Talk:Not Fucking Around Coalition

Vandal?

Revert serial vandal 72.227.227.132's edits, which were made without comment by that person. After the recent negligent discharge by an alleged member of this group, I imagine this page will get a lot more traffic and edits. 184.221.213.112 (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Dead link

Please remove reference #8 “Black Ethnostate Leader Will Take Texas”. The link does not work and the title mirrors Richard Spencer racist pseudoscientific ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:7B7F:8400:DB7:287:762C:E65B (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The link works fine. It's a YouTube interview with the leader. Try the link again.MartinezMD (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Another dead link is "land upon which to form an independent nation.[3]" which goes to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_K-YxUh9V8 (video removed) AllanRosenzweig (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I just read the source a moment ago. It isn't dead so I reverted it. MartinezMD (talk)

Just saw a new edit tagging the correct dead link. With the account terminated, I don't see a way it can be gotten from an archive, so I removed it. MartinezMD (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Louisville September 2020?

NFAC recently participated in a huge armed demonstration in Louisville 3-4 days ago, yet it hasn’t been added to the activities section. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. Sounds like a good idea. Jack4576 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It won’t let me edit since the page is protected Bruhmoney77 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Give us a link and some proposed language. If their activities continue into the future we have to be careful to avoid the article become just a list of activity. MartinezMD (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Dear Wikipeoples

Is citation 23 really a reliable source? Youtube? Independent of the of subject? Just sayin.

Please provide reliable sources if appropriate. All information in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. 71.183.212.42 (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It isn't, but I adjusted the sentence so that it can be attributable to Johnson's statement. MartinezMD (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire sentence should be removed. The YouTube link wasn't true and the content it refers to has been removed. There is no evidence any III%er said that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.226.134 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement in question was about medics evaluating the participants that were shot. It has since been removed from the article. So you're about a week too late. However, I agree that the statement you are referring to, the subsequent #23, is at best hearsay and should be removed. So I edited it out. MartinezMD (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2020 For The Page NFAC

Eleanorlorraine (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC) I am requesting the following changes be made to the Page Entitled NFAC: First, Change Leader: John Jay Fitzgerald Johnson (Grand Master Jay) to LEADER: John Fitzgerald Johnson (Grand Master Jay)

Second, Change Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race

Thank you in advance, PS I am also requesting that my ability to edit be granted prior to the 4 day wait so I can update additional changes to this article. Eleanorlorraine (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Any inclusion to the article requires verifiable sources. The name and motives are properly sourced as they currently stand. Do you have reliable sources that say otherwise? MartinezMD (talk) 23:16, 28

October 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting the following changes be made to the Page Entitled NFAC Per The CNN Article: First requesting that his Name be corrected as Jay is not his middle name.

Change Leader: John Jay Fitzgerald Johnson (Grand Master Jay) to LEADER: John Fitzgerald Johnson aka (Grand Master Jay)

Second requesting that the motive be changed to reflect the truth and not satire, Change Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race.Eleanorlorraine (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you in advance, PS I am also requesting that my ability to edit be granted prior to the 4 day wait so I can update additional changes to this article. Eleanorlorraine (talk) 22:22, 08 November 2020 (UTC)Eleanorlorraine (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You are making changes without verifiable sources. I've already left you links to read here and on your own talk page. Will refer to admin. MartinezMD (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at the article through the lens of editor, rather than admin. The Powe source does not appear to have an editorial board, so I've flagged it as unreliable. However, other sources assert the motive of a Black nation in Texas. Additionally, a news source listed his full name as "John Jay Fitzgerald Johnson". —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

{{Help Me}} C.Fred (talk) : I am prepared to site several reliable sources for the name change request to John Fitzgerald Johnson from a recent CNN source dated 10-25-2020 written by By Nicole Chavez, Ryan Young and Angela Barajas, CNN Updated 2:21 PM ET, Sun October 25, 2020. I am requesting that both John Jay Johnson be changed to the name John Fitzgerald Johnson per the more recent article sited with CNN Change Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race.Eleanorlorraine (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC) .Eleanorlorraine (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

CNN is silent on the Texas assertion, but silence is not the same as refuting it. Likewise the middle name—although the absence of the middle name in the CNN article does carry a little weight. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.onlywecanfixus.com/meet-jfj

John Fitzgerald Johnson (Grand Master Jay) Eleanorlorraine (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

{{Help me}} C.Fred (talk) Additional proof of correct spelling of name is his 2016 Presidential Campaign Website. Eleanorlorraine (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the name change is reasonable, but I would consider adding somewhere he has been identified with the former name, especially for data searching. However, for the group's goals, Johnson's own words very clearly discuss wanting a separate state.[1] (with him referring to a "declaration of liberation", that the US needs to "carve us a piece of land - we'll take Texas", or leaving to "build our own nation" etc). This has been broadly reported. MartinezMD (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

MartinezMD (talk)

{{Help me}} The former name John Jay was a mis type by the very first article dated July of 2020 has no author, date or time to reference as site worthy, unfortunately, all other articles followed the information stated in this inital article thus all other articles followed up with the same mistaken information. The statement about Texas was satire and I will continue to find a sited source where this topic was corrected as satire. However, the CNN article does work as a legitimate site to change the article sited with CNN Change Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race.Eleanorlorraine

If you can find good sources, that'll work, otherwise we have to work with what we have. I've made changes to the name. For the group's motives, I would like to hear from other editors as well and get their input. MartinezMD (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eleanorlorraine: Procedural note: Please do not use the {{Help me}} template on article talk pages. You may use {{Request edit}}, based on your prior contributions demonstrating a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} MartinezMD (talk) BY SHANE PAUL NEIL Sep 04, 2020 this article along with the CNN article does work as a legitimate sites to change the article sited with both The Complex article along with the CNN Change from Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race.EleanorlorraineThe Complex Article states: What does the NFAC want? According to Grandmaster Jay, the mission of the NFAC is two-fold. On one end, it means “the establishment of an infrastructure that can assist in being the framework for community, self-policing, and the protection of our own communities and our race.” And on the other end, the NFAC’s “ultimate goal” will be in the “facilitating of the exodus from this country of those who are willing to leave to go someplace else, where racism is not an issue.” Over Zoom, he expressed his sincere intent of enabling Black Americans to “determine their own destiny, determine their own economy, defend their own homeland, and build their own culture.”Eleanorlorraine (talk)Eleanorlorraine (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"...facilitating of the exodus from this country of those who are willing to leave to go someplace else, where racism is not an issue..." - so black separatism. It doesn't say "Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race" as the "ultimate" goal in your source. I can grant that the "Texas" reference is likely just an example, but it's pretty consistent that he's looking for separation and I don't think your request is fair when he's pretty clear about the "ultimate goal". it may be appropriate to add the protect and police portion, but not as a substitution. MartinezMD (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

[{{Request edit}} MartinezMD (talk)[User:Eleanorlorraine|Eleanorlorraine]]1st The Complex Article above states: What does the NFAC want? According to Grandmaster Jay, the mission of the NFAC is two-fold. On one end, it means “the establishment of an infrastructure that can assist in being the framework for community, self-policing, and the protection of our own communities and our race.” And on the other end, the NFAC’s “ultimate goal”....therefore I would greatly appreciate if you could assist me in removing Texas as the Established Motive of the NFAC as it is not and replace it with (Change from Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race.) 2nd I am requesting that the term Black Hebrew Israelite be removed from this article as the NFAC has no religious affilliation. The only requirement is to be of the same race and not religion. This article dated July5th 2020 was written by Black lives matter and does not reflect accurate information based off the use of the Globalsecurity article that is also containing inaccurate information but is currently being addressed by the two editors at global security John Emory Pike III and Francios Boo Eleanorlorraine (talk)Eleanorlorraine (talk)Eleanorlorraine (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Eleanorlorraine (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eleanorlorraine: The Complex article quotes him, while the globalsecurity.org article is based on research. I don't see a reason to remove the Texas motive based on such a close source. Globalsecurity also mentions BHI. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: The globalsecurity.org article is not based on independent research at all. It doesn't even give an editors name, date or author of the article. I am currently working with two editors at Globalsecurity by the names of Wrong name and Hebrew Israelite reference. 11/11/2020 Sent Letter of Correction to [redacted] Currently being addressed via email for corrections to this article as of 11/21/2020.Eleanorlorraine (talk) Eleanorlorraine (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia will wait for the correction. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC:::@C.Fred: The globalsecurity.org article is not based on independent research at all. It doesn't even give an editors name, date or author of the article.The Two editors have not communicated with me since 11/10/2020. Here is the email response dated 11/10/2020 John Emory Pike III <john@globalsecurity.org> Tue 11/10/2020 3:05 PM "Would very much appreciate your input. I cannot guarantee what changes we will make." 11/11/2020 Sent Letter of Correction to [redacted] Currently being addressed via email for corrections to this article as of 11/21/2020. For this reason I would not like to wait to address the Texas situation with this unsubstantiated resource. The Video source for this statement has been removed from facebook and should therefore be replaced with the information from the CNN article stating The all-Black group, Johnson said, intends to protect, self-police and educate Black communities on firearms and their constitutional rights. or “the establishment of an infrastructure that can assist in being the framework for community, self-policing, and the protection of our own communities and our race.”. This should include the removal of the state of Texas as the NFAC is a law abiding group. The mention of the word Texas evokes anger in some who read it and look to Wikipedia as an accurate source for information. "And while Mockaitis said NFAC has made some questionable comments, including challenging White armed groups during a Georgia rally, he does not believe the NFAC has an overtly racist ideology." Eleanorlorraine (talk)Eleanorlorraine (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eleanorlorraine:The sources in the article and the one you refer to specifically all state NFAC is looking for separation "exodus from this country". It also does NOT say "educate". Furthermore your last edit left an incomplete statement. For those reasons I am reverting it until it is clear, supported by reliable sources, and does not contain grammatical errors. I am alright with removing the portion about the Hebrew reference since it is a weak source and I cannot find any other sources linking their groups. MartinezMD (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)"

@MartinezMD: I am requesting your assistance with making the necessary changes to (Change from Motives: (Establishment of Black Nation in Texas) to MOTIVES: Established to Protect, Police, and Educate The Black Race.)The all-Black group, Johnson said, intends to protect, self-police and educate Black communities on firearms and their constitutional rights. or “the establishment of an infrastructure that can assist in being the framework for community, self-policing, and the protection of our own communities and our race.”. This should include the removal of the state of Texas as the NFAC is a law abiding group. The mention of the word Texas evokes anger in some who read it and look to Wikipedia as an accurate source for information. "And while Mockaitis said NFAC has made some questionable comments, including challenging White armed groups during a Georgia rally, he does not believe the NFAC has an overtly racist ideology."

I thank you in advance for also removing the portion about the Hebrew reference since it is a weak source.Eleanorlorraine (talk)Eleanorlorraine (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you read what I write? The source DOES NOT SAY EDUCATE. MartinezMD (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2020

(UTC)

It absolutely does. Here is a direct quote from the article. "The all-Black group, Johnson said, intends to protect, self-police and educate Black communities on firearms and their constitutional rights."Eleanorlorraine (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I somehow completely missed that. It is, however, specific to constitutional rights, so I made that adjustment. I also amended a grammatical error you keep making. MartinezMD (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Activities entry

In Atlanta, NFAC members opened fire on a family and killed an eight year old girl. It should also be included in activities. Warlightyahoo (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Otherwise something that inflammatory sounds like something made up. MartinezMD (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

yeah, there’s no source on that whatsoever. Bruhmoney77 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are several sources on https://apnews.com/article/9148d740c10fcd784867eda74055aaa5 there are others from TheNewYorkTimes, Washington Post, ABC News all report a stort of armed men dressed in black blocking traffic with illegal barricades in Atlanta during the NFAC protests in Atlanta when a family drove into it and they opened fire. However the armed individuals are at large, it would be good in a contraversies section of (alledged activities). Warlightyahoo (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That an 8 year old girl was shot, yes, plenty of sources. That NFAC was involved? - none. Come back when you have something actually true. MartinezMD (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well it's enough to constitute it as an alledged activity. Warlightyahoo (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What reliable sources have reported on said allegations? —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Photos?

I cannot find any photos on the Wikimedia commons and any Flickr photo I find is copyrighted. Does anyone else have any luck in getting photos that either have the author’s permission or is within Wikipedia guidelines? Bruhmoney77 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

All lives

There was some chatter, mostly social media, that I came across in the past (I'd have to look for sources) criticizing GM Jay's verbiage of "All live matter". Is this at all notable for inclusion? See here and here.MartinezMD (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

NFAC is apart of American militia movement

It is a [[paramilitary] organization as it's listed under the "active Militia group", it is an organization that include paramilitary elements that are based in the US and refer to themselves as a militia. Therefore it is apart of The American Militia Movement. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED UPON FROM Asartea CHECK MY TALK PAGE. Any further reverts will result in a warning for Edit waring and potential loss of editing privileges.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs)

First, learn to sign you note. use 4 tildes ~~~~. Next read WP:BRD. The edit was reverted, now discuss. Lastly, User:Asartea does not appear to have specifically agreed with you. There is Wikipedia policy on this. It calls for WP:consensus. Try a dialogue on this talk page. That's how it works. I'm reverting your edit. If you'd like to edit war, I can refer you to an admin. MartinezMD (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Reaver 55 (talk · contribs) could you clarify why do you think NFAC is militia movement instead of paramilitary organization? I would have to remind you that THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY A WIKIPEDIA STAFF MEMBER. is not a valid argument as the content of the articles are based on the consensus, not because some admin said so, except in rare cases where it has been decided at ArbCom which is clearly not the case here. Asartea (talk · contribs) agreeing with you does not mean that your edits are immune to further challenges by other editors. I also invite MartinezMD (talk · contribs) to the discussion to prevent further edit wars. SunDawn (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That NFAC has been called a militia, I think that is correct and is addressed in the lead. To call it a movement I think is a bit of a stretch. It's an organization that embraces certain philosophies, not being one itself.MartinezMD (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello SunDawn and User talk:MartinezMD For starters the moderator has already agreed to it. Please do not continue to edit war it will result in an edit war warning. I gladly hope you do get the "Admin" involved as one already did. USE THE TALK PAGE TO DISCUSS. The NFAC as per Wikipedia "American Militia movement" "The American militia movement is a grouping of private organizations that include paramilitary or similar elements. These groups may refer to themselves as militia, unorganized militia, and constitutional militia." You have seem to already have agreed that they are a paramilitary organization, they are based in the US and call themselves a militia. To call it a phillisophical movement is ABSOLUTELY against the agreed consensus it is a self proclaimed militia GROUP, not a philosphy. You seem to have agreed with me but are projecting a bias against the NFAC. I will revert my edit back please do not continue it will result in an edit war warning. Thank you.Reaver55 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

References

"We are a Black militia...

There is no "better source" available for this quotation. The article states it was in a phone call to NewsWeek. So either we accept it or we remove it. Any other source simply refers back to the NewsWeek article. MartinezMD (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They are undeniably an all black militia, but if you really must see the murder to convict then here. "The all-Black group, Johnson said, intends to protect, self-police and educate Black communities on firearms and their constitutional rights." "The all-Black group, Johnson said, intends to protect, self-police and educate Black communities on firearms and their constitutional rights." ""In one sense it (NFAC) echoes the Black Panthers but they are more heavily armed and more disciplined... So far, they've coordinated with police and avoided engaging with violence," (Johnson) said." https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/25/us/nfac-black-armed-group/index.html

and finally youll probably try to dismiss it as not a direct source. https://www.blacknfac.com/master-plan Heres a direct source of his "master plan" in a background animation fighting for "His people" and Uniting "UBKN" Also known as "United Black Kemetic Nation" which John Johnson made NFAC with the intentions of " Eventually, intends to establish a racially pure country called the United Black Kemetic Nation." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/04/the-many-lives-of-grandmaster-jay/618408/

Reaver55 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Your reply has nothing to do with the topic I posted. It's about tagging the quotation with a different reference. MartinezMD (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering your previous bias self report when you tried denying NFAC as part of the America Militia movement, I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to deny it was a black only militia. "so either we accept it or we remove it" and therefore removing the mention that its a black only militia? Reaver55 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this discussion topic in response to removing the tag that a better source was needed for the quote - either the source is adequate or the statement must be removed since it's the only existing source of the statement. This section is for discussion of the article, not your assumptions. MartinezMD (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is zero assumptions here removing stating they are a black militia is outright false and biased. Source stays. Please keep your biases to a minimum. Reaver55 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the tag. Where's the bias? Stick to the article and topic MartinezMD (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The bias is in your attempt to remove the article with a direct quote about them being a black militia. I will ensure that remains and not allow you to further wash away the truth. Just like in your attempts to remove the Militia movement tag. The bias is overwhelmingly clear with this specific topic at hand. Stop trying to twist and spin agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made no attempt to remove the article. I removed the tag, actually supporting the quote's presence. Now stick to the topic. MartinezMD (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Far-right tag

The group advocated for a state to secede from the United States that so they can make a all 100% black ethno state call me crazy but I believe that qualifies for a far-right political position to be added here 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:AD (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It'll need a reliable source. see WP:RS MartinezMD (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR - "part of the militia movement"

The WP:NOR guideline is clear: "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source"

No sources describe them as part of the militia movement, you are just doing original research. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

First reference, first sentence starts with the discussion of the militia movement. I already mentioned this is my edit. "The far-right patriot movement has long been a fringe factor in American politics, as racial upheaval, police brutality, and a not-so-hidden agenda from President Donald Trump have paved the way for wide-scale growth of the ideological militia movement."

Reference 6, the Vice article "The notion of a Black-run ethnostate, one of the group’s main goals, has been a cornerstone of past Black separatist movements, like Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party."

Ref 13 Global security "The actions of the militia are reminiscent of the Black Panthers from the 1960s-1970s, the revolutionary black nationalist movement that also regularly appeared in public armed. But in fact, the NFAC is now mainly doing what white militias have done to it in recent months."

And probably most directly Ref 29, Daily Advertiser - “We need to know that change does not happen instantly. It’s a movement. It’s not going to happen tomorrow. It’s not going to happen next year, which is why we have to stay with them right here,” Broussard said.

All these sources are putting this militia in context to a movement or outright calling it one. I am not "just doing original research" and don't need accusations from someone who doesn't read or has ignored the references. MartinezMD (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: no source states that they are part of the militia movement (see WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH); do not remove the template. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the sources I have quoted both directly and indirectly say that it is. We can wait for other editors to add their opinion or you can make a RFC. MartinezMD (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the reported sentences states that they are part of the militia movement; the first one refers to other groups. Even if the source (i.e., Complex Networks by BuzzFeed) could be interpreted as "they are part of the militia movement" it would remain WP:FRINGE, since no reliable source (i.e., scholars in their area of expertise) described NFAC that way. Anyway, I request for a comment and more involvement.

93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• (Sent by Yapperbot) After reading over the discussion so far, I think the burden of proof (WP:BURDEN) is on MartinezMD to provide me an exact quote on the NFAC being a part of the militia movement. While I have no doubt that Martinez is contributing in good faith, I'm going to be saying that temporarily saying that this original research, if no better sourcing and no exact quotes to supplement the sources already mentioned and analyzed here are provided (please ping me btw if you do reply). Thanks. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add this to the article, I just agree it was correct. However, if we need something more to explicitly say this group is part of the militia movement, how about a security report to a committee of the US House of Representatives?

"Left-Wing Militias and Gun Clubs"

"The newest entry to the militant world is the left-wing militia and gun clubs. This includes small groups such as the John Brown Gun Club / Redneck Revolt and the Socialist Rifle Club to the newly formed Latino Rifle Association and the NFAC black militia that made its debut in Georgia on the 4th of July."

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM05/20200716/110911/HMTG-116-HM05-Wstate-MacNabJ-20200716.pdf MartinezMD (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No one has disputed that NFAC is described as a militia. It is being debated whether it is part of the "militia movement" (also known as U.S. militia movement or America militia movement) that refers to the concept of "U.S. militia." NFAC (as well as the socialist Redneck Revolt and the neo-Nazi terrorist network Atomwaffen Division) is certainly a private paramilitary group, but that does not mean it is part of the militia movement.

The article on the militia movement is not the equivalent of an article on all American paramilitary groups, but only of a set of specific groups that have common elements; reliable sources describe when these extremist groups are part of it. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

May I ask that the IP address supply a neutral introduction at the RfC tag? On listings like WP:RFC/ALL, there is presently no explanation for this RfC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Content is not properly sourced. A source is needed for "NFAC is part of the militia movement" or content without a source should be removed. I asked for comments from other users for a third-party opinion, as suggested by Martinez. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I do think that if it's a government designation, when listing it on Wikipedia, it should be clarified as a government designation. I'd only say that it is under the circumstance that multiple reliable sources say it is. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The designation from the U.S. government is militia violent extremists (MVE) which is distinct from racial/ethnic violent extremism (e.g., Atomwaffen Division).

Private research centers use "militia movement" to refer to a right-wing movement started in the 1990s by the Michigan Militia, which collectively proclaims itself to be the legitimate Militia of the United States. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)