Talk:Militia (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 POV 2 Request for comments 3 Researching the Department of Civilian Marksmanship 4 "Gun Culture" in the United States includes all gun owners 5 The Morrill Act of July 2nd, 1862 6 Minutemen as militas? 7 Why the post-mordem on the Private Militia portion of the text..... 8 Early Independent Militias?

[edit] POV

Report from Iron Mountain is a hoax. No debate except among crackpot conspiracy theorists. The author and publisher have published articles explaining the hoax in detail. It is world famous as a hoax.

Left-wing scholars? No way. Both are respected published authors.

Cut out the POV insertions.--Cberlet 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, the "respected authors" you speak of are only respected within certain circles. The way you edited the page makes it POV towards the left-wing. Iron Mountain is believed to be authentic by the right-wing, you said so yourself. Therefore, your statement is one sided and must be made Neutral as per Wikipedia's policys. You've been here long enought to know this.

I know your postion on this subject (I've read some of your material from the Southern Poverty Law center), even though I agree with some of your material, it does not give us the right to slant this article. You must aproach this subject objectively and in a totally neutral manner. I can do it, so I know you can.

As a side note, I despise the right-wing militia groups, but Wikipedia is no place to push that type of political rhetoric.Tetragrammaton 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling internationally-know and respected authors "left-wing" is biased and violates NPOV.--Cberlet 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

I have filed a request for comments (politics) on this page.--Cberlet 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling studies "left-wing" or "right-wing" is POV. The studies about the contemporary militia movement are by internationally known and respected authors. If you want to divide up the "Supportive" studies into participant and scholarly, please do so, if you can supply the publisher to see if they are scholarly or mainstrream or not. It is not NPOV to pretend that a notorious and well-known hoax document might be real. It is a hoax document believed to be rue by some. Do we say that some argue the earth is flat, but othes argue it is round? Please!--Cberlet 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the title "Critical of Private Militias" to be much more Neutral. I hope we can agree there. While the title "In Support of Private Militias or Critical of Government" is acceptable, I think you and I can find a better way to word it.

How about "Critical of Govenment, works commonly used by Private Militias" as some of those works do not, in and of themselves, mention the militia movement. Those works are however, among the most common works referenced by the militia movement.

The Iron Mountain reference needs more work. I agree, the document is a hoax, but our mutual agreement on this issue does not make it any less POV, these groups believe in it. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's POV policy, we should reword the line to make it more neutral.Tetragrammaton 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We can fiddle with the language. Happy to. But I think your position on Iron Mountain is a total misunderstanding of what NPOV means.--Cberlet 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay lets work with wikipedia's definition of NPOV posted here;

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Therefore I submit this as one possible NPOV wording;

"A document publicly declared a hoax by its author, widely believed to be authentic within many right wing political groups"

The satire part is unnessary, as a user can find that out by following the link to the main article.Tetragrammaton 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Chip Berlet. I had no idea who you were, nor whom you were affiliated with. I know understand why you're so combative.

I knew you wrote a piece for the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I thought it was a bit off in left field, but then again so is Morris Dees and the SPLC. No doubt, Dees has done some great things in stopping anti-semitism (if you hadn't already guessed it, I'm Hebrew) and exposing white-supremists. So I respect that, but he, and after reading your Bio here at Wiki, I see that you are also, more than a little biased (it would seem) whenever the militia subject comes up (or right-wing). Allow me to reiterate, I had no idea who you were, I'm not into right wing or left wing politics. My forte is constitutional law, so forgive me if I'm a bit naive on the details of extremist rhetoric of the left and right.

Now that I know who you are, and read your article on the private-milita movement, I cannot help but think anything you post here isn't a bit biased. I've seen what you've had to put up with, I'd be more than a bit biased myself after that.

The reason I bring all of this up, is because it is relevent to how you edit this article, I'm trying to be totally neutral here, I question whether you are or not. Perhaps you are, but after reading up on the authors of the books which criticize these groups, I've found them to be left-wing, in the sense of the term as it is commonly understood in the United States of America.

That said, Chip Berlet, I will revert anything you edit that indicates a Point Of View which is not Neutral. This is Wikipedia not Research Associates' PublicEye.org website. Please keep your personal feelings and any bias you may have against right-wing groups on your own site. Again, let me say, I dislike them also, but wikipedia is nobody's political "soap-box" so let's try and keep it neutral, okay? You know as well as I do that Wikipedia is not a place for the viewpoints of the ridiculous right-wing or the lunatic left-wing.

As a side note, this post was not meant as any kind of attack on you, I am simply expressing my concern over your feelings on this subject as they may interfere with how you edit this article. This post was made in good faithTetragrammaton 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to threaten me with a revert war and challenge my ability to edit in an NPOV way, and then claim you are acting in good faith. Please return to a more courteous and constructive attitude. I have been through mediations and even an arbitration where the majority view was that I am able to edit in good faith and in an NPOV way. That view may not be universally shared here on Wiki, but it has been discussed at length by a number of administrators. I am deeply offeneded by your comments. Yes, what you wrote was clearly an attack on me. Please stop it.--Cberlet 13:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not being threatened or attacked Cberlet. If I seem curt with you its because you have a reputation, which you have created for yourself. No insult was meant, and I am being honest with you when I say that. You say you have been through mediations and arbitrations and you can edit in good faith and in an NPOV way, good, I'll take you word on it.

Now back to business. After going to the Library and thumbing through the contents, indexes, and reading the summaries of most of the books listed in the "Critical of Government" list, I found that most of these works pre-date the militia movement, and make no mention of forming a private militia. However, private-militia groups have some of these works listed on their websites, so I felt that since most of these works came before the militia movement, they were an influence on the movement and not a product of it.

Therefore, I changed the subsection's title to a more accurate description of how these works relate to private militia groups.

Also, the book by Mr. Larry Pratt appears to be a book more about gun politics than militia politics, I think it should be stricken from the list.Tetragrammaton 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK. I liked the new subhead. As you say, more acurate. I tried a new arrangement and tweaked the wording slightly. Pratt was influential in some militias.--Cberlet 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I first took a look at this page because of the RfC. One error I see is the use of the phrase "'Patriot' subculture". Patriotism is not a subculture in America; rather, it is mainstream. Perhaps a better phrase would be "ultrapatriotic subculture." Applejuicefool 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Researching the Department of Civilian Marksmanship

First, let me say I like your new arrangement Cberlet, looks good.

While researching the Morill Act of 1862, I came across a reference to the War Department's appropriation's budget for the year 1903, and a speech given by President Theadore Roosevelt on the requirement for the creation of both a Federal Militia (which led to the creation of the National Guard) and the "arming and disciplining of the militia at large, in the art of the rifle." Apparently the DCM/CMP was created to properly train the militia (unorganized) in the use of arms, for the defense of the nation, should they be drafted into military service. This organization, now the non-profit corporation for the Civilian Marksmanship Program (still a part of the DOD), still exists and has the same mission as it did when it was created in 1903.

The reason I bring this up is; a)These private militias are not, to my knowlege, affiliated with this organization, and b) this organization was created to provide for the proper training of the unorganized militia in the United States and is a LEGAL means of registering a gun-club with the US government, in order to train in a military fashion, yet none of these groups are registered with it, nor do they seem interested in become affiliated with it. (Which is probably a blessing, IMHO).

While it is not illegal within the United States to train with friends and/or family as a group, in the use of arms, for one's own personal enjoyment, training for government service, or even nationalistic reasons (on a personal level), it IS UNLAWFUL (as opposed to illegal) to train to overthrow the United States government, as that can easily be construed as sedition.

I'm currently trying to collect as much information as possible on this aspect of the militia of the United States, in order to point out (in a Neutral manner) that there is an organization created for the training of the militia, where people interested in excercising their duty to the United States government, i.e. training in the use of military arms (like the M1 Garand, M14, or M16, or their civilian look-a-like), can legally and do so without all the insane right-wing rhetoric and hate-speech.Tetragrammaton 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor point about sedition. As best I can tell, it is an obsolete law in the US. The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 that was repealed in 1921. Earlier sedition laws might still be in effect in the US, although I am not certain anyone seriously can even make the case they are still in effect. Sedition laws in the UK are an entirely different matter, though. Yaf 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Gun Culture" in the United States includes all gun owners

I find it offensive, to say the least, at the very suggestion that private-militias are somehow synonymous with the gun culture in the USA.

The gun culture in the USA consists of every single gun owner, various 2nd amendment defense organizations, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and various other groups, including those of us who are left-of-center, center, and right-of-center in American politics. Therefore, I amended the article to a Neutral viewpoint, as it is clearly POV to assume that all gun owners are members of, or sympathetic to, private-militia groups.Tetragrammaton 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By John Ross' definition, the term gun culture does not consist of every single gun owner. Many police officers, for example, may own a gun, and may even carry a gun daily, but this does not make them a member of the gun culture. The difference is that members of the gun culture have a very strong interest in guns, and practice their shooting skills regularly, not just enough to qualify once a year on the range to maintain their law enforcement credentials.

That said, gun culture is likewise not synonymous with private militias, either. Private militias and members of the gun culture may have overlapping interests in guns, but that doesn't equate these two distinctly different groups. Authors John Ross and Boston T. Party may appeal to some militia members, but to say they only appeal to these private militia groups is offensive, too. Have attempted to craft a balanced approach, addressing all concerns. We may not be there yet, but I think we are closer. Yaf 07:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Morrill Act of July 2nd, 1862

Spent a considerable time at my local University Law Library reading over this act.

I am adding it into the main text of the militia article because it clearly states that as part of the land grants for state colleges and universities, the curiculum is reqauired to include "military training in federally aided land grant colleges, in order to prepare well-educated young men for leadership in the militia." The term militia used in this Act is referring to the Federal definition as per the Militia Act of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1852.Tetragrammaton 06:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add more on the militia act of 1852 later. This act essentially removes the phrase "all able-bodied white males" to "all able-bodied males, including freed negro slaves."Tetragrammaton 06:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minutemen as militas?

Are the Minutemen considered a militia? All they do is call the border defence when they spot an illegal, they don't take them into custody themselves. / Carolus

No Carolus, they are not, my mistake. Tetragrammaton 03:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the post-mordem on the Private Militia portion of the text.....

This was discussed in great detail on the militia page's discussion board. I will revert it back to private-militia organizations as the Militia Act of 1903 is still in force in the US, as is the US Constitution. These private groups which call themselves militia are made up of members of the organized militia but have no legal right to appoint officers over themselves, and/or activate themselves into actual service. Though they have the constitutional right to assemble and train for military duty, they do not have the power to regulate themselves, that power belongs to the Federal congress.

It is for this reason that I chose the title private-milita organizations, as these groups are organizing into brigades, battalions, etc. without being called up to do so.Tetragrammaton 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Cournal is a tricky title isnt it.? Someone who sees the defacto government as acting non-constitionally or neglecting in regulating said citizen's defensive groups could easily use the provisions of the Declaration of Independance and other forbearers rants about duty to throw off despotism to conceptually at least, justify organising the "unorganised" militia in a nomen juris sence. signed (CSA Col. appointed) Governor Confederate state of Kentucky (land)

[edit] Early Independent Militias?

I vaguely recall mention of colonial militias forming and training before the Revolution without legislature orders or approval, in cases where the colonial governments were deemed entirely controlled by royal governors and their stooges. These unorganized militias essentially formed a "shadow militia", much as the committees of correspondence formed a "shadow government". They could perhaps be held up as being akin to the natural right to self-defense or defense of community, apart from the duty to state.

It is also possible that Article the Second of Amendment's "right of the people" language was referencing such a natural right as well, since the amendment does not refer to a duty to the state. This unfringible right to bear arms could be seen in the documented martial sense, as opposed to the private sense, and simultaneously seen as a right to operate in private militias, as opposed to state militias.

And participation in private militia (classic sense, as in a "soldierly state") could even be demonstrated via a "militia of one", of self-defense.