Talk:The Order (white supremacist group)

DAVID LANE establishes His Successor.

ASHTON DEE GILBERT, and Austin Dale Gilbert. 2600:1005:B192:6091:0:2A:A604:6301 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Christian Identity

With regard to this particular edit.

From the CID article....Christian Identity#Revolutionary violence

"Elohim City, Oklahoma (also known as Elohim City Inc. and Elohim Village) is a private community in Adair County, Oklahoma, United States. The 400 acres (1.6 km2) rural retreat was founded in 1973 by Robert G. Millar, a Canadian immigrant, former Mennonite, and "one of the most important leaders" in America's Christian Identity movement, a theology common to an assortment of right-wing extremist groups. The community gained national attention for its ties to members of The Order in the 1980s, as well as with convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s." (edited for relative context)DN (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

"The future Aryan Nations founder Richard Butler (white supremacist), who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, was introduced to Wesley Swift by William Potter Gale in 1962. Swift quickly converted Butler to Christian Identity. When Swift died in 1971, Butler fought against Gale, James Warner, and Swift's widow for control of the church. Butler eventually gained control of the organization and moved it from California to Hayden Lake, Idaho in 1973" Kaplan (p.298)

"Tax resister and militia movement organizer Gordon Kahl had connections to the Christian Identity movement. His death in a 1983 shootout with federal authorities inspired the founders of The Order."

Is this change related to your other edits and RM? DN (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it's me going through the list of racist encyclopedias and making a wikipedia match-list (see User:PARAKANYAA/Prospectus/Far-right) which has resulted in me looking at the article a bunch because they're in all of the encyclopedias about racism.

Also, those sources do not say what you are claiming them for, at all. This is a repeat of the KKK discussion. You seem to have a very synthy idea of what constitutes a group's ideology that is not shared. The racist movement is a tangle of people who mixed with very different ideas and concepts and just because 1 was in both does not mean they equate, or they would all be the same. Being tied to something does not mean it is something; anything more is WP:OR. The terrorism navbox is not for terrorist incidents; WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, it is for high level concepts about terrorism, and should only be placed on such articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm literally quoting the sources...It seems as though you are misinterpreting my claims and ignoring the sources provided. DN (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Is that too "synthy"? DN (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

And the source does not say that The Order was a Christian Identity group. It says a person they were connected to was a Christian Identity guy. Extrapolating that the Order was CI from that is synth. Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to Dan Burros; does that make him a neo-Nazi? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead edits 2-16-26

Recent attempts to edit article issues in the lead were reverted citing MOS:TERRORIST & MOS:CITELEAD.

There is currently a tag requesting help with the article's lead section, as it "contains information that is not included elsewhere in the article", and I believe NorixNGU's edits were in good faith. I too would like to see improvements to this article and would appreciate the opportunity to start a clean slate with PARAKANYAA to work through the issues one at a time.

While I agree MOS:TERRORIST should be followed, there are many reliable sources (not just in the article) that refer to The Order as a terrorist organization. One of the sources Trackingterrorism.org that is used is not easily accessible to me without a paid subscription, but the name of this source alone indicates that referring to The Order as a terrorist organization might not be a MOS violation.

This source may help explain why the terrorist designation may not be very consistent among reliable sources... "The Order was often called a neo-Nazi terrorist group because of its white power ideology. But the lack of domestic terrorist statutes in U.S. law meant The Order’s members were primarily convicted of racketeering and conspiracy. Even the death of Berg resulted in only two members of The Order being convicted of violating Berg’s civil rights, not murder. Most state-level terrorism statutes were not created until after the 9/11 attacks, and to this day, there is no federal domestic terrorism law. To us, the government’s failure to treat domestic extremists like The Order as terrorists downplays the consequences of their violence." Theconversation.com

Preferences on the term "assassination" VS murder may also be worth debating, as it is also used in tertiary sources such as Britannica. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Darknipples There are many groups describing ISIS or Al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the most notorious terrorist acts ever, as terrorist groups, but because of MOS:TERRORIST we describe neither as terrorist ground in wikivoice. MOS:TERRORIST is absolute about this, we do not describe things in wikivoice as terrorist groups. Is the Order, which accomplished very little, more of a terrorist group than ISIS or Al-Qaeda? If so, how?

The edit to the lead made the problem worse, as it was introducing more information to the lead not in the body of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not clear as to why comparing The Order to other organizations etc... will help resolve the issue. Isn't that WP:OSE? Wikipedia also has a List of designated terrorist groups, and Islamic State – Bengal Province clearly states at the very bottom of the LEAD... "It has also been designated as a terrorist organization by Canada." but I think consensus may also lie in the context. If we say it has been described or characterized as such, perhaps provide attribution, might you find that more appropriate? DN (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:OSE is about notability. No one here is disputing the notability of the Order. The general principle of comparing articles on similar topics to view consistency in how we are covering them is not forbidden.

Saying "x is a terrorist group" is entirely different from "x has been designated a terrorist group by [Specific Entity]'. A terrorist designation is a specific attributed opinion to a specific country. It is not us saying it in wikivoice, x is a terrorist group, which is a MOS:TERRORIST violation. For example Palestine Action is a designated terrorist group that many would dispute the characterization of as a terrorist group. But that they were designated as one by a single government is a fact.

I mean, that's less bad, but it would be awkward. Outside of attribution to specific states as evidenced by a designation it is simply a vague, useless term that doesn't really mean anything except opinion, as evidenced by our article Definitions of terrorism. There is no consensus on what terrorism even means, so what are we saying when we say it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that if it does end up being included to improve the article, the only appropriate way would be in that context to avoid violating MOS.

There is no consensus on what terrorism even means, so what are we saying when we say it? Aren't we supposed to adhere to WEIGHT? I realize that the case may not be made for inclusion of some sort at this point, but I feel as though we are closer to being on the same page. DN (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is due weight if we are representing it as attributed. Most sources do not describe them as one, and it generally does not fit the definition. Not all racist crime is terrorism. Sure, a few sources do call it one, but not most. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Didn't we just finish agreeing that the only way that description should be included is if it is attributed? That seems like a "heads I win, tails you lose" philosophy. DN (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is in response to "Aren't we supposed to adhere to WEIGHT?". I think a terrorist designation (which the Order did not have) is always due weight. The same is not the case with an attributed statements, which can be overloaded fast - e.g., can we not do that for every single opinion label there? "The Order has been characterized as a terrorist, racist, anti-black, antisemitic, misogynistic, bigoted, extremist, evil, awful, group." You could find sources supporting each of these opinion labels. For it to be warranted in the lead per due weight it should be in the majority of sources, which is not the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)