Talk:Three Percenters

Improper linking of Lauren Boebert to the Three Percenters

The statement ("Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert has close ties to the group") claiming that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has close ties to the Three Percenters extremist group should not be included in this article summarizing the organization.

This is because such a claim does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, verifiability through reliable sources, and presenting information in an encyclopedic manner appropriate to the context. Specifically, the nature of any alleged connections between Rep. Boebert and the Three Percenters appears politically controversial and lacks independent sourcing. Making an unsubstantiated claim of "close ties" also has a negative tone more suited to accusation than neutral summarization. The article should thus avoid any details about one individual's purported ties to the group and instead focus on giving an overview of the organization itself based on reliable, published sources. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. The NYT is a reliable source, and goes into details about Boebert's ties to the Three Percenters and other militia groups. A sitting member of Congress having close ties to this group is absolutely noteworthy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your ill-informed advocacy for the inclusion of the claim asserting Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's ostensible affiliations with the Three Percenters extremist group in the article flouts the very essence of Wikipedia's meticulously upheld standards for objectivity, verifiability, and the art of encyclopaedic curation.

While The New York Times indeed enjoys the prestige of reliability, Wikipedia demand that assertions be buttressed by the formidable fortification of multiple, autonomous, and unimpeachable sources.

Furthermore, the intricate web of these purported associations, swathed in the tenebrous shroud of political controversy, appears to lack the abundant and independent ratification necessary to fend off accusations of partiality. Wikipedia's unwavering allegiance to impartiality and equanimity calls for a judicious stance towards contentious content, and in this particular instance, the interpolation of unsubstantiated and potentially prejudiced information pertaining to an individual's entanglements with a particular group might run afoul of the canons of balanced, didactic exposition.

PS:

I've reverted this change with a firm click,

Backtracking the edit, like a quick magic trick.

Restoring the balance, making things right,

In Wikipedia's realm, where facts take flight. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The source provided is sufficient to support the claim, and other sources (like this one) are available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

From my vantage point, it is imperative to emphasise the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, which arise from the dialectical relationship between objectivity, verifiability, and the dissemination of encyclopaedic knowledge. These principles form the scaffolding upon which the edifice of reliability and impartiality in shared information stands.

I resolutely maintain the stance that my assertions entwined with the sensitive matter of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's purported affiliations with the Three Percenters extremist group, must find their grounding in substantial and credible evidence. While The New York Times occupies a prominent position as a reputable source, Wikipedia's guidelines typically encourage the inclusion of multiple independent and reliable sources to substantiate claims of this nature. This rigorous approach acts as a bulwark against potential bias and ensures a more comprehensive and balanced portrayal of the subject at hand, thus adhering to the principles of historical materialism.

You has brought to my attention that 9News also lends credence to this claim. In light of the incorporation of multiple sources, it becomes crucial to scrutinise the credibility and impartiality of 9News, in line with Wikipedia's standards for reliability. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the mere existence of multiple sources does not exempt the need for each source to meet the criteria of reliability and impartiality, mirroring the dialectical unity of opposites.

Furthermore, I have expressed reservations concerning the inherent political controversy surrounding these alleged affiliations. This concern underscores the significance of maintaining a measured and class-conscious tone within the article. Wikipedia's unwavering commitment to neutrality necessitates a dialectical approach when addressing contentious content, with careful consideration of the potential ramifications of incorporating unverified or prejudiced information. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What a load of pompous nonsense. You've expended a great deal of words simply to say you're mad that the sources agree she's affiliated with the group.

with careful consideration of the potential ramifications of incorporating unverified or prejudiced information.

The information is verified per the cited sources. The fact you dislike it is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly it's important to remember that discussions on Wikipedia are based on principles of civility and collaboration. I understand that we may have different viewpoints on this matter, but let's continue the discussion in a respectful and constructive manner.

I comprehend your viewpoint and wish to convey my gratitude for your active participation in this discourse. Allow me to elucidate that my purpose is not to dismiss or express aversion towards the information but rather to ensure its harmonisation with Wikipedia's bedrock principles of objectivity, ascertain-ability, and encyclopaedic presentation. Wikipedia functions as a cooperative platform where editors are dedicated to upholding the utmost standards of dependability and impartiality in the material presented to its readers.

It is of utmost importance to acknowledge that the sources under consideration do indeed lend support to the assertion of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's alleged associations with the Three Percenters. Nonetheless, the linchpin of my argument revolves around the guiding tenets that govern the creation of content on Wikipedia:

1. Multiplicity of Independent Sources: Wikipedia's directives frequently endorse the inclusion of numerous autonomous and credible sources to corroborate claims, particularly when confronting contentious or conceivably biased information. While The New York Times undoubtedly maintains its stature as a reputable source, reinforcing the claim with support from diverse reliable sources enhances its verifiability.

2. Mired in Political Controversy: I have also accentuated the potential for political controversy inherent in such claims. Wikipedia's unwavering dedication to neutrality necessitates a circumspect approach when disseminating contentious content. We must duly weigh the repercussions of incorporating unverified or potentially prejudiced information, recognizing its potential to disrupt the article's neutrality. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

but let's continue the discussion in a respectful and constructive manner.

You threw that out the window in your first reply, calling my edits ill-informed advocacy. Since then, you've provided nothing but purple prose to pad out the length of your commentary, while offering no sources to counter the ones which have been provided. You claim concern about "political controversy", but WP:N does not mean we have to tiptoe around controversy, it means we provide factual information with sourcing. And you clearly haven't read the NYT article, as it provides multiple independent sources which back up its statements.

This isn't going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that my initial response might have benefited from a more diplomatic tone is a fair observation. It is essential to maintain a respectful and constructive discourse.

However, I would like to challenge the assertion that your contributions have been unequivocally backed by credible sources. While The New York Times is indeed a reputable source, within the realm of Wikipedia's rigorous editorial standards, it is customary to seek a diverse array of independent sources, especially when dealing with contentious subjects. This approach, anchored in the pursuit of impartiality, not only enhances Wikipedia's overall credibility but also safeguards against potential bias.

As you pointed out, Wikipedia's guidelines unequivocally emphasize the primacy of factual information and the necessity of proper sourcing. Nonetheless, I would like to challenge the notion that we are duty-bound to present information with unwavering balance and neutrality when confronting politically contentious topics. While neutrality is a paramount principle, it is equally vital to ensure that the presentation of information aligns with the weight of evidence available from reliable sources. This requires an exercise of discernment to avoid false equivalencies and to accurately portray the subject matter.

In response to your assertion that the discussion may be affected by biases, I wholeheartedly concur with the need for vigilance. However, I would challenge the implication that bias is inherently a problem to be resolved. Bias can be inherent in sources, but it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to navigate and present information in an unbiased manner. This often requires a nuanced approach, fact-checking, and cross-referencing of sources to ensure the most accurate and neutral representation.

I remain fully committed to continuing this discourse in a constructive and cooperative manner, with a shared goal of ensuring Wikipedia's integrity as a comprehensive, impartial, and verifiable source of information. In our collaborative endeavor, it is imperative for all contributors to engage in critical thinking and uphold Wikipedia's principles and standards with unwavering dedication. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted to the status quo until consensus is reached on this. Knitsey (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding 2c here - the NYT article seems to base their support for a connection on the content of the 9news.com article which is noted and linked in their article further down the page (and firefangledfeathers linked above separately). That particular article does not strongly support "close" ties. It seems to be based on the fact that some people on the platform flashed a known hand signal. That's not what I would call close ties. Certainly, worth looking into, and would suggest some level of relationship, but it's somewhat circumstantial (and honestly, not good journalism). Who are these people and what is the nature of their relationship with Boebert? Based on just these two articles, it's not enough for me to support inclusion as it seems to be agenda-driven. I'd support it if there were a clearer connection defined in either of those articles (or in additional articles from reliable sources). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, maintaining a critical approach to news and assessing evidence is crucial, especially with claims about political figures. Flashing a known hand signal may not indicate "close" ties, so understanding the context and nature of the relationship is essential. To form an informed opinion, we must seek additional information from reliable sources with a deeper investigation into the connections and motivations. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)