This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Nevada (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the basis on their allegiance to Trump? 2003:E5:701:ADF7:8874:639E:EC9A:9C1A (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the info-box? There isn't one, so I shall remove it. TFD (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oath Keepers definition is wrong.the following definition is correct. -Oath Keepers

 Pro government. Constitutional service organization. 2600:1014:B08E:261B:80A6:25FA:22DF:B50F (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incoherent. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable the Blaze is, and I'm hoping that more reliable sources will report on this claim to see if it's true or false. Anyway, the Blaze is claiming that video from January 6 proves that one of the witnesses who testified in the Oath Keepers trial lied under oath. The video has been made public, so it should not be hard for other sources to investigate the claim by the Blaze.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/just-released-jan-6-videos-show-capitol-police-officer-lied-in-oath-keepers-trial-blaze-media-investigative-journalist-says

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1746974003317579834

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your direct support ensures that the stores that matter most, those buried by Big Tech and the mainstream media narratives, will be brought to light. Yeah, no way. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP is useful for checking the reliability of sources. In this case it says "Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts." JaggedHamster (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]