Talk:Stewart Rhodes

Ethnicity categories?

Which categories are appropriate to add re: ethnicity? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:White people? Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras The prose says, "Rhodes has stated that he is mixed race and that his maternal ancestors are 'American-Indian' and Hispanic." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I know, it was (semi)-facetious. However, those of the far-right tend to reach for "I'm really X, therefore I can't have a phobia for X!" excuses when cornered, viz. Anderson Lee Aldrich claiming to be non-binary. Stewart Rhodes is not a reliable source for claims of his own ancestry without a reliable secondary source to back it up. Zaathras (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I chuckled. I'm fine with your reasoning and agree to leave out until better sourcing allows. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Plenty biographies don't categorise by ethnicity and I recommend we keep it like that, based on the uncertainty. CT55555(talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a category Category:White Americans CT55555(talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

In The News

I nominated this. My first time nominating and I may have done it wrong..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates CT55555(talk) 22:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Work history

I recall reading that he spent some time working as a gun safety instructor. 174.93.232.191 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

SPLC is not authoritative

SPLC is cited as some kind of authority despite being a partisan group with a proven history of lying. This unnecessarily biases this article. 98.97.119.103 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus of editors is that the SPLC is a reliable source. Please read WP:SPLC. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Found the white supremacist 69.131.24.177 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It is for Wikipedia’s purposes. Artificial Nagger (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreement that SPLC is a reliable source. Arjuna (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Domestic terrorist

An ip editor is trying to add to the lead that the subject is a domestic terrorist. We require multiple, secondary reliable sources to include such a claim. Artificial Nagger (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not, we just need a single reputable reliable source for that, and we do. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You should refamiliarize yourself with BLP:WELLKNOWN, which is applicable to this BLP. It states:

“In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”

Regardless, the single source used here doesn’t even make the claim being alleged.Artificial Nagger (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I’d like to clarify, the source here does not call Rhodes a domestic terrorist. Show me a source that does and then I’ll agree to using “domestic terrorist”.Artificial Nagger (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, here's a few: Earlier on Thursday, Mehta ruled that Rhodes’ actions amounted to domestic terrorism. [1] [2] Court Concludes Oath Keepers Leaders’ Conduct was Terrorism filed under "Domestic Terrorism". And so on and so forth. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And? That’s not the same as the RS calling him that. The judge is not the secondary source, but a primary. Please tell me you see this distinction. You’ve been an editor for 15 years and this can’t be new to you. Thanks, Artificial Nagger (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Simply attribute the assessment to the judge, who is uniquely well qualified to make that assessment, and move on to other things. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to that, in theory at least. But it should go in the body of the article, not the lead at this time. Artificial Nagger (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, Lead, and Weight

Per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE I’m proposing on trimming the “disbarred attorney” and “convicted felon” parts from the lead.

1. Adding “convicted felon” is completely unnecessary as we already have his conviction listed in the lead. Do we need to list it twice? No we don’t, nor should we. In fact, I’m going to trim this now because I can’t fathom any good reason why it belongs twice.

2. “Disbarred attorney” doesn’t really add anything of value to the article, but that’s subjective. But if you look at the available sources, and the body of the article his being an attorney is not very notable, much less being a disbarred attorney, because the sources don’t dwell on this. So why is in the lead? It fails all 3 WP links above.

For both of these, I see only one reason they are being included. That’s to wiki-shame the BLP subject. Not that I give a damn how he may feel, but we as editors are supposed to care about things like maintaining a WP:NPOV. Can someone please explain the support of these two inclusions in the lead? Artificial Nagger (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with 2. Further, he lost his license in Montana but he also practiced law in other states. A general disbarment label implies that he is without a license to practice in any state. Then again, that felony probably does disbar him from every state but we need actual sources and text confirming that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I had not thought of him being licensed in other states. But even if he is disbarred because of a conviction, so what? Is it lead-worthy? Not automatically, no. Thanks again. Artificial Nagger (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Political party and political views

The addition of his political affiliation (Libertarian Party and Republican Party) should be considered.

"Rhodes, a self-described Libertarian, testified that he founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 to “reach, change and inspire” people about what rights the Constitution afforded them."

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/04/politics/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-trial/index.html

"After college, his first political job was supervising interns in Washington, D.C., for Libertarian Ron Paul, then a Republican congressman from Texas. Rhodes subsequently attended Yale Law School, graduating in 2004, and clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Michael D. Ryan. He later volunteered on Paul’s failed 2008 presidential campaign."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/elmer-stewart-rhodes

"libertarian former Arizona Supreme Court law clerk"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/founder-far-right-militia-once-warned-federal-tyranny-then-came-n1256546

Moreover, according to The Atlantic, he was "a little-known [right-wing] libertarian blogger."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/right-wing-militias-civil-war/616473/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also:

"One group would reform the political scene, possibly to the liking of a mix of mostly Republicans, a few independents and Libertarians, and one constitutional conservative who identified themselves among upwards of 35 people at Thursday's event.

Rhodes is a Libertarian and volunteered to work on former Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2008."

https://eu.timesrecordnews.com/story/news/2021/06/25/oath-keepers-founder-stewart-rhodes-speaks-wichita-falls-capitol-riot-accusations/5323819001/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you need to make yourself aware of the difference between a person who is said to have libertarian beliefs, and a person who is a member of the Libertarian Party. Rhodes has no documented connection to or membership in the latter. Zaathras (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Rhodes is a Libertarian and volunteered to work on former Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2008."

Libertarian with a capital "L" means an adherent of the Libertarian Party. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The source's errant capitalization isn't relevant to the discussion. Ron Paul ran in the Republican Party primary in 2008. Hence, if Rhodes volunteered for Paul's campaign, neither Paul, Rhodes, nor the campaign had any connection to the Libertarian Party. Zaathras (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

SPLC edit

@Zaathras I agree to some extent with @Gato63: the right of the federated states to nullify some federal laws is a matter of debate. If the court has held that the law is unconstitutional the federated state can technically prevent the enforcement of the federal law.

An explanatory note should be inserted. The SPLC article explicitly mentions the right to keep and bear arms, ergo a constitutional right. In the hierarchy of sources, federal laws are subordinate to the Constitution. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

p.s. The article on the laws of the United States literally says:

"Where Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, state or federal courts may rule that law to be unconstitutional and declare it invalid." See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't really care what your personal opinion is. We follow the sources, which characterize it as false. Zaathras (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. If a source states an opinion it cannot be written as fact. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Lol, as if I would be lectured by an IP(non)-user. That it is false is a fact, not an opinion. Zaathras (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOPA. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi 93.45... Your recent insertion of the Marbury v. Madison footnote is what's called Original Research. You would need a reliable source that connects that case to Stewart Rhodes. As Zaathras describes above, the source's connection to libertarianism is tenuous. Feoffer (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

WP:NPOV

"the source's connection to libertarianism is tenuous"

Ok, so find me a reliable source that says Stewart Rhodes is not a libertarian. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer @Zaathras "despite the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution." It was not written in the source, but a blatant comment of the editors violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. WP:WIKIVOICE states that opinions should be attributed. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Libertarian

@Feoffer it would be much more honest if you explained your changes in the talk. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I was right in the middle of posting to talk. See above. Feoffer (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't find your arguments for removing "libertarian" coinvincing, since you didn't move a finger for "neo-fascist" for a year (which was also without a source). Stewart Rhodes' libertarian or right-wing libertarian positions are known and supported by sources; I had included The Atlantic as a source that is considered reliable.

So if I reinstate the explanatory note with this source is it okay?

«At it's best, the Supreme Court ― along with the lower federal courts and states courts ― acts as the guardian of our civil rights by striking down unconstitutional laws. This is the power of judicial review , by which the courts may declare "unconstitutional" and invalid any federal or state laws [...]»

ISBN: 978-1483319186 We the Students - Supreme Court Cases for and about Students by Jamin B. Raskin, SAGE Publications (2014) Chapter 1, p. 4 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

So, I'm not trying to 'pick' on you, writing for Biographies of Living Persons can be really hard. The source you cite might qualify as a Reliable Source on an article about the supreme court, but sources here really should explicitly make mention of Rhodes -- we shouldn't be finding sources of our own to synthesize an argument of our creation. That cuts both ways -- since the SPLC source didn't mention the supremacy clause, you were correct to remove that.

As for libertarianism, it seems Rhodes dabbled in the topic in the early 00s on his way to finding his ultimate home in the far-right militia movement which is the source of his notoriety. RSes almost never characterize Rhodes as a libertarian. Feoffer (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The American militia movement includes right-libertarians. Check the libertarianism article incipit. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree the militia movement can include right-libertarians, but I'm not seeing any headlines or sources that suggest Rhodes and the Oath Keepers are understood as a libertarian phenomenon. Feoffer (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Oath Keepers promote conspiracy theories that claim that the United States is a socialist government intent on disarming the population so that a foreign government can invade. They are committed to a libertarian view of private property that opposes most federal land ownership or restrictions on private use for environmental or other reasons."

https://politicalresearch.org/2016/01/05/profiles-on-the-right-three-percenters 93.45.229.98 (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that source will help you much, I'm afraid. We don't know if that author is a Reliable Source or not, and it's a passing mention from seven year old source. In the intervening years, a LOT of words have been spent on Stewart Rhodes and none of them seem to emphasize libertarianism as a descriptor.

Editing Wikipedia can be a very frustrating experience if you decide on the narrative first and then seek out sources -- it's much easier to let the sources dictate the narrative. Why do you want to connect Rhodes to Libertarianism in our text? Just in your own words, why do you think those two dots should be connected -- I have no ax to grind one way or the other, but it's just not looking like Rhodes has been characterized that way. Feoffer (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources describe Stewart Rhodes as a libertarian. I see no reason to doubt that he is a right-wing libertarian, since he supports all the ideas of right-wing libertarianism. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)