Talk:Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

The ADL on CSPOA

[1]. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is the ADL considered a reliable source on this topic? They have a financial interest in painting anybody who is not aligned with them as far right, whether or not they are. The ADL has shown time and again that they are not a reliable source, such as when they called Ben Shapiro a Nazi despite him being a practicing Jew. If using the ADL as a source in an article that they cannot possibly be unbiased about then would it be acceptable to use a far-right publication as a justification to smear left-wing groups? If not then there is a hypocritical and irrational double standard here. If the adl can be used to smear a libertarian group as far-right even though by definition libertarian movements are neither left nor right wing, does that mean it would be acceptable to use a right-wing business as a citation to smear other moderate organizations as far left? Micfail (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSPADL, WP:SPLC soibangla (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent article in the Washington Post

here. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

They're promoting homeopathic oils and anti-5g-radiation stickers now

The CSPOA is promoting homeopathic snake oil at https://cspoa.org/global-healing/ They're also promoting cute little stickers that do nothing, but are claimed to block radiation: https://cspoa.org/how-to-protect-yourself-against-emfs-5g/

Is this noteworthy enough for inclusion in the main article? I think people tend to think of their sheriffs as level-headed but their opinion of the organization may be different if they know about this sort of conspiracy-fueled misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.8.77.10 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As patently nonsense as all of that is, we should cite a reliable, secondary source that highlights the nonsense before including it in the article. Firefangledfeathers 17:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There's No There There

The entry does not come close to backing up its assertions that the CSPOA is connected to, or shares, the ideology of Posse Comitatus or the so-called Sovereign Citizens. Without detailing my own exhaustive investigation of the Posse Comitatus and their belief that a county sheriff is the highest office in the land, the citations offer no evidence but only speculation. I note that the entry omits the blunt denial of the CSPOA's putative leader given in one of the citations.

I read this entry as part of wanting to know about the sheriff in my county who calls himself a constitutional sheriff. I come away with a mishmash of guilt by association, an association that has not been established. If it were established, I would be ready to trust it, but when I went to the footnoted sources it simply is not there.

I conclude that this entry is one more of the many political hit jobs that have made Wikipedia unreliable on matters of controversy, especially for those of us who are well versed in this or that subject. I am not fond of our sheriff for a variety of reasons, but if Wikipedia thinks it is to be any sort of authoritative source, well, not this time. It is not enough to simply dislike someone and his rhetoric. If you want to allege a connection, then you must demonstrate that the connection actually exists rather than simply quoting articles that don't give any real evidence. 2605:59C8:4F4:5410:301B:66AB:48CE:4438 (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

please cite some specific passages that you find are unsupported by reliable sources soibangla (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

new source: "'Take Back the States': The Far-Right Sheriffs Ready to Disrupt the Election"

[2] Doug Weller talk 12:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And [3] which would need attribution per WP:RSNP. Doug Weller talk 12:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)