Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional militia movement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Any possible merger is an editorial matter. Sandstein 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional militia movement

[edit]
Constitutional militia movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The new article Constitutional militia movement (after the original research is removed) is almost entirely identical and overlapping scope with the existing article Militia movement (United States). The Militia movement (United States) article is a better start at the creation of an article to cover this topic, because 1) It has a better title to cover the topic 2) because the subject matter is United States centric and 3) the title is more 'neutral' as opposed to 'Constitutional' which is a word with POV connotations to some. SaltyBoatr 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must also be noted that the person who created this article is the same person who appears to the founder and lead spokesman[1] for an organization calling itself The Texas Constitutional Militia. SaltyBoatr 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) ---[reply]

  • Strong keep The article Militia movement (United States) (which has also been nominated for deletion) as presently written is highly biased against a lumpting together of several rival movements, so violates WP:NPOV. That could be corrected by almost totally re-writing it to be neutral, as the Constitutional militia movement article currently is, so far. So we have an edit war.
It does seem clear that an article on some kind of militia movement is needed to contain material now in other articles, such as Militia and Militia (United States), which unbalance them. A movement, any movement, is a distinct topic from the subject of concern for the movement, although links from one to the other are certainly appropriate.
One way to resolve such a dispute would be to fold the two articles into one, with each name directing to the same article, but in this case that does not seem to be the best solution.
First, no evidence has been provided that there are any militia movements outside the United States that would suggest a collection of militia movement articles with the names of countries in parentheses for each of them. If the need for such articles is later established, the need for this article can be re-asserted, perhaps to contain a list or sections on different kinds of militia movements, in the United States or elsewhere.
Second, the article in its present state is not only biased against what it treats as a single movement, it commits a WP:OR violation by lumping what appear to be several distinct movements into one, and attributes to all the movements the negative attributes of one of those movements. Adherents of the Constitutional militia movement self-identify by that name, to distinguish themselves from other movements which which they might be confused, and to which they are actively hostile. Moreover, the rival movements seem to have little in common other than a willingness to take up arms. They have quite different objectives, agendas, and methods. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced, even by the critics, that the rivals of the constitutional militia movement even style themselves "militia", especially since 1994 when the rivalry became intense and the constitutional miltia movement adopted the word "constitutional" to distinguish itself from its rivals.
Third, there is evidence, to be produced later, that there are constitutional militia movements in other countries, where they are also distinguished from armed groups, usually separatists of some kind, which are often called "militias" by their critics as a pejorative, but which almost never adopt the word for themselves. If enough such movements in foreign countries emerge, then it may become appropriate to disambiguate them into country articles, and there would then need to be an article Constitutional militia movement (United States).
So far, the rival in this edit war, SaltyBoatr, seems to exhibit only anti-militia bias masquerading under an excessively fastidious application of Wikipedia policies beyond their common-sense intentions.
Finally, since there is this confusion of rival movements, the best solution, rather than to make one article the field for an edit war, is to create other articles, one for each of the rival movements, and if critics of the other movements want to weigh with their criticism of each such movement, they may do so. There are already articles on Christian identity and Skinhead that may represent the beginning of such a collection of movement disambiguation articles. Jon Roland 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment It must be noted or disclosed that Jon Roland was the creator of this article. diff SaltyBoatr 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Most countries have written constitutions, but I do not find any with "militia" written into them (as three clauses and one amendment, see Militia clause), except Switzerland. A few countries (Switzerland, Israel) have active militia systems, but little sign of a "movement" in them to strengthen those systems. Using the definition of "militia" of Founder George Mason, "the whole people, except for a few public officials." (Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788), all countries have militia, but little evidence is apparent that many of those countries have militia movements to activate such systems. A section has been added into which material on the constitutional militia movements may be added if anyone can find some. Jon Roland 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Although I appreciate Mr. Roland's sincere beliefs, this article, it makes a lot of assumptions and unsourced statements about what "they" believe in. It's implied that the various militia movements have a common goal (proper and safe use of firearms). Even worse is the fantastic statement that the members expect that they might be "called upon" by local, state or -- forgetting about Waco, Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City -- "the president of the United States". And then they will "uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism". Finally, there's the list of militia-related organizations which has to be read to be believed. Sorry, not in your wildest dreams. Mandsford 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Perhaps you could be more specific about wnat assumptions and statements you think need to be sourced. I have only just begun writing the article, and can't devote full time to this kind of thing. I have already added several cites since you wrote this, and I will have many more within a few days. It is not a valid objection that it is 'fantastic" that the activists "expect" something, although that is not quite what I wrote. It is easy enough to confirm that many of them do expect that, whether you consider their expectation well-founded or not. Most "Christians" expect the Second Coming of the Messiah, and some people might consider that "fantastic", too, but it is not "fantastic" to report that they expect it, and I will have supporting cites for that by and by. It is not clear how your objection to the list of "militia-related organizations" violates any Wikipedia editing policy. You should be prepared to argue for or against inclusion of particular organizations, but your first impression is not persuasive of your editorial objectivity. I selected them because they all engage in activities that promote skills useful to militia, and I can eventually support the inclusion of each, showing how many of the same people active in the movement are also active in those organizations, precisely because they do support the development of such skills. When you become more familiar with the subject matter I expect you will better appreciate these points, at least if you are able to put aside your ideological blinders and embark on straight reporting. Jon Roland 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response All of the statements will be supported in due course. What you call "statements of belief" appear to be my statements based on eyewitness experience, but of course I can't report that because that would be OR. Some would require me to assemble all the websites of all the groups that self-identify as "constitutional militia" and link to one another to show that they are a distinct movement that disagrees with other groups or movements that have been lumped with them by outside critics, but doing that analysis would be OR, too. Robert Churchill, a historian at the U. of Hartford, is working on a book that I expect will cover all this, but it isn't finished yet. Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response My only position in this Wikipedia framework is to report the subject straight, which has not been done in other articles. You will notice that I do not use judgmental "value" words in discussing things. I sdon't try to say who are the good guys or the bad guys, only to report on verifiable facts, ecen if it may take a while longer to find and post all the verifications. Things like old newspaper articles or government documents, buried in boxes or archives, sometimes take a while to uncover. As to the criticism that the word "constitutional" is itself a bias word, that is ill-made. The movement is about the Constitution, which makes it "constitutional", whether you agree with it or its position on constitutional interpretation or not. Our only job in this enterprise is to accurately report on what has been happening, not filtered by our feelings about it. Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is a fundamental problem in writing articles about "movements", especially "loose" movements, composed of many individuals holding diverse views and engaged in diverse activities, even in opposition to one another. It is POV to lump together people as a single movement whose activists don't self-identify as a single movement. It is also a category error. As neutral editors we should disaggregate (disambiguate) groups of people respecting their preferences and beliefs, not those of outsiders, especially their opponents or critics. This also applies to the discussion on deletion of the Militia movement (United States). It would be acceptible to me to keep that article if it were re-written to more closely resemble an article like Protestant, which distinguishes the various Protestant sects from one another and even from other sects like Mormons that do not identify themselves as "Protestant". A sense of this can be seen by doing some Google groups searches on "constitutional militia" for several time periods to get a sense of what people, both supporters and opponents, were saying on the subject:

  • Much of the documentation on this movement appeared online, initially in Usenet groups. See search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/94-12/21/97.
  • See search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/04-present.

Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response A useful site on this topic is one on "Militia Movement" from Apologetics:
The militant arm of the Patriot Movement. Organized, armed groups that claim to defend the U.S. Constitution (from real or perceived enemies).
The FBI distinguishes Constitutional militias and hate groups:
Federal agents and militia members say the outreach program helps distinguish true Constitutional militia members from hate groups and changes the public perception that militias are "anti-government."
See also Militias: Initiating Contact, by James E. Duffy and Alan C. Brantley, M.A.
But a source of confusion can be seen in the FBI document Project Megiddo which announced plans for the general warrantless detention of all kinds of dissidents in case of a national crisis (such as Y2K), which was widely discussed as confirmation of the threat of federal tyranny:
V - Militias
The majority of growth within the militia movement occurred during the 1990s. There is not a simple definition of how a group qualifies as a militia. However, the following general criteria can be used as a guideline: (1) a militia is a domestic organization with two or more members; (2) the organization must possess and use firearms; and (3) the organization must conduct or encourage paramilitary training. Other terms used to describe militias are Patriots and Minutemen.
That might make working sense to the author of the FBI report, and perhaps to reporters, to lump anyone meeting that definition into a single group or movement, but it shouldn't be difficult to discern the problems with it for purposes of Wikipedia editing.

Jon Roland 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jon, you can't put up "Strong Keep" a second time. Wikipedia isn't a vote, but comments other than your position (keep, delete, etc) are labelled "comment" or "response". Easily fixed, no big deal, but it causes confusion. Mandsford 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Okay, sorry. Still learning my way around here. Jon Roland 03:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The Duffy and Brantley ref given by Jon Roland, above, fails to establish notability for two reasons: 1) That source appears unpublished, failing WP:RS 2)The phrase 'Constitutional militia movement' does not appear in that pdf article. Also, the link path to the supposed 'fbi.gov' article is broken, so confirmation is not possible. SaltyBoatr 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Several points:
  • (1) A "militia movement" is not the same as "militia", and deserves its own article.
  • (2) "Constitutional militia" is not the same as "militia", as that term has come to be used by outsiders and antagonists. There is indeed a category error in combining different things under the same label, and even if many people do not correctly disambiguate, we should do so. The article Militia (United States) can already serve as the article for "constitutional militia", with the removal of some biased content about the improperly combined movements as characterized by outsiders and antagonists. But "constitutional militia" or "constitutional militia (United States)" should be redirected to it.
  • (3) "Constitutional militia movement" is not the same as "militia movement", and deserves its own article that makes that clear. If militia movement (United States) is to be kept, perhaps because many people do use the term, it should be reworked into an article that lists or has separate sections for the several different and even rival movements sometimes so labeled and combined.
  • (4) In a comparison of this article to militia movement (United States) I find:
  • (a) This article is emerging to satisfy WP:NPOV while the other, in its present state, does not.
  • (b) Sourcing is already good and getting better, although there is room for improvement. If an editor has doubts about some point, instead of deleting it (or the article), he should first try to discover whether it is not supported by an existing note or reference, and if not, add a note or reference that does, or insert a [citation needed] tag to request one, then allow some reasonable time for someone to respond.
  • (c) The references supporting this article are more objective and have more scholarly integrity than those that support the other, which, like the infamous work of Bellesiles, seem not just to have a POV, but to be "hatchet jobs" in a war of ideas. Perhaps they deserve their own article or section in some "countermovement" article.
  • (5) I am disappointed in the obvious POV of some of the editors calling for deletion. You don't even make an effort to conceal it. I for one am learning a lot from this debate that I wouldn't learn by just reading the articles, and suggest that, after keeping the article, this debate be copied to its Talk:Constitutional militia movement page. The article already contains much valuable material, well presented, and I hope to see what else may be added. While I am skeptical of some points Jon Roland makes, I am not sure I will not come to agree with him as I learn more, and I urge the rest of you to approach the subject with the same spirit of discovery.
Bracton 14:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of Bracton's five reasons given above pertain to the policy question at hand WP:DEL#REASON. As I see it, the main WP:DEL question is WP:N. To evaluate notablity, I suggest that a Google web search test would be a poor choice, because of a preponderance of advocacy websites failing WP:RS. Instead, I propose a Google book search as a proximate test of notability. Books, which have passed the threshold of editorial oversight from reliable publishing houses gives control for non-reliable advocacy skew. A Google book search[2] finds no books with the phrase in the title, and only two books with the phrase "Constitutional militia movement" in the book body text, very few indeed. Therefore the article title phrase fails a notability test.
And additionally, the first book; Searching for a demon : the media construction of the militia movement by Steven M Chermak, Northeastern University Press, 2002. ISBN: 1555535429 contains the phrase only once, in lower case, on page 101. Yet the title of this book is phrased 'militia movement'. This favors the title for this topic should be Militia movement (United States). The second book; Militias in the new millennium : a test of Smelser's theory of collective behavior by Stanley C Weeber; Daniel Gilbert Rodeheaver University Press of America, 2004. ISBN: 0761827897 [3] uses the phrase, also, only once, capitialized, on page 109, but only in the appendix, and even there it is described as a 'coded message' used by militia movements. In short this article should be deleted for failing the WP:N guideline standards. SaltyBoatr 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I agree that among the reasons offered in the WP:DEL#REASON policy the only one that might apply is the WP:N guideline (not a policy), but using books as the sole criterion is stacking the decks, especially if most of the books are actually being funded by an advocacy organization, as has been alleged. (And that should be investigated.) There are many notable subjects that do not appear in scholarly books, or even in journal articles, and never will. But the phrase does appear in scholarly articles, including one by Richard Churchill that used the phrase "militia movement" in 1999 but "constitutional militia movement" in 2003. It is also possible that the same idea might be expressed by some investigators in synonymous terms that won't show up using a string search. I find particularly persuasive that the FBI would differentiate several movements and describe the acceptible one in terms that have a synonymous meaning, or use the phrase "constitutional militia" in one news report when actually talking about a movement. Neutral scholars and government agencies present a weighting on notability that transcends counts of books, especially POV books. Bracton 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Books funded by an advocacy organization? Northeastern University Press and University Press of America do not appear to be advocacy organizations. SaltyBoatr 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Such publishers also do not pay the authors to write the books. It is common for private groups to issue grants to willing scholars to write books with a certain POV, leaving it to them to then find a publisher, or finding one for them, and sometimes even subsidizing the publication, which such publishers are often all too willing to accept. The key is to examine the content to see if it is written in a neutral, scholarly way, or as a polemic, with a lot of pejorative adjectives. See Chip Berlet. Jon Roland 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I always try to WP:AGF, so therefore I regret to mention that looking at the edit history of Special:Contributions/Bracton I notice that he/she only recently began editing on Wikipedia yet displays a depth of knowledge of Wikipedia customs typical of an experienced editor. Also, the narrow attention to Militia articles is remarkable. Further, the user name Bracton appears to be an obscure reference to Henry de Bracton which would be indicative of a constitutional historian. These are all circumstantial observations which raises a question as to whether Bracton is serving as a sock puppet or a meat puppet. SaltyBoatr 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep

This article is fair, balanced, accurate, and scholarly. It meets Wikipedia standards. Mcarling 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these four reason are found as relevant in the WP:DEL#REASON standards. SaltyBoatr 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response It appears he was arguing against the reasons for deletion made by some of the previous editors above, which did not invoke WP:DEL#REASON, but only what translates into WP:NPOV. Perhaps the previous "voters" should reconsider in the light of this further argument and the improvements made to the article in the interim. Jon Roland 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the articles, and move to "militia movement." I'm disappointed that some people have jumped to the conclusion that this is a POVFORK, when the page histories show that this article was started FIRST. And while this article isn't NPOV, neither is the other one. Put the two together, and you might have a balanced article (or an edit war - sigh). And if which article gets primacy is going to be decided based on which title is "better," the other one has an unnecessary disambiguator in the title. Other countries have militias, but there is no other "militia movement," at least none that English-speakers would be familiar with. --WacoKid 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I have suggested in the Articles for deletion for the other article that it be reworked into a gateway disambiguation article to the many movements that are sometimes lumped together as "militia" by outsiders or antagonists, but that distinguish themselves or even see each other as rivals. The "(United States)" disambiguator is indeed unnecessary, but not breakout into rival movements. The other article could then have a short section on "Constitutional militia movement" and link to this one as the "main article". As a prudential matter, that might also tend to at least cabin some of the edit warfare that might consume too much attention by editors. Jon Roland 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Not the right merge. I suggested merge or redirect of Militia movement (United States) (after removing "(United States)" to the Patriot movement article, with the "Christian" removed, because, from what I have been discovering, what are left after removing "Constitutional militia movement" from the mix seldom identify themselves as "militia" but often do identify themselves as a "Patriot movement" (but often as other than "Christian"). This article should be kept. In weighing reliable sources we should give primary weight in combining people as groups to insiders rather than outsiders. Bracton 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather, the standard to apply per WP:N is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources..." DHowell's Google News search found just four articles. This paltry number falls far short of meeting the "significant coverage" threshold. This begs the question: With so little 'reliable source' material available, (just four short articles that only mention the term in passing), just how will this article be written? And a corollary, after the original research is removed, what will be left in the article? SaltyBoatr 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on subjects that receive far less coverage in newspapers. WP:N says "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." There is no requirement for a significant number of sources, just that the sources available give "more than trivial" coverage. I'm sure you will probably still disagree that the referenced articles' coverage is "more than trivial", but keep in mind that was just a search for the specific title of this article. The actual subject of this article receives far more significant coverage, suggesting another title might be better; unfortunately a large amount of coverage of the "militia movement" appears to be from biased sources intent on lumping together those who desire to revive the militia envisioned by the founders of the Constitution with the various hate-mongering, racist, and domestic terrorist paramilitary groups which the media commonly calls "the militia movement". There does seem to be a need to differentiate what is described in this article from what is described in the Militia movement (United States) article. DHowell 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For documentation of the media bias against militia movements in general, see Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement. DHowell 06:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from other page: Merge the articles, and move to "militia movement." I'm disappointed that some people have jumped to the conclusion that this is a POVFORK, when the page histories show that this article was started FIRST. And while this article isn't NPOV, neither is the other one. Put the two together, and you might have a balanced article (or an edit war - sigh). And if which article gets primacy is going to be decided based on which title is "better," the other one has an unnecessary disambiguator in the title. Other countries have militias, but there is no other "militia movement," at least none that English-speakers would be familiar with. --WacoKid 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Roland (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep -- Article looks like a good start, with plenty of references. Distinctly different from other articles. I don't see a problem with keeping this article (although it definitely needs work.) Yaf 00:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


(As is customary for AfD's, the discussion about AfD votes occurs on the discussion page not the project page. The discussion previously located here has been moved to the discussion page located at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_militia_movement) SaltyBoatr 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_militia_movement&oldid=1137732696"