarily minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, which are essentially conservative alternatives to anarchism, as well as a few apparent anarchists. Use of the term by adherents of these philosophies often refers to violence against the state and its institutions, especially law enforcement." which is very different to what we are claiming and doesn't mention them being libertarian or adherents of anarchism at all. The third source, Vox doesn't mention either word or any variation. The fourth source mentions libertarians, but not as we use it “Stop the duopoly,” a nonviolent political phrase, refers to criticism that the Democratic and Republican Parties do not allow any room for others, such as libertarians" I've removed the claim accordingly. I hate the way this happens with these kinds of articles, we really should go through and check all citations and related claims, particularly the ones with excessive cites as this often indicates a dubious claim in my experience. I'll go restore the boogaloo bit now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: My guess is that those citations were meant to support the point about the boogaloo term, and the self-identification as libertarian part got added in later based on the article text (which uses different cites). Have you looked through the sources in note 3? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Ah, I haven't checked out note 3, thanks for pointing that out. I haven't got time to do anymore this morning, but I will go through the sources during the week. I do wonder if we are getting into synth territory? We appear to need an excessive number of cites and that suggests we may be combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Otherwise one or two cites should suffice for each claim, surely? Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, we need to fix some of the cites, IMO. Readers shouldn't have to go fishing elsewhere in the article to find the sources for claims in the lede. Bacondrum (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum Please restore "Participants generally identify as libertarian". Your second removal violated 1RR. - MrX 🖋 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fully agreed that if it's re-added to the lead we should pull the cite up with it. I don't think there's a synth issue here, though. We could go with just one or two of the libertarian cites just as easily as using all four—I think the claims have just accumulated a lot of cites given there's been so much discussion/controversy around how to describe the movement (which has included discussion of how they self-describe). Looking at the sources again I'm thinking that Mercury News cite needs to be removed regardless—looking at the wording, it's so close to the article text that I think it's citogenesis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
MrX sorry, I didn't mean to edit war, self reverted. (I did remove an incorrectly piped link as per WP:EASTEREGG, but it reads the same...that's why the letter count is different, let me know if you are unhappy with the piped link removal.) Bacondrum (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks GorillaWarfare, I agree re the Mercury. I'm looking at the sources for claims they self describe as libertarian and I'm still wondering if the sources used really back-up what we are stating. I'll get back to you on that one. Bacondrum (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks BMK, much improved. I still think there's an issue with sourcing in this article generally, with so many sources needed for each individual claim it looks like synth-a-geddon. I might be wrong, but the citation overkill does raise concerns. Bacondrum (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that, but, unfortunately, it's pretty much our only defense against the constant edit requests articles such as this get. The more sources we cite, the tighter the evidence is for not making the changes that are demanded. While a single source would be sufficient in an article on, say, a species of bacteria, in this realm, the more citations the better. If things get out of hand, the cites can be bundled, which cleans up the look of the article quite a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Once J.J. MacNab or another who studies extremist groups publishes this article should get much easier to edit. fiveby(zero) 23:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken Yes, thanks for the response. I've been looking at the cites and both you and GorillaWarfare are correct, there doesn't seem to be any synth going on. Some pretty marginal cites, but no synth. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate you spending the time to look it over! Another set of eyes can never hurt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Back to "Militia" term

Sorry for the delay in getting back to my original post. I could not find RS saying the "self-identify", but I could find lots of RS calling them a "militia". I added The movement has also been described as a militia (with refs), to the body and lede (in the same positioning). Does this work? The term "far-right militia" appears quite frequently – E.g. USA Today, Military Times. But I don't know if you want to put it alongside far-right in the article (i.e. in the same sentence)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The addition to the article body seems reasonable. However I don't know if they're so frequently described as such that it ought to be the second sentence of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You see it quite a lot (even in captions) in the strong RS: Guardian (caption: A member of the far-right militia Boogaloo Bois in Charlotte, North Carolina), BBC (Broadly it is an extremist, libertarian militia that is deeply distrustful of government and prepared for a civil war). However this WPO reference is not so sure (it is a little confusing as to whether they are calling them a militia, or, whether they are differentiating them from traditional militias?): Washington Post. I will leave to you to decide :) Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Muddying the waters further, I've also seen some sources mention that members of other militia groups embrace the boogaloo meme (ADL: "From militia groups to white supremacists, extremists on a range of online platforms talk about—and sometimes even anticipate—the “boogaloo.”", Wall Street Journal: "Sharing rhetoric with far-right sects like white supremacists, militia groups and anti-government ideologues, these boogalooers..."], etc. I think the Washington Post source you mention is doing roughly the same. I'd be curious to hear other opinions before making any decisions around its inclusion in the lead, so I'll hold off for a bit in case any other talk page watchers feel like weighing in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed GW. It might merit a slightly longer discussion in the body as (a) they look like a militia (heavily armed, military gear), but (b) don't seem to have the more structured organization of a "traditional militia"? Perhaps it is this nuance that is worth chronicling, and is what the WPO/ADL are getting to – E.g. "While they are sometimes described as a militia, it is also noted that the movement does not incorporate all the attributes of a "traditional militia"? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the majority of participants were radicalized elsewhere prior to donning a Hawaiian shirt—either in anti-government militant groups such as the Three Percenters or the militias, or in white supremacy groups—the Boogaloo shouldn’t be considered an independent movement at this time.

Assessing the Threat from Accelerationists and Militia Extremists: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism (Witness Statement of J.J. MacNab). written testimony video. fiveby(zero) 03:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on MacNab's testimony, the character of the article would change somewhat, "...libertarian anarchists who hate cops...", less emphasis as a 'movement': as she puts it a dress code for other extremist groups. Law enforcement as the target. I would trust such an expert's description and conclusions far beyond that of any WP:NEWSORG, but as simple testimony it is not backed up by argument or review as it would be if published. Probably good for some attributed quotes tho. fiveby(zero) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla Warfare, Fiveby, I did try to add this above in the body here and by it I was referring to what Fiveby stated about MacNab putting less emphasis as a 'movement': as she puts it a dress code for other extremist groups. So I interpreted it to mean that movement is a dress code for other extremists groups, that was what I was referring to when writing putting less emphasis as a movement and arguing it is a dress code for other extremist groups. You can probably improve that and word it better; I found that interesting and I was just trying to be bold and hopefully helpful. Davide King (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Cool, I'm trying to work it back in now in a slightly clearer way. One thing I'm a little concerned about is that MacNab has recently said that "most boogaloo members are libertarian anarchists who hate cops", but elsewhere she has said that their views on law enforcement are among the views that vary the most (CNN). How do we reconcile that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes contradictory at times, she also says just seeing someone in a Hawaiian shirt shouldn't make you sure of their ideologies, and even envisions a shootout between Boogaloo of different groups. She is the most quoted expert by the news orgs, but it's confusing stuff and really all we have are tweets and this short bit of testimony. Think we reconcile by waiting for her to actually publish something with some weight behind it. Wasn't really meaning for anything to be included in the article, maybe just a bit more skepticism of the news reporting. fiveby(zero)
Yeah, ideally she'll formally publish something, though it may be some time given the review cycle. In the meantime I'm not sure if we should cull some of what's in there, or what. It's certainly tricky writing about emerging movements/groups/whatever you want to call this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The dress code quote is at 58:22 "...isn't really a movement, it's a dress code, it's a way of talking, it's jargon. The people who belong to it came from other extremist groups usually on facebook...and yet they're treated as a separate movement and the problem is you are ignoring the underlying areas they came from..." was paraphrasing above. She probably also contradicts the SPLC Hatewatch post quoted in a footnote: "...few of its adherents are interested in aligning with Black Lives Matter or antifascist protesters against police brutality." She says the opposite of the majority: "Early press reports focused only on the white supremacy side of the movement, while ignoring the much larger, racially diverse libertarian side who had started to show up armed at protests and rallies, siding with Re-Open protesters and Black Lives Matter activists in cities around the country." fiveby(zero) 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Here's my edit: [8]. I ended up just quoting the "dress code" comment in full. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Fiveby, GorillaWarfare, thank you again for your comments. I think GorillaWarfare's edit was fine and clarified what I meant to say. I agree we probably need to wait for MacNab's published work. Davide King (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-KKK group "Boogaloo Bois" protest at Richlands town hall

https://wvva.com/2020/08/16/anti-kkk-group-boogaloo-bois-protest-at-richland-town-hall/

I am not sure how to add this to sources on the main page, but I would like it to be placed on there in response to the "white supremacist" section. Boogaloos are not white supremacists and call out people who are within the group spreading race propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.133.84 (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is already clear that some groups are white supremacist, and that some are anti-racist. The existence of one anti-racist boogaloo group, as supported by your source, does not contradict the fact that there are other groups that hold white supremacist beliefs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There are literally no “groups” of boog bois who identify as white supremacists. The entire movement is predicated on liberty for ALL. This is extremely obvious to anyone who has ever been inside one of their groups online. The media is intentionally painting this movement in an unfair light. To quote Rhett E Boogie “racism is not cash money and you will be yeeted”. Viperboi65 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources, sources...that is all we are here to discuss. We reflect what reliable sources say. So do you have sources to back what you are claiming? Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Bacondrum (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s hard to get the media to cover real events instead of the slander they choose to print. Viperboi65 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're out of luck then. Bacondrum (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
It can't be harder than getting Wikipedia editors to go directly against longstanding policy that requires us to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I would recommend focusing your efforts on the media, because the changes you're suggesting are not going to happen until sourcing supports it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Would you trust a goverment source about anti-goverment preppers.

does live video count as a source? i am new CAPnBLACK (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@CAPnBLACK: Live video generally requires interpretation, and we don't use any editor's personal interpretation so you'd need a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source to interpret the video.
There are 76 references cited in the article. I'm seeing three citations from the United States House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism and one BBC News piece (which is technically gov't, just not the US gov't). Are you suggesting that your source is governmental or are you inquiring about the nature of sources in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There are huge amounts of false information on the page

•first off its not far-right, republican, or white supremacists as commonly believed. They are an all inclusive anti- govt anarchy movement • Its is not extremist for no actions have been committed by them have been deemed anyway a terroristic action • They don't want a civil war. They only train for it because of the political instability. • There needs to be a link to the Non - agression principles and a summary of boogaloo movement standards and goals • There needs to be better clarity on the subject that the boogaloo movement involving white supremacists. The movement is actively anti racist and any person who say they are boogaloo but are racist are not boogaloo but fake imposters • There also needs needs to be a summary on the wrongful censorship of the movement because of the beliefs that the govt is overreaching and that all pedos should be killed including the politicians All of this is easily referenced and I can ask some members to give references also. Remember the information is usually best understood from the main source Hawksofthewoods (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

-[citation needed]
​ But seriously, any of your statements could be included in the article if citations from secondary sources are found. One issue you may run into is that wikipedia is primarily built on wp:reliable sources, and we tend to prefer secondary sources in particular. At the moment, most strong secondary sources disagree with at least some of your assertions. This means that even if you find sources that support your statements, they will probably need to appear alongside, rather than instead of, what already exists in the article. Feel free to ask any more questions! Jlevi (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

1) remove the reference to NEO Nazis and [19] when saying they are white supremacists. The citation used does not claim there are, the title literally says "likely". 2) you can't call them far right, and anti-government. The standard political compass has far right as nationalists. Those things are mutually exclusive. This makes it obvious for anyone reading that this is a smear campaign. Noone397 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read the big red box at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Very strange phrasing

" 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." Why on earth are these the only two options being presented? It's just a weird thing to say. What about "Some believe there will be a race war, others do not". I just don't see what condemning white supremacy has to do with thinking there will be a race war. The two aren't connected at all. Sure, some white supremacists believe a race war will occur, but why attach racism to thinking a race war will occur? 2601:18E:101:5FC0:A0BE:29E1:38CC:F512 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. There's a lot of variety within the Boog, and that phrase should probably describe those as possible categories, rather than the only categories. Do you have any suggestions on how to word this better? Jlevi (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I wrote that phrasing but I agree now that you point it out that it is bizarre. I've made this change which may not be the best solution, but is hopefully at least an improvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
i have to agree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmegrue (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Magnigornia's comments

I moved "The Intercept" article link at the top of the page to the "External Links" section. I don't usually edit unless I see a noticeable mistake. Please forgive me if there's a reason it was at the top, or if I messed anything up while moving it. Magnigornia (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Can the far right be anarchists if they're rebelling against what they perceive to be a globalist government? The political compass usually has four quadrants and libertarian and authoritarian sections for both the left and right. Like the soviet union and nazi germany their methods and tactics may similar but their motivations and end goals may be different. Magnigornia (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

​Based on wikipedia's standards for editing, we need not worry about this sort of question from first principles because any political label must come from reliable sources. Otherwise, such labelling would constitute wp:original research. The political compass in particular (the online/meme version you're referring to), aside from the OR issue, is probably too blunt a tool use in this matter in any case. Check out Political compass/spectrum for more discussion on the matter. But again, on wikipedia any such label needs to come from reliable sources, and except in unusual circumstances arguments outside of those sources won't be deemed useful in deciding which labels to use. Jlevi (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-government vs Far-right designation in the first sentence

Discussion is spinning around and going nowhere. Insufficient evidence from RSs has been presented to change the description of the movement in the article, and this is not a venue to discuss people's personal views, per WP:NOTAFORUM. There's also an active RfC regarding "far-right" below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've gone and gathered a variety of sources (though this isn't a complete list) that designate the boogaloo movement/boogaloo groups as specifically "anti-government" and do not use a "far right" designation. Some actively contest the "far right" designation. Since there is far from strong agreement across all sources on what the boogaloo movement is, the lead of this page thus should not state that the boogaloo movement is far right in Wikipedia's voice - a designation such as anti-government is more fitting. Alternatively, we could avoid making a direct statement in the lead in Wikipedia's voice at all, and note how a variety of sources have reported different descriptions.

Sources that specifically refer to boogaloo as anti-government movements/groups and do not use "far right":

The Times UK: "“Hawaiian shirts have become the unlikely uniform of a growing movement of armed anti-government extremists who are preparing for a second US civil war under the name “Boogaloo”.”

The New York Times: “An Air Force sergeant linked to an anti-government movement was charged with murder“

MSN.com: “member of the Boogaloo movement, a loosely knit group of heavily armed, anti-government extremists.”

Vice News: “Discord, a platform popular with gamers, has shut down one of the largest servers used by followers of the anti-government “boogaloo” movement after it was exposed in a VICE News article.”

ABC News: “Graves said that while there is a white nationalist slant, boogaloo is really an anti-government movement and that advocates of the philosophy are being "opportunistic" when they invoke George Floyd or Breonna Taylor’s names in their outrage.”

RawStory.com: “Facebook is having a hard time keeping up with extreme anti-government “boogaloo” content on the social media platform.”

Reuters: “Liberal watchdog groups and some local authorities have warned that members of the anti-government “boogaloo” movement”

kitv.com: “The Boogaloo movement is a loosely knit group of heavily armed, anti-government extremists.”

MSN: “Boogaloo — the name derives from the movie Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo — is a loosely connected anti-government movement”

The Daily Best: “The movement is broadly anti-government.”

NPR: “the majority are anti-government and seek a conflict with the state”

The Wallstreet Journal: "Aloha shirts have become a disconcerting signature for members of a gun-toting, anti-government faction"

usnews.com: “The anti-government boogaloo movement embodies a militant ideology whose members believe the United States will enter into a second civil war”

Review Journal: "Three men with ties to the U.S. military and the anti-government “boogaloo” movement began organizing in Las Vegas….”

wltx.com: "“Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott says that attire could be associated with a violent anti-government resistance radical group that calls themselves the 'Boogaloo Bois'.”

Concord Monitor: “The signature look for the “boogaloo” anti-government movement is designed to get attention.”

Voice of America: “These individuals made an effort to capitalize on both, which shows that it's not really a right or left mentality for these guys so much as anti-government," said Katie Paul, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Tech Transparency Project. The Department of Homeland Security rejects the notion that Boogaloos are either left wing or right wing. “They’re simply violent extremists from both ends of the ideological spectrum,” DHS tweeted on June 20.“

Vox.com: “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.”

thesource.com: “The Boogaloos are an emerging extremist group that has yet to be truly categorized."

Signed MWise12 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working on doing a similar thing myself, as I've already said, so I will respond in more detail when I'm finished. However you seem to be presenting "far-right" and "anti-government" as somehow mutually exclusive—if the sourcing overwhelmingly describes them as anti-government I have no objection to including that, but I don't see how it somehow negates the "far-right" descriptor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Anti-government is a non-ideologically specific description that accounts for the wide variety of groups/individuals who we know use the word "boogaloo". When we have a "movement" that includes anarchists, libertarians, white nationalists, non-partisan people who are simply gun fanatics, and more (many of who hold mutually exclusive beliefs), using the designation of "far right" is simply not right when we have the wider, more accurate description of "anti-government". MWise12 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree it's quite clear that "anti-government" is an accurate description of the movement—in fact the lead already describes them as such. My point is that a source describing them as "anti-government" is not in refuting the far-right label, and it's possible that both descriptors are appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
To say in the first sentence that it's a "far right movement" overemphasizes a specific ideology while not adequately giving weight to the beliefs shared by essentially all involved, which is anti-government sentiment. (For example, people in boogaloo groups who think police are bad and persecute minorities are certainly not far right.) Note: It would be fine if somewhere in the lead it's noted that certain sources characterize the movement as far right. It's the current leading sentence in Wikipedia's voice that is the problem. MWise12 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I haven't read every inch of these threads nor combed through the history very deeply, but what seems to be at issue is whether the boogaloos are specifically a right-wing movement or come from both sides of the political spectrum. So, a list of bunch of sources that call them "anti-government" but fail to call them right-wing doesn't really get at this. A list of sources that specifically say they encompass right- and left-wing ideologies would. There are plenty of independent sources that do characterize them specifically as right-wing, while the only thing I've seen that says they span the spectrum is that tweet from DHS. I don't claim to have done a comprehensive search, but from what I've seen the weight of the sources seem to support the right-wing characterization. Yilloslime (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Robert Evans (author of one of the sources used in this article), in the May 27 episode of a podcast called "Worst Year Ever" describes them as coming from both sides of the political spectrum. Based on the research and information available to me I would say the "right wing" descriptor is erroneous. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Add also the Vox report that stated; "some members rail against police shootings of African Americans, and praise black nationalist self defense groups." and Katie Paul from the Tech Transparency Project who said; "it's not really a right or left mentality for these guys so much as anti-government." MWise12 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
That Vox report is quoting the Bellingcat report, which starts out by describing the boogaloo movement as "a largely white, and far right movement". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Also adding that the Tech Transparency Project source describes the groups as far-right: A review by TTP found 125 Facebook groups devoted to the “boogaloo,” the term that far-right extremists use to describe a coming civil war. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
"Largely far right" does not equal "far right". If I have a bag of trail mix that is "largely peanuts" it would be inaccurate to describe it as a "bag of peanuts". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure. My point here is that that source does not contest that the movement is generally described as far right, in the way that MWise claimed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The Bellingcat report calls them far right and yet quotes one of their biggest groups saying "“We need to stand with the people of Minneapolis. We need to support them in this protest against a system that allows police brutality to go unchecked.” Since when are being anti-police and pro-Black Lives Matter stances of the far right? As we speak, these are policies being promoted by the political left. Even here we see that the term "anti-government" would've been a more appropriate term, and this movement isn't so simple as left/right. MWise12 (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The Bellingcat report details the origin of the movement on a 4 chan board dedicated to guns. It notes that, "Although gun owners tend to lean right, the board explicitly discourages any political discussion. A “sticky” post at the top of the forum, made in October 2015, just as the “alt right” culture born on /pol/ was turbocharging the Trump campaign, warns that discussions of politics (even gun control) are unwelcome." It's indicating that there are a lot of peanuts (right wing types) in the mix, but it is a mix, it's not all peanuts (to return to my earlier analogy). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is disputing that individual groups try to downplay the racism in the movement, or that groups self-describe as all kinds of things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
When they're literally advocating members to go protest police with BLM, that is evidence of a legitimate ideological belief. What evidence do you have this post was a ploy to downplay racism you're alleging this group had? MWise12 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether a Facebook post is "evidence of a legitimate ideological belief", and whether one post can be extended to the entire movement, is a decision for reliable sources to make, not us. Bellingcat does not make such claims about the post. That the groups try to present themselves as anti-racist is supported by a handful of sources already used here, including the Middlebury report which literally includes "The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist" in the title. However I don't want to get distracted by arguing that tangential point; I was mostly expressing my view on that, and am not suggesting we need to explicitly make that point in the page. The primary point I'm trying to make is that we cannot look at a Facebook post and use it to make sweeping generalizations about the movement, such that that one post proves the movement is not far-right. This reminds me of another recent conversation... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I was more just making an observation about why I find the source's "far right" designation very lacking. Anyway, many of them do want to be seen as anti-racist because many of them ARE anti-racist. See the source you quoted; "Adherents promote a race-neutral conception of a revolution, predicting a grand alliance between right libertarians, anarchists, and Black nationalists that will achieve victory and overthrow the government." MWise12 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
As discussed above, saying that something is "anti-government" is not exclusive of being "far-right." Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a federal building and Ammon Bundy's armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge were anti-government actions carried out by people indisputably described as far-right extremists. A common news search reveals that Boogaloo is labeled "far-right" by, among others, the Los Angeles Times, the Air Force Times, Business Insider, Politico, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, Task and Purpose, CNET, The Guardian, BBC, the Washington Post, Newsday, the New York Post, etc. I really don't think this characterization is disputable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
A search string like that results only in WP:CHERRYPICKING - you're looking for articles that have that phrase in them, you're finding them. What you should be doing is a broad survey (hell even a random sampling) of sources and see how that phrase is or is not being used. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Anti-government is a wide description that is ideologically neutral. When so many sources are specifically using this ideologically neutral phrase, we should not plow over them by declaring in Wikipedia's voice that the Boogaloo movement is "far right", which is the polar opposite of an ideologically neutral term. And as for whether the characterization is disputable, three sources (one of which is a government agency dealing with boogaloo-related criminals) do directly dispute it. MWise12 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no requirement that we be "ideologically neutral." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is not "plowing over" sources that describe the group as anti-government to also describe the group as far-right, if both are supported by sourcing. I'm still working through my re-review of the sources, but I think it is important to make this point that the two are not in conflict. It would be helpful if you could specify which three sources you're referring to—if one of them is the Vox/Bellingcat source you mentioned above I've just pointed out that that is not the case. Furthermore I would say that a tweet and one (or two? if you're not referring to Vox/Bellingcat) source do not outweigh the tens of sources describing the group as far right. Either way, I'm doing what Netoholic has just suggested to NorthBySouthBaranof and will publish my findings as soon as I'm done. I'm a fast reader but there are a lot of sources, and I was waylaid by the need to go to the thunderdome grocery store earlier. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
When so many sources are using an ideologically neutral term we have to take that into account when speaking in Wikipedia's voice in the lead. An ideologically neutral term and an ideologically charged term are in conflict here because one is broad and covers a wide range of groups, (as I explained previously) while the other is specific and implies it's limited to a narrow selection of groups. I don't know why you're so dead-set on declaring the far-right adjective in Wikipedia's voice to begin with, particularly when it's so heavily under dispute. I'm sure most of us here would agree on a sentence in the lead saying something to the effect of "The movement has been described by many sources as having far right groups/characteristics/etc". That's how a responsible Encyclopedia would discuss the topic in my view.
In regards to the three sources who directly dispute the far right designation; There's the DHS, Katie Paul from the Tech Transparency Project, and Robert Evans' statements pointed out by ONUnicorn. MWise12 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I've already said I'm in the process of re-reviewing the sources to ensure my opinion on the lead is as well-formed as it can be. I'm not "so dead-set" on anything at this point, and if upon finishing my review it seems that the sources no longer support the descriptor being used so strongly, I will be more than open to changing the lead. Thanks for specifying which sources you're referring to; for the convenience of other readers of this discussion, the Robert Evans source is the Bellingcat piece. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:, in addition to the Bellingcat piece, I would point you to the May 27 episode of the "Worst Year Ever" podcast, which Robert Evans co-hosts. I think that's what MWise12 was referring to when referring to "Robert Evans' statements pointed out by ONUnicorn". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, I'd missed that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
If we're going to be arguing what Robert Evans specifically thinks, here he is on Twitter agreeing with a characterization of the boogaloo movement as a "heavily armed, mostly conservative, libertarian militia movement with extreme anti-government views" and adding that "It is definitely not all racist far right stuff but I have not seen any meaningful left wing presence." Loki (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
(An additional comment: I suspect the inconsistency on this might be due to equivocation of "far right" in the sense of "extremists who believe things similar to the American right wing" which the boogaloo movement definitely are, and "far right" in the jargon sense of "fascists", which they are mostly not.) Loki (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I've never interpreted "far-right" as meaning "fascist". Fascism is too sui generis, and at the same time too multifarious, to be what "far-right" refers to. I've always taken "far-right" to mean pretty much exactly what it says: on the right-wing of the political spectrum, and far out on that wing, i.e. radical, violent, even revolutionary. Even with the center of gravity of the American right wing having shifted significantly rightward in the past 40 years (from Reagan on, with Goldwater as an outlier), there are still right wing elements which are farther out than the "establishment" right, and those on the far-right are the most extreme of them. Fascism would be in there somewhere, but it's not the whole of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The boog movement is absolutely not alt-right. This fake news headline undermines the credibility of wikipedia, and the only reference saying it is alt right is an npr opinion piece. Tanire2009 (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is anti-government. It is not right or left. We are equally for the first amendment as we are for the second amendment. That’s the bill of rights, folks. If you label 1a or 2a as far right, you’re insane. Tanire2009 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First, this is not a forum. Second, All  Things Considered is not an "npr opinion piece". EvergreenFir (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we know that the Boogaloo movement and its followers want to position as "anti-government", but the fact remains that reliable sources support "far right extremist" as a description of the movement, and as long as they do, we will describe them that way as well. Anything else -- include the personal views and anecdaotes expressed here -- is original research, which is not allowed.
Since this thread is spinning around and not going anywhere, I'm going to close it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I like how you can close a thread just because you refuse to have a decent discussion with people inside the movement you claim to know so much about. Viperboi65 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Viperboi65: The thread was duplicating the formal discussion immediately below it. If you have any concerns about the article, I'd be happy to discuss them with you, though I'll note that asking Wikipedia editors to go against Wikipedia policy (by representing a viewpoint not supported by sources) as you have tried to do below is not likely to be successful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, look. Everything you're saying has already been addressed and, in fact, totally debunked by professional fact checkers. Do you even understand that, and how that works? These professionals are committed to sorting the truth from the, shall we say, chaff, and they are so mind-numbingly good at it that they are PAID to do so. When was the last time you were PAID to figure out what was true and what wasn't? Exactly. We all know that such disinformation is a modern plague upon our society, and without selfless and tireless work from organisations like Snopes, Twitter, and Facebook, you and everyone else would be adrift in a sea of misleading "bites" of news. I think it's time for us all to pay some respect to the debunkers who help us know what's really real.
I bet you've haven't debunked anything in your entire life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:1912:61FA:AC31:185F (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I found this here https://kstp.com/news/2-self-proclaimed-boogaloo-bois-charged-with-attempting-to-support-hamas/5851661/ and feel it is grounded to reality: No matter what witch’s brew of ideological motivations inspire those who seek to engage in terrorist activity and harm our country and our fellow citizens, the National Security Division is committed to identifying and holding them accountable.

You can be an FBI agent antifascist BLM supporter that meme's boogaloo's. You invest enough money and time and they'll convince you youre a ghostbuster. It's a patch work of ideology so I guess boogaloo bois exist like moths to a flame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AACF:CF00:A17A:A008:C6DC:523F (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Slander

The statements that the Boogaloo movement is either far-right or a white supremacist movement is false. They actively protest alongside BLM, and have even attempted to make peace with, and find common grounds with ANTIFA.

They are against authoritarianism, not "the left" or anyone else. They try their best and are mostly successful at remaining neutral in all cases other than the idea that all people, regardless of race, color, or creed, deserve the right to exersize all constitutional rights in their entirety. This they will not back down on.

Please update this page as to not present false information, or to slander an evidentially peaceful group.


EDIT: I noticed your response to another Wikipedia user stating that some ARE white supremacists. This is a false statement. White supremacists have attempted to associate with the Boogaloo Boys, however, they are barred from joining entirely, and are considered enemies of the movement. If you will not remove the claim some are white supremacists, at least add that bit of information. Thank you. InfoEher (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@InfoEher: That the boogaloo movement is generally far-right is well-sourced (citations 4–9) and has been established by formal consensus in this discussion: /Archive 2#RfC: "Far-right" in the first sentence of the lead. That some boogaloo groups are white supremacist is also supported by sourcing (citations 4, 7, 15, and 19).
That some boogaloo groups have aligned themselves with BLM is already mentioned in the article. If you have reliable sources to support that they've aligned themselves with Antifa, that could potentially be added as well.
All this to say, we go by how reliable sources describe the boogaloo movement. If you have reliable sources that contradict statements in this article or support additional statements you think should be inserted, feel free to present them; if you think statements in this article are not supported by the given sourcing, please be specific. But if this article simply doesn't match your own personal idea of what the boogaloo movement is, that's not something we can fix unless you have reliable sourcing to back you up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested addition

A major thought leader in this movement and seen as the public face of the movement is mike dunn as reported by ReasonTV ViceMedia News2share RT NPR etc. You can find any information in the article called Mike Dunn(political activist)--Pmegrue (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pmegrue: The sourcing in that article is extremely weak, to the point that I just nominated it for deletion. The sources do not support the claim that Dunn is a "major thought leader in this movement and seen as the public face of the movement". The sources that do mention him primarily refer to him either just as a person in the movement, or as one of the few boogaloo adherents willing to talk to press. I should also add that RT is a deprecated source per WP:RSP#RT: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting information in the article

Hello friends! There is a lot of conflicting information in the article. I understand that a very large Wikipedia discussion went into deciding whether or not to call the Boogaloo movement a far-right extremist group in the first few lines. I understand that the far-right extremists definitely garner a lot of attention, but it is noted within the article that several centrists and left-leaning sects of the group exist. I think that there should perhaps be another discussion like this one. This movement is widely understood to be unorganized and as such it has no direct views or leanings on many things, very similar to ANTIFA. It should deserve the same treatment as that article gets. 198.90.104.65 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That discussion is only four months old. What has changed since then that would warrant a new RfC so soon? I have not seen any substantial shift in how reliable sources describe the boogaloo movement, which is in my opinion the only reason a new discussion would be needed so shortly after the first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect description of 4chan in the lede

The lede states this "Boogaloo has been used on the imageboard website 4chan, an imageboard known for the posting of illegal and offensive content..." While 4chan is certainly known for the posting of offensive content, it's not really known for illegal content. Further, the cited article does not make this claim. Suggesting change to "Boogaloo has been used on the imageboard website 4chan, an imageboard known for the posting of offensive content"

I believe this descriptor of 4chan may have come from the 4chan article. Either way, I've added a BBC citation to verify that 4chan is indeed known for that: "[4chan] has gone on to be closely associated with offensive and often illegal activity, including instances where the images of child abuse were shared." GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Populism

Hello everyone who reads this and @Britishfinance:. I agree that we need more than just one or two sources to reference that the movement is (or not) populist. Just to note that the reference added here includes Boogaloo inside of a list of populist movements active during the pandemic, as can be read on the title and the abstract. So, perhaps the mention is not specific, but exists. But I agree that we can keep searching for more sources.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TaronjaSatsuma and sorry for the revert. For the terms used in the lede to describe the movement, it is not hard to find a lot of quality refs specifically using the term (or label) to directly describe the movement (i.e. in the same sentence). When I searched for "Boogaloo" and "populist" I found very little. However, there may be sources out there. If there were, then it should first be built up first in the body (i.e. a paragraph/sentences on RS discussing Boogaloo and populism, if that was applicable). Britishfinance (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with Britishfinance that we should probably keep the descriptors in the lead only to the most commonly-used ones, rather than trying to include every descriptor that has ever been used for the movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

the phrasing is a bit concerning

This article has a few issues mostly in what I perceive the heavy use of biased sources most generally reliable sources like the ADL say that while the Boog. Movement does have a faction of white supremacists the use of the phrasing make it seem like its the majority faction

"Most boogalooers are not white supremacists, though one can find white supremacists within the movement." ADL

The Movement can really be summed up as an extremists antigovernmental group with far right factions And groups such as the Virginia knights headed by Mike "boogaloo boi" Dunn have marched and held rallies with BLM groups both groups unified in an antipolice ideology

generally the way that this article is written presents the minority faction first while then presenting the majority faction as an after thought

My bias is not playing a part in this because I can concieve maybe their like The John Birch Society when their given the tag of Farright however the phrasing in this article is a bit concerning. <https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/the-boogaloo-movement> <https://www.vice.com/en/article/889kkz/the-making-of-a-boogaloo-boi> Pmegrue (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pmegrue: The phrasing does not imply that the majority of boogaloo groups are white supremacists. The article currently states that Some boogaloo groups are white supremacist or neo-Nazi and specifically believe that the boogaloo will be a race war. "Some" is not "most", and there is further discussion in the article about the proportion: According to The Guardian, "there's real disagreement, even among experts who monitor extremist groups, about whether the 'boogaloo' movement as a whole should be described as 'white supremacist'" and that analysts from the ADL and Middlebury's Center on Terrorism, Extremism and Counterterrorism (CTEC) have argued that "a significant number of 'boogaloo' supporters are genuinely not white supremacist".
As for the usage of "far-right" as one of the main descriptors of the boogaloo movement, that was conclusively decided via a formal request for comment, which you can review in the archives of this talk page: Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 2#RfC: "Far-right" in the first sentence of the lead. I seriously doubt there has been a substantial shift in the sourcing since that decision, which is only two months old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
im not saying their not far right im just saying the way that the article is formatted is a bit strange.Pmegrue (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
How so? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pmegrue: Because of the 1RR on this page, I can't personally undo your edit, though I hope someone will come along and do so soon. It still contains original research ("A good comparison to a similar organization is the John Birch Society", "the tag is usually used because of the general antigovernmental[47][48]and militia movement[49] views"), and although you have added sources it appears you have just added sources somewhat at random that don't actually support what your edits say. Furthermore, you've introduced some substantial grammatical errors to the page. Generally speaking when an edit is challenged, it is best to try to come to consensus on the change on the talk page rather than repeatedly re-inserting it, and I do hope you will observe the 1RR yourself if someone undoes your recent addition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What it is, is the politicization of Wikipedia. The ADL should be considered a reliable source, and they don't mention it being a right-wing organisation, neither do other reliable sources. But here we go with 'anything bad is right wing white supremacist' with naff sources in the first line. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.249.171 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ banner above, which answers the question of why the term Far-right is used. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2&oldid=1012945669"