Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Can Neo Nazi be anti-government

Boogaloo bois have been described as anti-government, therefore a boogaloo boy cannot be a Neo Nazi. I know this sounds like no true Scotsman but it's not. Neo Nazis have been trying to associate with Boogaloo movement due to an overlap of interest in pro-gun sentiment. A clarification should be made about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionew (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends on what government. In any case, we depend on reliable sources, not our own analysis. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike Dunn's Twitter posts found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.86.241 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP#The Gateway Pundit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact. (WP:RSP#The Gateway Pundit)

Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Describing the Boogaloo as "far right" and "anti-government" are at odds with each other as "far right" is a form of government. Additionally, the Department of Justice doesn't use "far right" when describing Boogaloo, see the below website for how the DOJ describes Boogaloo.

It would be better said if the "far right" were removed the description because that description isn't contained in the references--it also seems to be a personal opinion and not based on facts. Rexxoxac (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rexxoxac: Please review Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 2#RfC: "Far-right" in the first sentence of the lead, where consensus was established to include "far-right". Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, and while the DoJ's chosen descriptor could be factored in to what we decide to use, it is not the authoritative description we must use. Furthermore, a source not using a term is not contradictory to sources that do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

boogaloo is not white supremacist

as a member of the boogaloo, I can confirm we do not endorse white supremacy and harshly shun the practice we are anarchist and libertarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogalooCharles (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@BoogalooCharles: Wikipedia articles reflect what is written in reliable, independent sources. We do not make edits based on individuals' personal characterizations of a movement, unless they are supported by such sourcing. I would note that this article does not make the claim that all boogaloo groups are white supremacist. At the moment, it reads: Some are white supremacist or neo-Nazi groups who believe that the impending unrest will be a race war. There are also groups that condemn racism and white supremacy, although attempts by some individual elements of the movement to support anti-racist groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter have been met with wariness and skepticism as researchers are unsure if they are genuine or meant to obscure the movement's actual objectives. There are further details in Boogaloo movement#Beliefs and structure.

If you think any of the statements in the article don't accurately reflect the current sourcing, or if you have additional reliable sources that take a different view on the movement that you think we ought to consider, please do specify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request. Link to a 40 minute interview with a Boogaloo boi

To most accurately represent the movement, it would be best to link to an interview of a member of this movement explaining what his beliefs are and what the movement means to him. What better source could there than the actual members. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZMB9052rEs&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.58.195 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: What better source could there than the actual members. Reporting on the words of members of the movement is more the task of journalists and researchers; as an encyclopedia we generally avoid using primary sources such as this interview. We certainly cannot assume that this person is speaking on behalf of the entire movement, or make changes to the article as though he were. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But let me get this straight....Wikipedia can take some dumb teenage girls word for it. But when you post contrary evidence to the article "NOPE, CAN'T DO IT" This is why WIKI can't be used on your college papers. Any tool can come in here and write something liabelous, wiki will protect the article and continue to MISINFORM people.

Sad that this is what the internet and age of information has come to, boot licking and boot stomping websites and provocateurs. Actually.....this is the EXACT reason the Boogaloo Boys exist!

Keep it going wiki hahaJg11358 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Where does this article "take some dumb teenage girls word for it"? If you have reliable, secondary sources that contradict the "far-right" descriptor, and you think the bulk of the sourcing has shifted since the RfC from six months ago, feel free to begin a new RfC (instructions on that page). However from what I have seen, the sourcing has not substantially changed, and I suspect the RfC would not have a different outcome. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Boogaloo are a FAR Lefty movement and this tries to frame the right side for this group. This is not accurate and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.226.23.102 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is misleading and wrong, WIKI will NOT issue corrections. Why?

Can you explain why the article mentions they are a far-right militia group when they are "Pro-LGBTQ, Pro-BLM, Anti-Racism, Anti-Establishment, Anti-Religion". WIKI EDIT DIRECTLY MENTIONED in a query above "Reporting on the words of members of the movement is more the task of journalists and researchers", well, here you go : https://www.adl.org/boogaloo

"The ideology of the boogaloo movement is still developing but is primarily anti-government, anti-authority and anti-police in nature. Most boogalooers are not white supremacists"

Talk about liable. Jg11358 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an FAQ at the top of the page that I would invite you to read. It explains why the movement is described as far-right, and links to the entire discussion in which that was decided. The ADL source you've linked is already used in this page, and was considered when determining which descriptors to use. However we must weigh what all reliable sources are saying, not just choose one source to use, and the bulk of the sourcing describes them as far-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Origins on 4chan

Perhaps rather than edit warring, we could discuss this, Loginnigol. For the benefit of any others joining this conversation, I undid an edit in which Loginnigol adjusted the lead to say that Boogaloo started out as a firearms board on the imageboard website 4chan, subsequently organizing via other media such as Facebook, and I added the summary "sources are not as unequivocal about its origins as this statement suggests". Loginnigol undid my edit with the summary Actually it's very much unequivocal and there are sources. It's just that this article was poorly sourced.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood my summary, in which I was trying to explain that the existing sources used in this article contradict such a strong statement about the origins of the boogaloo movement, or if you think the existing sources are themselves poor. I see you've added the NYT piece as a source (which does state that "The name comes from 4chan" but does not verify it comes from /k/), and an article in The Conversation which does support your statement: "The boogaloo is a fragmented community that began as a firearms board on 4chan and then blossomed on Facebook." However, this does not accurately convey murky origins that are explained in detail at Boogaloo movement#Emergence: that it grew simultaneously on both /k/ and /pol/. /k/ certainly did not entirely morph into the boogaloo movement, as your edit (and The Conversation piece) suggest.

We should not be overriding the more nuanced description of the movement's origins, which is supported by the research of the NCRI, Bellingcat, and CTEC, with a single sentence in an article in The Conversation. I will further note that WP:RSP says of The Conversation: "The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise." This article is written by Henry Navarro Delgado, an Associate Professor of Fashion at Ryerson University. While I imagine his commentary on the shirts are within his area of expertise, I think we should leave statements about the origins of the movement to the subject-matter experts (extremism researchers) at the aforementioned organizations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point about looking into the author of the source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

+1 re the author of the source. My understanding is that the best sources are reluctant to be so specific about the origins (i.e. can one every really pinpoint the exact origins of such an organisation). On that basis, I would prefer not to be so specific on the origins in the lede (unless we can get a stronger academic/expert source that has definitively identified it so; at the moment, I don't think that exists)? Britishfinance (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

OK GorillaWarfare, I removed the brand names (4ch & Facebook) out of the intro just so that it's broad enough to cover any alternative. Surely you can't objectively object now — since the wording will cover any alternative online origin, be it /k/, /pol/ /anywhere/ on 4chan, 8chan or even Reddit if you will. --Loginnigol (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: How is It started out as a firearms discussion on forums and imageboards, subsequently blossoming on social media and regional in-person gatherings. an improvement to Boogaloo has been used on the imageboard website 4chan, an imageboard known for the posting of illegal and offensive content,? It's now more vague, not less. I also don't think it's adequately supported by sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So now you don't dispute it started out on 4chan? After first accusing me of being too definitive and unequivocal, now you obtusely charge me of being vague GorillaWarfare? So you know what? I want you to end this back and forth game:

Which of the following do you pick:

1) It started out on imageboards

2) It started out on 4chan

3) It did NOT start out on any forum/imageboard including 4chan but elsewhere [fill in your alternative origin story and provide sourcing]

Remember the first paragraph is an intro, so, just like any other solid Wikipedia article, there has to be a line of sentence about the topic's beginnings/origins. You can't wiggle out of that one in defiance of multiple reliable sources specifically addressing that point. --Loginnigol (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the content in the body (per WP:LEDE). Nowhere in the body do we say that {{tq|started out as a firearms discussion on forums and [[Imageboard|imageboards]}}? If we don't have an agreement (supported by quality sources), that it started off as a "firemarms discussion etc." in the body, then we can't have it in the lede? Your suggested lede wording seems disconnected from the article or a separate view from the article. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(To add) ... It is great when we can be more precise about things such as origin/history etc., however, I am not sure that good quality sources are themselves in agreement about when precisely this movement started. Perhaps, with time, this may change? Britishfinance (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: Please do not describe me as "obtuse" or accuse me of "wiggling out of" following reliable sourcing. You don't seem to be reading my comments—I have not objected to the suggestion that the boogaloo meme grew out of 4chan. Perhaps my section header made it appear that I was objecting to the claim that the movement originated on 4chan rather than trying to discuss the specifics of its 4chan origins; if so, I apologize. It is the suggestion that it specifically grew out of the 4chan firearms board (/k/), or that /k/ somehow itself morphed into the boogaloo movement, which I am saying is inaccurate. Boogaloo movement#Emergence is quite clear that the meme appears to have emerged fairly simultaneously both from /k/ and from the politics board on 4chan (/pol/). These are both 4chan boards, but they are not both the firearms board (/k/). This is precisely what I said in my original comment, where I never challenged the claim that the meme grew out of 4chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, when I wrote "firearms board" you read that as if it excluded /pol/. No I didn't mean that, and wasn't aware it could be read like that way. If so then that bit can be edited differently obviously. Something along the lines of "it started on..." or "it emerged out of firearm and/or libertarian politics discussions on..." (avoiding to choose between firearm and politics sub sections). I remember that bit (their libertarianism) also being mentioned somewhere in the long NYT article which I fully read, so that is the supposed political angle. What are your suggestions? I mean this doesn't seem like overly complicated problem to solve. The main point is that something coherent about where the movement kick-started/began/originated needs to be right up there in the second/third sentence of the article. Previously nothing was there except that the movement was mentioned on the imageboard. That allows the possibility to be misread as if the movement pre-existed those mentionings on 4chan. --Loginnigol (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Loginnigol: Yes, exactly. What about The boogaloo meme began on the imageboard website 4chan, an imageboard known for the posting of illegal and offensive content, and subsequently spread to other platforms? I'm not sure it makes sense to try to describe /k/ or /pol/ in the lead—/k/ is fairly straightforward but /pol/ is hard to describe succinctly and probably ought to be left to the article body. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well "the meme began on website xyz and then it went to abc" is too mechanical ("imageboard" metnioned twice near each other) and too inside-baseball (pretend as if the reader has no concept of meme, 4chan or even imageboard. So somewhere you have to make it more prose — suggest that this was an online discussion or gathering of like-minded people. Also unless "meme" is already mentioned previously, "the meme began" can't be the start of the sentence. But rather: "Boogaloo/The movement/It began as a meme...". --Loginnigol (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: I was imagining we would wikilink "meme" for those unfamiliar, but we could also return to something more similar to the original construction: Boogaloo emerged on 4chan, an imageboard known for the posting of illegal and offensive content, and subsequently spread to other platforms? We should not say or suggest that the boogaloo movement began on 4chan, because the sources are careful to say that the meme/term originated there, not necessarily the movement as it exists today. This article, and its sources, discuss both the term "boogaloo" as well as the movement that formed around the name, and the two are not interchangeable. This is partly why I was hoping to avoid "Boogaloo emerged..", because despite the italics I'm not sure it's sufficiently clear that we're referring to the term and not the movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Perfect! --Loginnigol (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Done! I've also clarified a term vs. movement issue in the following sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Britishfinance (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate

I understand you need sources but you need to research them better. I first heard the term “civil war 2: electric boogaloo” in the 90s at school in the Deep South. The movie it comes from, breakin 2, is from the 80s. The name comes directly from the movie. It has something to do with the second one being “the good one.” I’m not sure where you’ll find this info written down but it’s important to note that this is an older orally passed phrase that found its way online, and it should be researched as such. This movement itself has been around for decades and decades. It easily precedes the current name showing up in the 90s. Some of the militias I’ve met claim a history back over 100 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AD0:51D0:E9EE:6774:253F:5818 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Also called Breakdance 2: Electric Boogaloo in international markets. It was an exceptional film, that is an critical point of cultural history of the 80s 86.14.189.55 (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Anti-defamation League's self-promoting corporate advocacy efforts

It has been identified that a minimum of eight accounts are being used by the aforementioned publisher employees under apparent direction of the publisher with express intent of inserting their own contents into articles. This article is one of their self promoting edit. ADL's self promotion edits are being current being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Boogaloo movement has nothing to do with Bogaloo Boogaloo is a freestyle, improvisational street dance movement of soulful steps and robotic movements which make up the foundations of popping dance and turfing; boogaloo can incorporate illusions, restriction of muscles, stops, robot and/or wiggling.[1] The style also incorporates foundational popping techniques, which were initially referred to as "Posing Hard".[2][3] It is related to the later electric boogaloo dance.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iflester (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are suggesting this be added to the article. This article is pretty clear about where the name came from, and I don't think there's much risk that people are going to think this is a dance group. Furthermore, please see WP:NODISCLAIMERS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"to keep it out of reach of American law enforcement surveillance"

@Sbb: I believe my change (from "The website had been hosted on servers located in Montreal since September 2020 to keep it out of reach of American law enforcement surveillance" to "The website had been hosted on servers located in Montreal since September 2020 to keep it out of reach of American law enforcement") is supported by the given citation. The source says "While the site was still live, Tree of Liberty suggested to its users that they could evade law enforcement surveillance because the website is hosted outside of the U.S." but then two paragraphs later says "The moderator sought to assure him, saying the site is 'hosted outside of the DHS's data jurisdiction,' adding, 'This is a safe place.'" GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only concern, which I obliquely mentioned in my edit commit, is that "law enforcement" will just lead to being edited to "police". In this particular case, as noted in the quotation you cite, is that "DHS's jurisdiction" is not equivalent to "police". I won't object to a change to "law enforcement" (sans "surveillance"), as long as it's not changed to "police". Thanks for the discussion. Happy editing.  — sbb (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this instance should not be changed to "police". I've also reverted some of the changes from "law enforcement" to "police" where either the sources do not specify if they are speaking about police or some other law enforcement, or when the source specifically is talking about a specific group like the FBI. It's kind of a squares/rectangles issue -- all police are law enforcement, but not all law enforcement are police. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

100% agreed. The superset isn't identical to the subset. Good edit.  — sbb (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If we know the specific police/law enforcement agency, by all means, use its name. But in cases where it's vague, "police" is simply the twice as concise, more natural synonym. Who enforces laws without policing people? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"police" ≠ "law enforcement". The FBI generally isn't referred to as "police", nor are the various attorneys general and district attorneys, but they are all part of, participate in, or at the minimum are adjunct to "law enforcement". In the cited example, "police" wasn't in the sourced statement, but "law enforcement" was. The law enforcement could have been (who knows? speculation) some 3-letter agency, or police department(s). But the source didn't state, so why infer?  — sbb (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Per law enforcement, you're right that it includes "courts and corrections". The FBI investigates crimes and arrests suspects, they're police, just federal. If referring to a judge, warden or whatnot, specifying is as good as for police. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not hardcore on this, but in general we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I don't object to every single instance of "police", but I do generally object to replacing all instances of "law enforcement" with "police" as you did several edits ago, if for no other reason than to reduce monotony of the word (i.e., readability copyediting).  — sbb (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've edited to include who thought they were immune (a mod), and from what (Department of Homeland Security); is that OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not fond of your edit. "a moderator"? Moderator of what? (I know, mod of the website, but it reads weirdly in the context). "beyond DHS' influence" also reads weirdly. DHS wasn't trying to "influence" the site, it was trying to surveil the site's users. The 3 words from the source, "DHS data jursidiction", would be much better used here. Clear, concise, no interpretation or synthesis of source information.  — sbb (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A moderator of the website in question, clearly, as you say. I tried not to use "surveillance", per above removal. But yes, beats "influence"...what about "scope"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with "beyond DHS data jurisdiction"? That's exactly what the site mods/owners were trying to escape: jurisdiction.  — sbb (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As with GorillaWarfare, thanks for the discussion, I truly trust in your good-faith efforts. Happy editing. =)  — sbb (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is 1RR still necessary?

I happened to be going through the arbitration enforcement log looking at my entries and I saw that I had placed this article under WP:1RR indefinitely. Since indefinite doesn't necessarily mean permanently, I thought I would check-in with the editors here to see if this restriction is still helpful or whether it could be relaxed (or repealed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts? If there are no thoughts I am inclined to drop the DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately. I believe this article will be back to non-stop edit wars and other disruptive behavior if it is removed. Recent edit warring by Terjen is sufficient to evidence this. Bacondrum 21:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. It is unsubstantiated to suggest that I will participate in "non-stop edit wars" should there be no 1RR, a policy I strongly support. In contrast, NorthBySouthBaranof was officially warned by admins about their edit warring just last month. Terjen (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• For the record, it is NorthBySouthBaranof that recently initiated edit-warring, violating the spirit of 1RR on April 20 with the second of these two reversals: [1][2]. I reinserted the tag on April 26 [3] after new postings in the linked discussion. Let's keep 1RR in place and curb disruptive editors. Terjen (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

don’t call other editors “activist editors” as you did in your edit summary. It implies other editors are acting in bad faith. You have been edit warring, this is clear from the articles history. Bacondrum 06:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Bacondrum and NorthbySouthBaranof. @Terjen: you're awfully close to a topic ban. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I am aware. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and never before been in arbitration. Now a few editors here are calling for me being permanently banned from editing entries on U.S. politics. Terjen (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: Well, I'm glad to hear you know there is an arbitration enforcement request concerning you. I was beginning to worry you'd missed the message, since you've been active on the project but not yet commented there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Don't worry, I just haven't been in arbitration before, thus have to catch up on its intricacies and related complexities. Just give me a little time and you'll have your response. Terjen (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I had no idea that to "curb disruption by activist editors" is controversial. I also apologize for my related statement that we should "curb disruptive editors". How do you suggest it is rephrased to avoid any implication of bad faith? Terjen (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you should probably just pull back from attacking other editors and edit warring, and not be disruptive yourself. Bacondrum 08:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: These are serious accusations, with "pull back" suggesting that I am continuously attacking other editors, edit warring, and being disruptive. I am not. Terjen (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what you've been doing, actually. You're not doing yourself any favours. Bacondrum 22:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I haven't made a single edit on any entry page since we entered into arbitration, so there is obviously no edit warring or disruption to "pull back" from. I am sorry if you or anybody else feel attacked, it is certainly not my intent, but I have no idea what concretely you are referring to. Terjen (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell who you're supposedly attacking, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk this:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boogaloo_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1020091255 "Yes, to curb disruption by activist editors" referring to other editors as activist editors, edit warring, being generally uncivil. Bacondrum 07:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia does aim to curb activists. Also edit warriors, assholes, vandals, liars and trolls. If he'd called a particular editor one of those things, I could see a personal attack rather than an overall precaution InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, called NBSB an edit warrior, pretty much. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your words, not mine. NorthBySouthBaranof was officially warned by admins about their edit warring just last month. Terjen (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What does a dispute at Tim Pool have to do with this dispute? Nothing. If NBSB has not edit warred at this page, don't call them an edit warrior in this dispute. Simple as. "If the editor is no longer violating any policy, it is against Wikipedia policy to keep reminding them of past misdeeds to malign their current actions." GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In the diff I was shown, from which I paraphrased alleged "edit warring" into an "edit warrior" accusation, the subject was the Boogaloo movement, not Tim Pool. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to Terjen, who for some reason decided to dig up a six-week-old incident involving NBSB at Tim Pool. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

And I was only trying to draw a reasonable link between what Terjen said about NBSB's perceived edit warring at this article, and what he later said NBSB was earlier warned about. It follows logically to me. You're free to not see it, if you want, no insult intended! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I finally discovered the WP:ACTIVIST essay, but it doesn't give me much clarity on rephrasing. Rather, it seems to be using similar language, presumedly not in bad faith. One of its sections says: "Activists don't want any other editors taking their articles off message. So, activists will try to drive editors they don't approve of, away. The method used to accomplish this is usually to make the other editors feel very unwelcome in the activists' articles." Terjen (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing a "disputed" label from wording that was established in an RfC, which has not been challenged via a new RfC, is not "activism", it's standard Wikipedia practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen I can't stop you from pressing your luck. Bacondrum 21:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am not suggesting removing a disputed label is "activism". Terjen (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have no particular interest in this article, but from the outside, it appears Terjen violated WP:BRD by reverting NorthBySouthBaranof's edit. The correct course of action by Terjen should have been to come to article Talk to seek consensus (which is clear now, was already achieved). Blaming NorthBySouthBaranof for violating WP:1RR for reverting after WP:BRD is a non-starter, IMO.  — sbb (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sbb: WP:BRD is a method for reaching consensus thus not something you "violate". My first reinsert of the tag can be recognized as a bold-revert-revert per the alternative WP:BRB method, explaining that the tag was "bringing attention to ongoing discussion about mislabeling", linking to the open discussion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof then violated the spirit of WP:1RR with their next revert three minutes later. Terjen (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[

@Terjen: Your position seems tenditious. WP:BRD is pretty standard, and something that when "violated", raises attention and invites scrutiny. But you are hanging your argument on a tangential "WP:BRB". You exhibit all the signs and appearances of WP:WIKILAWYERING, and appear to be outside the norm in this instance. I'm not declaring consensus in the argument, but seriously, you are swimming strongly against the current here.  — sbb (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sbb: The reference to WP:BRB is in response to your argument, and only tangential to mine. I already had an ongoing discussion going on the talk page, referenced from the tag. As the issue is in arbitration, attention to WP:Policy obviously plays a role. By necessity, I am turning into quite a policy wonk. I don't mind swimming against the current and hope I will ultimately persuade you and others about the merit of my proposal. Terjen (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Unreasonable far-right label

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.

---

Is far-right really a fair description of the Boogaloo movement? The linked entry states that this ideology is "further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and nativist ideologies and tendencies" featuring "aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views" leading to "oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." Terjen (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

1. While the movement is frequently labeled "far-right", they're generally not far-right as described in the linked Wikipedia entry. We can resolve this discrepancy by recognizing the label with a quoted mention, avoiding using the term as if the Wikipedia definition is an objective description of the movement. Terjen (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with this recent Request for Comment is irrelevant. There is conclusive and overwhelming consensus to label this as a far-right movement. You are welcome to start a new discussion in the hopes of changing that consensus, but you not free to unilaterally reject this consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC

I don't disagree with the finding from the RfC that many reliable sources use the far-right label. Usually, this would substantiate using the term in wikivoice. However, the sources seem to use the term differently than we define far-right here on Wikipedia, making our lead construct a meaning not supported by the sources.Terjen (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The shoe doesn't fit: It is objectively false to claim the Boogaloo movement is further on the right than the standard political right in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, nativist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary, as in the WP definition of far-right. Terjen (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That the "standard political right" is, in your view, far-right doesn't mean the Boogaloo are not also far-right. "Far right" is not defined relative to the contemporary (not the same as "standard") right's positions. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not my view or opinion: The relative definition of far-right as being "further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right" is from the lead of our own entry on the term. Terjen (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the Boogaloo movement is not aligned with the "standard political right." Case in point, they largely opposed Donald Trump. Terjen (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

2. There isn't a consensus to use the label among reliable sources, with substantial experts on extremists explicitly avoiding categorizing them as far-right. We should stop using this misleading label in wikivoice. Terjen (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You have one choice available to you if you want to change the existing wording: Open a new RFC and get a new consensus. Otherwise, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is disruptive to apply a "disputed" template to a tern which has clear and unambiguous community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus from the RfC established that many reliable sources use the far-right label, which is not searched overturned. What is disputed is our use of the label "far-right" in wikivoice, creating a false synthesis. Do you have any objections beyond an insistence on using the questionable label? Terjen (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not questionable, the RfC is unequivocal - Firm consensus to describe Boogaloo movememnt as far-right as per overwhelming majority of reliable sources - and you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK or risk being topic-banned for tendentious editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Far-right is a contentious label, which per MOS:LABEL is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Terjen (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy, and may be expressly overriden by community consensus. Again, in this case, there is an express and formally-determined community consensus to use the term without attribution. Again, your place to make this argument would be a new RfC, should you wish to start one. You cannot unilaterally overturn a formal RfC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Many sources mention far-right, some sources also mentioning civil war accelerationism (you think that's not enough for the description to be defining and important)? Since WP:NPOV is about properly representing sources, not WP:GEVAL, it's WP:DUE and not even contentious. For WP:ATTRIBUTE, it would be relevant for op-eds, blogs or sometimes for activist organizations. —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. This recent Al Jazeera article is worth a read for everyone who is genuinely interested in this subject. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

4. There are WP:BLP concerns as the entry names adherents of the Boogaloo movement, who by association are smeared with the far-right label as being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and nativist having chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views. Terjen (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, agreed. Neo-Nazi would be much closer. Feel free to change it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Reliable sources label them far-right, not neo-nazi. Terjen (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, I am happy with far-right. Neo-Nazi is more accurate but far-right is fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Why do you think neo-nazi is more accurate? Terjen (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, because that's the term we normally use for groups of fascist thugs who dress alike. Like Atomwaffen, this group started out at Iron March. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: How do you know they're "fascist thugs"? Terjen (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, literacy is a required qualification in my job. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: How do you apply literacy to go from far-right to "neo-nazi" and "fascist tugs"? Terjen (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, by reading. This is pointless, though: you have acknowledged that far-right is sourced, and I am OK with far-right. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right, by reading the far-right entry you can indeed learn they're neo-nazi and fascist. Terjen (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, you already admitted that they are far-right, according to reliable sources. I agree. I, too, have read this in reliable sources, along with evidence that leads me to conclude that they are neo-Nazis (though as I say I am happy to stick with far-right).

FYI, when I say reliable sources, obviously I exclude Wikipedia articles, because anyone can edit those. Even us. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree there are way too many negative traits attached by Wikipedia to the "far-right politics" article to link it to this one by definition, absent RS saying the boogaloos are each of those individual associated slurs. Or at least two thirds of such nasty labels. Fine to attribute the opinion that boogaloos are inherently and inextricably "far-right" to people who say that's the case, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"there are way too many negative traits attached by Wikipedia to the "far-right politics" article to link it to this one by definition" - as I'm sure you already know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we base content on reliable sources, not what other Wikipedia articles say. Bacondrum 21:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• they are a far-right group, few sources refer to them as anything else. It doesn't matter what individual editors think of this group, we follow reliable sources of which there is an interminable number that refer to this subject as far-right explicitly. There has been a RFC which overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of this claim. Bacondrum 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum recently said that "far-right is very well defined, it's not subjective" so I asked for their definition of "far-right". I have inserted the answer in full below:

Terjen "What is the definition of "far-right" then?" I think this articles lede sums it up fairly well: "Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies.

Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism, today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views." Otherwise feel free to read the relevant literature for yourself - when learning about the far-right, Cas Mudde is always a good start. Regardless we are now thoroughly in WP:NOTFORUM territory.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terjen (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just being obnoxious. Bacondrum 22:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I just went through the sourcing, 22 reliable sources cited in this article refer to the group explicitly as far-right. This debate is laughable. 22 reliable sources, FFS!! American politics in the post truth era? Bacondrum 07:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Some experts (e.g., Sara Diamond, see terms such as far right to be pejorative. However, unlike other ideological groups such as conservatism, socialism and liberalism, there is no other agreed term. Personally I prefer it to fascist, except in cases where groups have links to historical Fascism. TFD (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• We've been through this. "Far-right" is entirely in line with the reliable sourcing, and it is by no means a synthesis to use it here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it shouldn't really need to be said at this point, been thoroughly discussed and Terjen is welcome to start another rfc, of course. Bacondrum 21:16, 28 April 2021 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

This article doesn't make sense.

If you are Anti-Government, you are neither right wing nor left wing, you are just Anti-Government. To call an anti-government organization right-wing, then say that organization supports left wing political organizations such as BLM totally destroys the credibility of the article. The article needs to either lose "Anti-Government" or it needs to lose "Right-Wing." The article could use a few more authors with critical thinking skills. Rexxoxac (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you want in this request, so there will be no action in response. You need to improve your critical thinking skills. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This article explains that the boogaloo movement is a loose amalgamation of many groups. This article goes into more detail about the some groups' purported support of BLM, and if you read more closely you will see it is not contradictory. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The label “alt right”

The alt right refers to an anti Semitic, far right, white supremacist, highly authoritarian and anti progressive movement, the boogaloo movement seems to care more about libertarian extremism than fascism, they are largely libertarian so why lump them in with the alt right?, not all racists are alt right, we don’t lump hitler or the KKK in with the alt right so why the boogaloo movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzillasizedemu (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article mostly describes them as far-right rather than alt-right, but generally: these descriptors are included because this is how reliable sources describe them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's an interesting take on the issue Thomas, Elise (2021). "Boogaloo Bois: the Birth of a 'Movement', from Memes to Real-World Violence". COUNTERTERRORISM YEARBOOK 2021. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. pp. 33–37. ...the visibility that the media gave sent a wave of new people flooding into the Boogaloo groups across social media, and particularly on Facebook. These new users thought they were joining the kinds of groups that the media had told them to expect: far-right and with at least a lean towards white nationalism. Not a very convincing work, the author does not make an effort to support any of her assertions, but probably worth a read. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe the label of "far-right" should be changed, as it is a extremist libertarian/anarchist movement, while far-right is authoritarian. Siccsucc (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Boogaloo are not being analyzed along the political spectrum, they are being looked at by researchers in extremism and terrorism. Consider Ong, K. (2020). "Ideological Convergence in the Extreme Right. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses". 12 (5): 1. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Generally, the wordview of right-wing extremists falls into four intertwined buckets: racial supremacy/replacement, anti-government, policy-centered beliefs such as anti-abortion, civil liberties, and pro-gun rights, and misogyny.

This seems to be the standard way to divide extremist groups into left/right/religious categories. Maybe these researchers need more/different "buckets", but that is not WP's job to change. In some ways right-wing terrorism is a better target for the 'far-right' link than far-right politics. fiveby(zero) 15:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Far right/ alt right.

None of us Boogaloo members are right or left wing we believe that both wings are on the same dragon. We dislike both wings and are typically anarchist or libertarian. I would like to, if possible, formally requested the article changed so that we're not having our reputation tarnished as we support black lives matters trans rights gay rights etc and many other human rights movements. We believe in freedom above anything else , call us extremists if you'd like but we are not right wing Trump supporters, Nazis , or racists of any kind. Racism of any kind is not tolerated within our ranks. 2601:281:C000:80C0:E9F3:C297:F4B0:26B7 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia articles must be based in what is published in reliable, secondary sources, and cannot be based simply in the personal experiences of Wikipedia editors (see WP:OR). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Funny, last I checked the Nazis also claimed to be neither right or left-wing.2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:69 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

The Boogaloo movement is not "far-right". The movement and it's members span the entire political spectrum. While there may be some individuals on the far-right that attempt to co-opt/hijack the movement, labeling the entire movement as far-right because of them is inaccurate, unfair, and disingenuous. There are liberals, conservatives, anarchists, capitalists, socialists, communists, georgists, and some ideologies I couldn't even pronounce. We do our best to make it clear to proud boys, 3%'ers, trump cultists, nationalists, racists, and any and all members of the far right that just because we support individual rights and freedoms does NOT mean that we agree with them on all fronts. Boogaloo Bois have participated in and provided security for numerous BLM protests, and have been recognized as friends of the cause by several BLM chapters (I can provide proof of this). Additionally, Boogaloo Boi Garrett Foster made the ultimate sacrifice at a BLM protest in Austin TX on July 25th 2020. While Garrett was providing armed security for the protest an individual who had expressed contempt for the cause on social media drove his car into the crowd. Garret demonstrated selfless courage and bravery in that moment by running TOWARDS the threat, exemplifying the true values of the movement. Sadly, when Garret arrived on the scene the individual who drove into the crowd opened fire with a gun of his own. Garret lost his life in that encounter, but likely saved the lives of others in the crowd. Another Boogaloo Boi, Dutch immigrant Jaap Lijbers (we know him as Jack or Jax), attracted the feds attention with his vocal criticism/calling out of Richlands VA council members and several members of RPD's association with the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. He helped organize and provided security for a BLM protest and a KKK counter-protest. It's not even like the local officials tried to hide it; several of them were friends with the entire local KKK chapter on Facebook. Rather than investigate the local officials, the feds shut down Jacks application for citizenship, cancelled his visa, and deported him. Leaving his fiance and infant son to fend for themselves (you would think that they'd allow him to stay due to having a child here, but from what I've heard they're demanding a paternity test, followed by an appeal process; pretty much they're saying they don't think the kid is his). Whole deportation process took about a week. Strange, considering I know several people who's deportation to Mexico and DR have been in the works for over a year. Takes a year to move someone a few hundred miles south, but if you speak out against the gov they'll have you on the next flight. We also TO THIS DAY continue to pressure the Louisville Kentucky PD for body cam footage, answers, accountability, and justice for Breonna Taylor. Same goes for George Floyd (though luckily it seems the courts might actually work for once on that one), Duncan Lemp, Eric Garner, and countless other victims of our corrupt and broken justice system. I know the media likes to polarize everything, and it's far easier to "go with the flow" and keep pushing the "boog=far right" narrative, but doing so is not only insulting to Garrett's memory, but it perpetuates the rampant divisionalism that is tearing this country, humanity, and the world, apart. A lot of us are working very hard to keep the Boogaloo movement a politically neutral collective focused on protecting individual rights. It's a hard enough just weeding out the regular number of far-right -wingers, so we'd really appreciate if you would stop advertising us as a home for these wackos.😆 There is an opportunity here to be a bastion of truth.

And to add some credibility, I'm not a random Boog Boi nobody (although like any good decentralized collective, we are all nobody). Myself and a few others founded and ran several significantly popular Boog groups on FB. CNN Bois, Anchorman Bois 2.0, Anchorman Bois 3.0, Igloo Luau Bois, Four 🅱️oint oh, and our crowning achievement; the hijacking of a Cuomo brothers fan group with over 50k members, which after taking control and ousting the former management was renamed the "52nd Penguin Platoon". 2601:18F:E80:CDE0:55A:25E7:6FF6:5A58 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please read the FaQ - nothing will be changed unless a consensus is made here to change that, and consensus will not form if there are no reliable sources. your accounts do not count as reliable regardless of what you are to the movement (and this will count as original research, which is not allowed), it has to be from published sources such as news. 💜  melecie  talk - 10:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the movement as far-right. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 10:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Gretchen Whitmer conspiracy

Why isn't the fact that the "Whitmer conspiracy boys" not documented as innocent in light of the revelations that the FBI infiltrated, encouraged, funded and planned the whole thing in an attempt to entrap people who were otherwise incapable of doing anything? 68.235.150.121 (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

because no sources are provided? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Disingenuous inaccuracies

The author consistently misrepresents the concept of the "boogaloo" as an organization or coherent movement and conflates the philosophy of a "boogaloo boi" with inherent extremism and violence.

The article is plainly politically charged and biased, which is an inevitability in political coverage or discourse, regardless of that however this bias has led to some serious inaccuracy. Any political concept or personal philosophy such as the boogaloo or those who put weight in it can be pointed to and called violent and extreme with crimes and heinous acts used as evidence for such. What the author either fails to grasp, or chooses not to convey, is that the "boogaloo" is not a movement in itself, and those who self identify as "boog boys" are not an organized militia.

The idea of the "boogaloo" is a humorous thought experiment which led many, independently of each other and while in communication not wholly or remotely organized, to develop a philosophy rooted in internet humor, meme culture, and "libertarian" or "extreme" ideals of self determination, disaster readiness, and community preparedness all to help advance the power of the individual overcome the confines of governmental, media, or corporate bureaucracy and interference. The entire "movement" is saturated in irony and satire, and while some claim it's ideals and use its influence to justify crimes and heinous acts the root philosophy is one of a strong people, armed non-aggression, and the ability for those that the government was built to serve can ensure that it's only choice is to do so. 173.64.94.103 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

All soapbox, no sources. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Association fallacy

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416291227.jpg

The image in question has no sources to support that the subjects in the photo are movement adherents, so it would be best to remove it from the article. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The author of the photograph provides the "original research" that the subjects in the photograph meet the requirements to be considered part of the boogaloo movement.

I see no reason why he would be wrong or why we would need a more authoritative source. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra What is the evidence for your claim? Have you contacted the photographer?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/16086041@N00/49416291227/

The description on wikicommons and on flickr is only "2020 VCDL Lobby Day, Richmond, Virginia" (for this specific image) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the wrong image. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to remove it, since I agree it's a bit misleading; I've done so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Stephen T. Parshall

Stephen was / is a member of this group and he was just sentenced... or about to be... probably should be included in this article. 137.188.108.55 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)