Talk:Black Rifle Coffee Company

Content dispute

It appears we have a content dispute over whether Starbuck's plan to hire 10,000 veterans which predated the founding of BRCC is relevant for inclusion on this article. Given that it is the core focus of the article we are citing [1] then we either need to accurately summarize our source (that is include the information about Starbucks having a plan to hire 10,000 veterans and having hired 8,000 of them when BRCC began its add campaign) or not include it at all. Sure this piece of information doesn't make BRCC look good, but the point of a wikipedia page is to be warts and all. The language thats replaced it is not better either, we’ve stopped naming the source and added a weasel phrase “in some quarters." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

it's not about making BRCC look good and Strabucks' bad, or vice versa. It is about building an encyclopedia article about BRCC, vs. writing a news story. Starbucks' actions are not related to BRCC. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That Task & Purpose article makes it pretty clear they are related... BRCC’s 10,000 veterans campaign doesn't exist without Starbucks. If the argument you make is one of relevancy then why include Starbuck’s plan to hire 10,000 immigrants at all? Surely either both are relevant to BRCC or neither is relevant to BRCC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

BRCC"s veteran campaign was indeed a reaction to Starbucks' plan to hire immigrants - that's why it is relevant to BRCC's article (as a notable action by BRCC), and why Starbucks is mentioned.

On the other hand, Starbuck's plan to hire veteran predates BRCC's existence, and is clearly not related to anything BRCC did, so it doesn't belong here. You should feel free to add it to Strabucks' page, though. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion of why it was controversial is largely meaningless without that information though... Currently theres no indication of why it would be so strongly perceived as a publicity stunt (the size of BRCC is only half the issue as the T&P article makes clear). On a policy note if a WP:RS (in this case T&P) thinks that information is relevant it isn’t up to us to second guess them. As it currently stands this article is in violation of wikipedia policies against misleading/incomplete summarization of source information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm with Here come the Suns on this. We have three facts: 1) Starbucks launched a campaign to hire 10,000 veterans 2) Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 immigrants, 3) BRCC pledged to hire 10,000 veterans. 2 and 3 are closely linked: 3 was a direct, intentional response to 2, as numerous sources state, and they occurred within weeks or even days of each other. No 1, on the other hand, was four years earlier and has essentially nothing to do with Black Rifle Coffee co - so I simply don't understand why it would be included. The 'either both are relevant or neither are relevant' argument doesn't stack up at all. Hug^syrup 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the BRCC founder makes an excellent point about why his program is different from starbucks’ but even he seems to acknowledge that they are related e.g. “I’m a company of 52 employees and I’m trying to hire 10,000 veterans,” Hafer says. “That’s a lot different than a company that says, ‘I have 200,000 employees and I’m going to try to convert 5% of my workforce.’ And this isn’t a support mechanism. This isn’t a hand out. I’m not trying to give back to the veteran community. This is who I’m preferring to hire because I know the veteran subculture and I know the veteran work ethic. I know that this is the best men and women that our country has produced after a decade and a half of war.” To be clear he is talking about Starbuck’s 10,000 veterans program not their 10,000 refugees program. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

He's talking about Starbucks plan to hire 10000 immigrants. That is relevant to this article, and is mentioned. Starbucks' veteran hiring plan is not. Here come the Suns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No he isn't... Read the article, its not even a little bit ambiguous in context. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see anything in that quote that acknowledges that his program is any more related to Starbucks than to any large organisation with a Veteran hiring program. Hug^syrup 15:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The entire article was about BRCC and Starbucks exclusively, its clearly *directly* related to BRCC (as the article mentions they’re nearly identical programs to hire 10,000 veterans). The Starbucks program was also *ongoing* when BRCC announced their program. Even if we don’t include the larger story about Starbuck’s program we do need a line to the effect of “Starbucks already had program in place to hire veterans” because the core of the publicity stunt argument is that the advertisements suggesting that Starbucks hires refugees instead of veterans is false. Again we can't question the linkage once T&P makes it we can only question the reliability of T&P. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not definitively opposed to a line like that, I mainly objected to the clunky and disconnected way it was inserted before. However bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't here to 'set the record straight' or make it clear where someone has been hypocritical or dishonest. The article about BRCC should provide verifiable, sourced facts about BRCC. Inserting a fact, no matter how well sourced, if all it does is demonstrate that BRCC may have been being hypocritical is questionable. Hug^syrup 16:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Look if the title of the T&P article was “Starbucks launches veteran hiring program” and there was no mention or a trivial mention of BRCC you would have a point... But the article is "After Viral Meme, Can Black Rifle Coffee Company Really Hire 10,000 Veterans?” and it is in fact a feature piece about BRCC so 100% of the contents can be presumed to be “about BRCC” in some fashion. Again it isn’t our job to second guess T&P unless we have a conflicting source, if it wasn’t related to BRCC they wouldn’t have included it in a feature article about BRCC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is second-guessing T&P, or denying that the article is indeed about BRCC. It's just not the case that we must, or even should, insert everything a source says into an article. News organisations are free to add context, try to suggest connections between facts that may or may not be connected, or point out details that expose the hypocrisy of individuals or companies. Wikipedia is not. As for the title, it simply seems to be questioning whether it's realistic for BRCC to hire that many veterans, which is one reason why I left that particular point in the article. Hug^syrup 16:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think they’re talking as much about whether or not starbucks is hiring vets as whether or not BRCC had relatively few employees... e.g. "It turns out that the multibillion-dollar global corporation, which currently employs approximately 238,000 people worldwide, has enough jobs for refugees and veterans. Long before #BoycottStarbucks, the company actually launched an initiative to hire 10,000 veterans and military spouses by 2018.” I think we should include the Starbuck’s information as well as Hafer’s response because he makes a good point that comparing Starbucks and BRCC is apples to oranges and that his plan is comparatively much more ambitious. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

On a side note we could always include some of the more colorful quotes from the founder e.g. “Starbucks can hire all the refugees they want, that’s fine, but you don’t have to announce it in a press release,” Hafer fumes to Task & Purpose. “It’s a publicity stunt. It’s also a middle finger directed at everyone who voted for Trump and consumes their product or is invested in their company. And when Schultz says he’s going to hire 10,000 veterans, that’s a publicity stunt. But when I say I’m going to hire 10,000 veterans that’s because that’s who we are. These are the people I know and love. This is my tribe.” or “ISIS overthrew a huge portion of the Middle East in recent history,” Hafer says. “Where do all the passports of all the people go? When you execute a guy on the street, where does his passport go? The guy who shoots that guy, where does he go with that passport? People can say what they want but those seven countries quite literally have the most loosely regulated travel restrictions as far as being able to make sure that people leaving the country are exactly who they say they are.” if the first attempt was felt to be too “clunky” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Inserting a small quote isn't a bad idea, but I think we should keep it fairly limited. It should give useful information, and not just be the ramblings of the founder unless what he said is notable on its own, which in this case it isn't. All of which is to say, I'd be happy with "But when I say I’m going to hire 10,000 veterans that’s because that’s who we are. These are the people I know and love. This is my tribe." but not so sure about the rest of it. As for the main point of dispute, I'm going to reiterate my view that this article isn't the place to add all the commentary and context around what was essentially a marketing stunt. However, I'm not sure we're going to convince each other, so maybe the best thing is if you draft here how you think that paragraph should go, and then we try to get some additional voices on this discussion by reaching out to a relevant Wikiproject or something? Hug^syrup 08:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If this is your argument "As for the main point of dispute, I'm going to reiterate my view that this article isn't the place to add all the commentary and context around what was essentially a marketing stunt.” then we should make a standalone page for the marketing campaign as currently this page is the best place to put it and I note that this “marketing stunt” is just about the only notable thing the subject of this page has ever done... So why shouldn’t it currently form the core of the page until they do something else notable? I’l see about drafting a paragraph. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that this company is not notable enough for an article. Feel free to nominate it for deletion, and we'll see what the broader community says. However, it is false to say that the marketing campaign around the plan to hire 10K vets is the only thing it is notable for- there are numerous sources in the article indicating coverage of other things (e.g. support for Trump, 2A advocacy) . Here come the Suns (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again you have misrepresented the argument of another Wikipedian, I said “just about the only notable thing” which means I didn’t say its "the only thing it is notable for"... Simply by far the most notable if we base notability on Media coverage. My first edit on this page was months ago (p sure I did the infobox or something like that?) and at no point have I questioned whether or not this article is suitable for wikipedia. If you think I have then show me when. As a notable incident in the company’s history if we want to remain encyclopedic we must include as much relevant information as possible. Both Hugsyrup and I are working to make this page better, you are invited to join us. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Rittenhouse in article

Horse Eye's Back, this looks like simply UNDUE content [[2]][[3]]. I appreciate that you moved it out of "marketing" since it is clear this was not a marketing effort on their part. It also doesn't appear to be a significant enough appearance to justify including a whole pop culture section based on this reference. This would be a one off thing covered only by two local news stations. The material was rightly removed when it was part of "marketing". Now it is undue because it is a complete subsection. Even if it was part of a larger subsection I would still say it isn't due. Absent additional voices explaining why this should stay it should be removed as no consensus exists for the inclusion as it seems to have been disputed even when originally added. Springee (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Due weight doesn't have anything to do with what section its in or whether or not there is other stuff in that section. I agree with you that this smacks of recentism but we do appear to have two solid sources even if they aren’t of the highest caliber. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Due weight does apply per ONUS. We have verified that Rittenhouse was in the shirt and that BRCC says they were not involved. The sources don't suggest this became some sort of big to-do on Twitter. As such it seems like a minor flash in the pan incident that is undue for this article. It was deleted by more than one editor, never discussed. I would say this is content that fits firmly into the NOCONSENSUS to include camp. Springee (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get back to whether its you or its me who doesnt understand how due weight works? If its me I can’t really go on editing without understanding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. This is an article about BRCC. These news stories are/were RECENT and seem to have amounted to nothing as of a few months later. That means this content doesn't have weight for inclusion. These two stories from local news web pages simply say that Rittenhouse was wearing the shirt. It doesn't say BRCC provided the shirt or any other material or moral support for Rittenhouse. Since BRCC can't control who wears items with their logo, why would we think this is significant with respect to BRCC? Per ONUS the burden of showing weight for inclusion is on those who wish to include, not those who wish to maintain status quo. Springee (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. What I don’t understand is how moving text from one section to another could conceivably impact its weight per "Now it is undue because it is a complete subsection. Even if it was part of a larger subsection I would still say it isn't due.” This is a concept I’ve never come across and which I cant see directly on WP:DUEWEIGHT but which appears immensely powerful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

When I removed the content I provided a reason. I certainly am not expected to provide every reason that may apply. Originally this material was in the marketing section. It was clear this wasn't a marketing activity any more than the OJ Simpson Bronco was a Ford marketing activity. As such I removed it. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to figure out where else to include that content. That burden is on those who want to include it. When you addressed the first concern raising the second made sense. Springee (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We’ve been over this, not fitting into a section is not a valid reason to remove property referenced text. You did later give a legitimate policy based reason for removing the text, but your original explanation was *not* sufficient. You’re also jumping around more than a kangaroo, just answer this question: did you make that piece of our due weight policy up or is it real? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to reverse that question. ONUS is policy. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" We can verify the content but I and others don't agree the content is DUE. Springee (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m waiting for consensus, its going to take at least a week. Until then you and I are going to sit here and pick apart your first comment in detail and analyze it (especially those extraordinary claims about due weight). Then of course we can move on to the other text in this section. As I said before one of us must be horribly mistaken about the impact that positioning within the body of an article has on whether or not that information is due for inclusion. I can take as long as it takes to understand which of us is mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

While NOCON would normally say remove as this material hasn't had consensus, I'm OK with your suggestion that we wait for additional input. Springee (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not under the arguments already made it wouldn't, I’l do you a favor though... It does appear to fall under BLP because we name Rittenhouse and that means we do need a positive consensus to include. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: this does not appear to be an isolated incident. See for example: Rioters wore Black Rifle Coffee, Grunt Style gear at Capitol siege. The article contains, on BRCC not providing a comment on the incident: "The danger of not responding to these unintended affiliations, Shankar said, is that they can damage the brand’s reputation and drive away customers.". So I would say that the section is DUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No, if RSs say these incidences as a whole are impacting the brand then we should include it. It isn't for editors to decide this incident has impacted the brand and BRCC did reply that they had no relationship with Rittenhouse when asked. Springee (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"if RSs say these incidences as a whole are impacting the brand then we should include it” never heard of that standard before, what are you basing that on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Easy, if we imply this sort of thing has had a material impact on the company without a RS saying as much we are engaging in OR. Springee (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Good, we aren’t planning to do that nor does the current text do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. The current text doesn't say anything about the sum of a series of incidents like this having an impact on the company. However, if this incident had no impact on the company, why is it here? Based on the two sources it doesn't appear to have much impact in the real world either. Springee (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does every other page have a Pop Culture section with a Family Guy reference despite 99% of the planet never having seen that remarkably below average cartoon? Common sense and wikipedia policy aren’t always one and the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee and K.e.coffman: would you both be ok with including a short non-BLP blurb as a rough consensus while we get consensus about the specific issue here? I propose, along the lines of the Fox17 coverage[4] and the other sources given so far, :

BRCC branded apparel has generated publicity and controversy due to its use by people associated with political violence and protests in the United States.

What do you guys think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really like it because this appears to be just the opinion of one news station. However, I'm not outright opposed. Would this be reasonable content in place of the Rittenhouse material? It would seem to cover Rittenhouse. Since the company has replied it might be good to include that if we can make it not sound like a wp:MANDY reply. Springee (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the above looks good to me. Also: the Rittenhouse incident should be included, since the article already contains, about the attack on the Capitol: ...was photographed inside the Senate Chamber wearing tactical clothing, a Black Rifle Coffee hat, and armed with a taser...'. Nothing undue about an addition in a similar vein. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have an opinion yet on the proposed sentence, but the Rittenhouse content just seems too much of a WP:COATRACK to me. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I restored to the state prior to the recent addition and IP edit warring, which also removed the Capitol riot content. Note that the removal of both was done by an IP and restored by another IP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tbh, I think this article is due for a semi pretty soon. It's gotten a lot of attention from IP vandals in the last few months. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the rioter material should be in the article either for basically the same reason as why Rittenhouse should be removed. Assuming it stays in, should we remove the name of the accused (the person from Nashville) from the article? This certainly seems like a BLPCRIME example. Any objections to removing the name? Springee (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

After looking I saw the name was added by the IP editor who has almost exclusively edited this article. Since the use of the name violated BLP I have removed it. Springee (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I wanted to get your thought on this discussion in context of your recent edit [5]. Your revert was correct in that the new content failed WP:V. That said, since Rittenhouse was acquitted should I'm not sure how to handle the part about saying he shot these people. It's is technically correct but I'm always warry of cases where the article text may imply or lead a reasonable person to a false conclusion that the shootings were premediated or political in nature. Consider that "drove through a crowd of people" is true in both the Charlottesville car attack as well as the Hollywood Stuntz gang assault but the intent of the driver is much different. So I'm concerned about false impressions but I also can't think of a way to change the text where it doesn't come off as pointy ("yeah but he was innocent!"). Any suggestions/thoughts? Springee (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we’re limited by what the source says and I would also note that we’re already pretty deep into POV territory referring to the people killed as rioters as it is (hadn’t noticed that until now and the source says BLM protesters not rioters so we really can’t say that). Killed isn’t murdered so we don’t think it actually carries that connotation for a reasonable person. If we have a new post-trial article about Rittenhouse and BRC then we can revisit this discussion but for now I think the only change we actually should be making is rioters to protesters although I recognize thats kind of the opposite of the sort of change that appears to be desired... The nice thing about how we write BLP is that if someone is acquitted then we need to make no changes to how we cover them, its only conviction that changes what we can say under WP:BLPCRIME. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You are right about the "rioters" part. I started to make an edit earlier after yours but decided to drop it and go to the talk page first. We shouldn't say rioters either. Springee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hand’t noticed that we were juxtaposing BLM “rioters” and January 6th “protesters” thats a bit pointy even for me. The source uses protesters for the first and insurrectionists for the second so I think we had some subtle vandalism at some point. I’m happy calling them both protesters although I wouldn’t be opposed to protesters and insurrectionists if some think thats a false equivalency. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Found our vandal, happened within the last week [6]. It appears we did originally mirror the source’s language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Horse Eye. I've reinstated "insurrectionists" as well. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What about pulling Rittenhouse's name out of this article and just say something like "teen who shot" with a link to the primary article? In the case of the "insurrectionists" we avoid a BLP concern because no one is specifically named. If we remove Rittenhosue's name then we avoid the implied meaning concern and if someone follows the link they will find the nature of the shooting with the verdict. That also addressed BLP concerns associated with calling Rittenhouse a right-wing extremist. Springee (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m still not seeing the implied meaning concern, especially if its linked. If the worry is misleading the public I don’t exactly find it credible that this article is going to be the first place a reader learns about Rittenhouse, at least not in the near future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you oppose dropping his name and just referring to him as a teen (or similar)? I think it's a good compromise solution. This is especially true since I think even Salon claiming his is a right-right extremist is a problem. Springee (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry I can’t I’ve never supported censoring the name of a notable person and I intend to never do so. Thats just one of my core beliefs about editing wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. However, I think we currently have a BLP violation when we say Rittenhouse was a right-wing extremist. I also think it is a BLP problem anytime we lead readers to an obvious but incorrect conclusion. This might be a good one to raise at BLPN to see how others think it should be handled. Springee (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not going to actively oppose it if you can find others which would support that consensus. I’m a stickler about BLP and I don’t see the violation there however per WP:BLP you are allowed to remove text which you consider questionable and it should’t be restored until there is consensus to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I would like to get some other opinions before acting on this. Springee (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

HEB, how would you feel about adding a footnote. The footnote can reference that he was acquitted (with sourcing). That way it doesn't interrupt the flow of the current text and avoids obvious synth. Springee (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse's acquittal on the grounds of self-defense must be mentioned in the article to avoid slandering him. It is also misleading to refer to those who attacked him as "protestors" when the court's verdict conclusively means that the prosecution failed to prove that he did not act in self-defense. The way it is written now makes it sound as though he killed two non-violent protestors. Rittenhouse's recent public statements also call into question his description in this as a "right-wing extremist," and that should at least be taken into account before designating him as one. Additionally, using the term "insurrectionists" to describe the Capitol attackers is politically charged and not responsible when it is not backed up by criminal charges, as none of those involved were charged with the specific crimes of insurrection or seditious conspiracy, regardless of their possible intent. It would be better to say "perpetrators of the 2021 United States Capitol attack" or "members of the mob that attacked the US Capitol on January 6th" to avoid making a legal claim against the accused that is neither objective nor verifiable. 50.234.111.226 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should do something to note Rittenhouse was acquitted. I'm ok if we do that as a foot note. It would be better to find a recent source that mentions both BRC and Rittenhouse. As for calling the people protesters and insurrectionists, I agree those are rather biased names but so long as it is clear those are Salon's names it should be ok. Springee (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Content removal

I removed this single event of a single individual [7] per WP:EVENTCRIT (#4). It does not make much sense under "Politics" anyway. Normchou ^💬 03:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I support that removal. Springee (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, could you elaborate? A simple "I support" comment doesn't really carry any weight in a discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to offer a specific reason since one was being asked for. I will add some additional thinking below. Springee (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

EVENTCRIT #4 concerns whether or not a topic merits its own article, not article content, and in any case the 2021 Capitol riot clearly meets that standard. It's unclear how that guideline would apply here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought this article is about a business. If the event is notable in its own right, per your edit summary (Capitol riot was clearly notable, not a run-of-the-mill crime), shouldn't it be included in an article directly related to the topic (i.e., the Capitol riot) instead? Normchou ^💬 03:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The business and events related to it are within the scope of this article. Again, EVENTCRIT has nothing to do with whether or not an event should be covered within an article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not an event related to it any more than it relates to the Nike shoes worn by some protestors.

A trivial mention of a person wearing a Black Rifle hat/clothing is clearly UNDUE. This has nothing to do with the company. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says nothing of the sort. –dlthewave ☎ 03:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think both WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:UNDUE have the spirit that some content does not deserve to be here, although this may involve WP:COMMONSENSE judgment. It is neither sufficient nor necessary to interpret policies and guidelines only literally WP:ADHERENCE. Normchou ^💬 04:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is off topic for an article about the business unless we show this is something that affects the business. A while back I recall a story about someone with the shoes that light up when you walk. That person was running from the cops at night. The police noted the shoes help them track the person. There are other examples of someone wearing a distinct sports jersey or other clothing but I don't think we would normally consider such content DUE for an article on the sports team or the branded clothing etc. This is a topic that has been discussed before, my question about reciprocity of weight. Dltehwave, you and I have long had this debate when discussing crime and firearms. In this case the article used to put this content in the article is one about apprehending a person in TN. That person happens to be wearing a BRC hat. However, if they were wearing a STP Racing hat would we expect to add the content to the STP article? Essentially you could substitute that logoed hat with any number of other brands and the story wouldn't have changed. This RfC looked at a similar set of cases [[8]]. The result of the RfC was that DUE in those cases was in part a case of editorial judgement. Similar case here. I say it should be out since this isn't a fact about the company and the source isn't an article about the company and the hat in question could be substituted for any number of other branded hats and the story wouldn't have changed. So, undue. Springee (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor asked "However, if they were wearing a STP Racing hat would we expect to add the content to the STP article?" and the answer would be yes, if STP Racing had donated to or promoted individuals associated with the event or had been endorsed by individuals leading the event. In this case, it's relevant since BRC has both been endorsed by individuals who led the event and militia groups involved in the attack, and had endorsed individuals leading the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.103.236 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC) — 71.75.103.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then you first need to show that BRC endorsed these individuals or this cause. We don't have anything of that kind. Springee (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

BRC donated to the Capitol rioters? Do you have a source for that? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Of interest

• Legal brawl erupts between Black Rifle Coffee and one of its OC investors, from Orange County Register. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen ledgers posted online of BRRC seemingly taking in $$$ from vets and then repurposing that for DNC donations. Essentially would be laundering for Dems. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)