Talk:Montana Freemen

message: Lead of this article says "The Montana Freemen were a Christian Patriot group". Christian Patriot movement is tagged "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity." On that basis, I'm adding WikiProject Christianity here. 
Please discuss as appropriate. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Christianity / ChristianityWikiProject

message: I'm guessing that it's appropriate to add WikiProject Secret Societies here. Please discuss as appropriate. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure it is appropriate, they were seemingly fairly open about their philosophies, but we can wait and see if anyone from the project disagrees when they assess the article... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just left a note on WikiProject Secret Societies Talk page asking them to take a look. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply from the Project... see Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies#Scope.  It does not sound like the Montana Feemen meet any the criteria laid out there. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing this template per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Secret_Societies#Montana_Freemen. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Secret Societies

message: "The Montana Freemen were a Christian Patriot group based near the town of Jordan in the U.S. state of Montana." 
Today reads "The Montana Freemen were a free body politic based in an area of the US state of Montana that they referred to as "Justus Township" ouside of the town of Jordan."
It seems to me that "free body politic" is pretty definitely WP:WEASEL and/or WP:PEACOCK and/or POV. 
In other words a "free body politic" according to whom. (Certainly not according to local law enforcement and the state and federal government authorities.) Let's cite this to relaible third-party source or delete.
I think that we should be able to cite that they were a "Christian Patriot" group. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed, that term appears in several of the sources, and is more descriptive of what the group actually was. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Christian Patriot]] group / "free [[body politic]]": Cite or delete.

message: This article has been extensively revised over the last few days, with IMHO the effect of making our article more sympathetic to this group and removing or minimizing criticism. 
I'm no expert on these matters myself, hoever, I'd like all editors to be sure that the article remains balanced, NPOV, and cited. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I assume you are not referring to my revisions. I was quite alarmed at the state this article was in, with virtually no mention of the various schemes and scams perpetrated by this group, and only the briefest mention of their prolonged standoff with the FBI, which is what most readers of this article are probably curious about. I'll look in the history and for an old revision and see if there is anything that could/should be recovered. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the edits in question were those of IP user 72.53.43.54, who removed criticisms including a properly referenced account of the standoff, replacing it with a POV rant and inserting all kinds of peacock terms throughout the article.  I suspect a conflict of interest on the part of IP user 72.53.43.54, probably a former member of the group.  We need better referencing with more inline citations. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have reverted to the last good, or at least better, version of the article. The tags you left were also reverted in the process, feel free to re-add them if you still see the same problems. I have asked for page protection in the hopes of getting the IP making the changes to actually discuss these matters instead of making all these POV edits and inserting the odd language used by this group into the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the revert was a bit heavy-handed.  The POV edits had already been dealt with, and my final product contained tags that were needed, but also toned down the POV language from both sides.  The article as I left it certainly still needs work, but simply reverting just invites others to come back and do the same. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I didn't think you quite got it all and it would be easier to work with the previous version, but anyway I have edited the article again to remove language inserted to legitimize the Freemen's stance. My protection request was declined, but the IP who was making all the POV edits was blocked for 72 hours as a result of it hopefully they will get the message... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully he will, though I have my doubts.  Taking a quick look at his contribution history, it looks like nearly everything he has ever done so far has been to climb on his soapbox and espouse extremely non-neutral views, mostly on this page.  I mostly agree with your recent round of edits, but I just don't know about linking kangaroo court.  Given the POV push and pull here, it seems almost like baiting.  That's why I left it as "conducted their own trials".  I think the reader can judge for him/herself the legitimacy of these trials. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I originally tried to link to mock trial, but alas, that is a redlink. but according to that article, that's not what these were.  My goal was to convey that these were not legitimate trials made by a recognized legal authority, just like their "death warrants" and the counterfeit checks and money orders, but I see your point as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revised. NPOV reduced??

message: I'm not sure that it's appropriate to have a list of "members of the Montana Freemen and their sentences".However, if we do have this, IMHO it should specifically state the offense(s) for which each was sentenced. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Moreover, it must be extensively referenced per WP:BLP.  We simply can't have unverifiable claims when it comes to that. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that one or more of the sources already cited had more of a summary of how many charges were made and how many people went to prison, maybe that would be better than an attempt at a full accounting of all charges. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's almost always better to summarize than to list.  Also, when it comes to things like a living person's criminal record, you can't be too careful about making sure it is properly sourced.  The more reliable sources, the better.  I would say we should either A) summarize the trial outcomes in a paragraph, or B) only list those we are absolutely sure of.  Again, my preference is the former. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Members of the Montana Freemen and their sentences"

message: I've removed these just added entries:
*Branch Davidians
*Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG)
*List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States
*Michigan Militia
*Militia of Montana
*MOVE
*Oklahoma City bombing
*Rainbow Farm
*The Turner Diaries
*Waco siege
The reason given on my talk page by the editor for adding them is "I think the relevance is in the fact that they all form a mutually influential web involving distrust of and destruction by the American police forces, of people both on the left and the right. Waco and Ruby Ridge both led to Oklahoma City, Rainbow Farm, etc." The problem I see is that this 'influential web' concept is subjective. Even though entries can be preferentially relevant according to the guidelines, the inclusion of all of these seems a stretch and it isn't obvious at all to me that Waco led to Rainbow Farm or even Oklahoma City, etc. Maybe the Montana entry is relevant, maybe even the Michigan. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my two cents, but the links feel appropriate to me, as the common thread is groups that are in conflict with their government. It is a very USA specific topic, and of great interest. The groups don't need to know each other or lead to each other in a causal way to be of interest to WikiSurfers. cheers BB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Montana Freemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004210107/http://oklahomacity.fbi.gov:80/dojpressrel/pressrel08/apr7_08.htm to http://oklahomacity.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/apr7_08.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified