Jump to content

Talk:Three Percenters: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
reply
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Three Percenters/Archive 1) (bot
 
(97 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=n|b2=n|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|US=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=n|b2=n|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|US=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |class=B |importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Annual readership}}
Line 18: Line 17:
| minthreadstoarchive=1
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
}}
{{section sizes}}
{{auto archiving notice
|bot = lowercase sigmabot III
|age = 90
|small=
}}


__TOC__
__TOC__


== Leaked Docs From Far-Right Militias Show History of Voter Intimidation Plans ==
== Citations for percentage of Americans who fought in Revolutionary War ==

Hi, I'm a new editor so I can't make these additions myself on account of this page having a semi-protected status.

I've found two sources that state with a good amount of confidence that the proportion of the population that fought in the Revolutionary War was materially higher than three percent:

https://observer.com/2017/07/soldiers-militia-american-revolution/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

I think it would be worth adding those citations to the figure, since the citations on the sentence containing it seem to provide broader support to the sentence as a whole.

I also think that language stronger than "disputed figure" in the lead would be appropriate. Whatever the actual figure is, there doesn't seem to be evidence that it was only three percent.

Again, I'm new so let me know if I'm going about this wrong in some way!

:I agree and changed the wording. I used the Smithsonian source. [[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

::I believe though that it should state "...the ''disputed'' claim that only three percent...". This is because there are sources claiming that, and given that the American Revolution is a core part of the "American Myth", it cannot just be assumed that the revisionist history is accurate and not the conventional thinking of the time closer to the Revolution.[[User:Baz Dionysos|Baz Dionysos]] ([[User talk:Baz Dionysos|talk]]) 20:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
:::To be "revisionist", it would require that the 3% claim be reliably established then changed. It was never reliably established, and the numbers supporting a larger figure have not been altered. [[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 03:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, this statement (The group's name derives from the erroneous[9] claim) jumps out as a loaded statement with only a link to an ''opinion'' piece as evidence to the contrary, which leaves me wondering how much of wikipedia is actually trustworthy information when this statement is obviously based on opinion, not fact. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/153.10.242.1|153.10.242.1]] ([[User talk:153.10.242.1#top|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The opinion is a review of the subject by a professor. US population was 2.5 million. About 200,000-250,000 in total served in the continental army, navy, marines, and militias. That comes out to about 9%, not even counting the fact that half the population was female, meaning it was about 18% of the males, and not counting that probably about 1/4 of the males were too old or children, which would make the figure of eligible men even higher. Which figure do you not believe, the 2.5 million population backed the US Census Bureau or the ~225,000 veterans? This is basic math. [[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 06:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

https://observer.com/2017/07/soldiers-militia-american-revolution/

:This source is an opinion article and shouldn't be used. The only facts it mentions support the 3% claim but the article claims it doesn't. (100,000 / 2,780,369 = ~3.6%) The article then devolves into wild conjecture by assuming statistics. It also directly contradicts some claims made in it's own citations. [[User:Hobadee|Hobadee]] ([[User talk:Hobadee|talk]]) 05:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/

:While this source is better than the opinion article and is actually cited by the opinion article, it still somewhat supports the 3% claim, at least in terms of army size. It appears that the *army* was 3% of the population, but the *militia* was an additional large percentage on top of that. Therefore, the 3% claim is correct when applied to the army that was raised by the Continental Congress, but not when applied to everyone who fought in the Revolutionary war. Really this claim is about 50/50 true, depending on how you interpret it. [[User:Hobadee|Hobadee]] ([[User talk:Hobadee|talk]]) 05:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

::Sorry. The group's national page said only 3% of colonists took up arms, not 3% were in the army. So the 3% claim is not correct. [[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 22:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

== Oath enforcers ==

Besides the fact I think this needs an article of its own, it mentions Three Percenters.[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/06/far-right-group-oath-enforcers?utm_term=388cb5131e81c7db243f972da139201b&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Three Percenters|answered=yes}}
[[Special:Contributions/2604:2C00:FFFB:2E3:2D8B:5F99:9FD2:3952|2604:2C00:FFFB:2E3:2D8B:5F99:9FD2:3952]] ([[User talk:2604:2C00:FFFB:2E3:2D8B:5F99:9FD2:3952|talk]]) 19:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This is mostly false and should be removed until such as time as the subject is researched. Quit being part of the problem by making up what you want something to be, rather than what it is.
:No doubt you can explain here why all 64 references are false? '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 20:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021 ==


[https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-messages-militias-ap3-voter-intimidation-plan/?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=wired&utm_mailing=WIR_Daily_101224&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_content=WIR_Daily_101224&bxid=5be9d86c3f92a40469e75648&cndid=16554313&hasha=aa8ab805992d7c0236bf11630048f573&hashb=f3c17dce69ee79aabdc8916216fe960bf9e88caf&hashc=f3cade83f73239e9abd4b8e26c5102e6f21c22d8543dafc8c2c9c1d8833b7a90&esrc=MARTECH_ORDERFORM&utm_term=WIR_Daily_Active] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 12:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Three Percenters|answered=yes}}
:*I guess my question here is whether it's as relevant as the article makes it sound. This is largely based on documents obtained by hacking (so illegally obtained and unverified) and info from the same person who got the documents. The "instructions" are clear to observe, document and report, none of which are illegal. But possibly the bigger question for me is the relevance of the "organization". There is no national org and longer and it's a bunch of small, independent groups with no real coordination or reach. Lest someone accuse me of sympathizing, I'll state this clearly: I do not support unlawful interference in the election process. I think that dudes who run around on public streets kitted out like they're heading into Mosul are knuckleheads. And I believe that Joe Biden is the president. So maybe let's skip the angst over my userbox that says I'm a conservative. In the end, this would be like finding an email between 3 suspected Klan members in GA and trying to attribute their plan to a national effort that would require the coordination of numerous small, local orgs. I'd want more evidence of coordination before I saw it as relevant to the broader topic. And I'm not saying I oppose inclusion, I am rasing a question. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 12:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I suggest to change the wording to past tense as the organization no longer exists [[User:Unkie mark|Unkie mark]] ([[User talk:Unkie mark|talk]]) 03:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Could you please provide a source on their official disbandment? Wasn't able to find any information. [[User:Living Concrete|Living Concrete]] ([[User talk:Living Concrete|talk]]) 06:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
::It's already in the article lead. I put it in - official announcement from their website. The tense should be changed, I just didn't get around to it. [[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
:::{{tq|On February 21, 2021, their leadership dissolved '''the American national group'''}}
:::Emphasis mine. They shut down the American branch, but not the Canadian. And there are already local offshoots. The organization still exists, so changing to past-tense is not appropriate IMO. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
::::What is the Canadian website? This is the American national organization.[[User:MartinezMD|MartinezMD]] ([[User talk:MartinezMD|talk]]) 21:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:53, 15 November 2024

Leaked Docs From Far-Right Militias Show History of Voter Intimidation Plans

[edit]

[1] Doug Weller talk 12:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess my question here is whether it's as relevant as the article makes it sound. This is largely based on documents obtained by hacking (so illegally obtained and unverified) and info from the same person who got the documents. The "instructions" are clear to observe, document and report, none of which are illegal. But possibly the bigger question for me is the relevance of the "organization". There is no national org and longer and it's a bunch of small, independent groups with no real coordination or reach. Lest someone accuse me of sympathizing, I'll state this clearly: I do not support unlawful interference in the election process. I think that dudes who run around on public streets kitted out like they're heading into Mosul are knuckleheads. And I believe that Joe Biden is the president. So maybe let's skip the angst over my userbox that says I'm a conservative. In the end, this would be like finding an email between 3 suspected Klan members in GA and trying to attribute their plan to a national effort that would require the coordination of numerous small, local orgs. I'd want more evidence of coordination before I saw it as relevant to the broader topic. And I'm not saying I oppose inclusion, I am rasing a question. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Three_Percenters&oldid=1257601494"