Talk:Constitutional militia movement/Archive 1

message: The topic requires its own article, and the somewhat contentious edits in Militia and Militia (United States) that are really about this topic should be moved to it. I will be doing that over the next several weeks, listing the major ones in this section. Jon Roland 20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that this article serves as a type of POV fork, in which you inappropriately intend to isolate text which gives POV balance (which you call 'contentious').  SaltyBoatr 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this "movement" should be covered distinctly and separately from the "militia", absent some reliable source that claims the two are actually related - Hoplon 01:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a "spinout" article, and therefore not a violation of POV fork. The other two articles, Militia and a spinoff from it, Militia (United States), have been gathering too much wordage about the constitutional militia movement, which is unbalancing them. The movement is distinct from what the movement is about. Of course, it is "related" to the broader articles, and there are links back to them, but there is enough material peculiar to the movement that justifies a separate article on it, and the moving of most of the content on the movement to the movement article from the other two articles. Jon Roland 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan for this article 

message: Jon Roland 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Most 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. The first person known to have added the word "constitutional" as a qualifier on "militia" to distinguish it from other groups who advocated bearing arms was activist Bill Utterback, in 1994.
*Search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/04-present.
Jon Roland 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the Usenet archives for research violates WP:V and WP:NOR.  Use reliable secondary sourcing please.   SaltyBoatr 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snapshots of the constitutional militia movement 

message: 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.
:As an aside, U.S. Rep Steve Stockman warned of a "miltia roundup" in 1995 that might be confirmed by the Project Megiddo document, which has since been removed from the FBI website. It was thought by some activists that as a result of his warning the "roundup" was called off, confirmed by sources close to Stockman. It was thought the plan was to arrest and indefinitely detain tens or hundreds of thousands of persons. Stockman was then targeted for defeat in the following election.
Jon Roland 20:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information, while interesting, seems irrelevant.  The topic hand in this article is the 'constitutional militia movement'.  SaltyBoatr 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI reports on "militia movement" 

message: What we are considering here is not notability like that of an individual or organization, but for the usage of a term. For that purpose web searches may indeed be useful ways to find out how many people are using the term, even if scholars may not yet have given it much attention, or chosen to use that term themselves. See the article Search engine test which confirms that such a test does not violate WP:OR for supporting notability of usage.
Let us consider doing a count of hits in a search on "constitutional militia" on groups.google.com for each of the years since 1994, keeping in mind that Usenet groups are no longer used as much as some of the listservs and blogs.
Year	Count
1994	16
1995	125
1996	877
1997	523
1998	336
1999	203
2000	328
2001	140
2002	59
2003	155
2004	61
2005	173
2006	158
2007	38
Now let's look at two general web searches on Google, Clusty (most engines other than google), and Yahoo:
Engine	"constitutional militia"	"constitutional militia movement"
Google	794                     	750
Clusty	21847                   	629
Yahoo 	2210                    	25
 
But this last count for Yahoo is for the number of groups containing the term "constitutional militia".
The numbers are interesting, because an aggregator of most of the engines except Google finds a lot more than google does, but Google finds that most of the hits on "constitutional militia" are also hits on "constitutional militia movement".
These string counts are just the tip of the iceberg, because most people who use a long, three-word phrase will tend to use a shortened version of it, in this case, probably just "militia", once the context of the discussion being confined to "constitutional militia" or "militia movement" is established. That could be done by one contributor to a long thread, and only at the outset, to distinquish the context from other groups with which some participants might confuse it. It would take further statistical analysis, but I predict that the frequency of the meaning "constitutional militia (movement)" is probably at least one and probably two orders of magnitude greater than these counts. 
It would be further interesting to do a similar analysis on other kinds of phrases that have been established as sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. I expect that there will be many with much smaller numbers.
Now to the charge that this is OR, see Search engine test, which allows this method to establish that the terms are actually in use by a significant number of people. Jon Roland 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of the name 

message: I've also removed the section named "Movements outside the United States", because it doesn't name any movements and has no sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting that one, because sources will come. The purpose was to indicate that constitutional militia movements are not currently active in other countries, but it is difficult to source to the nonexistence of something. However, when I get to the upcoming hhistorical background section, I will show how there have been constitutional militia movements in other countries in ages past. But other matters take priority. Please don't make such wholesale deletions without prior discussion on the Talk page. The article is supposed to be stabilized during the deletion and merge discussions. Jon Roland 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When sources are available then you may add the material.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did add some material, with sourcing. Allow some time for others to write. Jon Roland 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but does the source call the group a "constitutional militia" or is that just our conclusion?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not just about the narrow usage of particular phrases, but also about concepts, and it is reasonable editing to recognize synonymous usages or abbreviations, or to summarize what sources have said when what they say does not lend itself to pithy quotes. This is done, e.g., in articles like Constitution, where things are recognized as "constitutions" that the term was not used for at the time, especially in other languages. Jon Roland 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concepts that have been printed in reliable 3rd-party sources are good topics for encyclopedia articles. Concepts that exist only in the minds of editors are not good topics. This is not an essay, it's an encyclopedia article. Even abstract ideas in philosophy require sources that address the concept by name. It isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia editor to insist that a concept is whatever he says it is.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that I am merely recognizing same things referred to by different people using different words, based on their own apparent meanings of what they were referring to. That is the kind of reasonable recognition and summarization that any editor has to do for any subject. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears too much like synthesis and original research.  Let us stick to plain reading of 'most reliable' secondary sources instead.  SaltyBoatr 05:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Movements outside the United States" 

message: *Oppose. A movement is not the same as the subject of its activity, and the constitutional militia movement, by whatever name it may be referred to, is not some "branch" of a larger "militia movement" that includes rivals like bigots and hotheads. The fact that some people, in referring to it, abbreviate by omitting the word "constitutional", or even "militia", not not mean they are not referring to the concept. In this article I usually omit those words, because within the article it is clear by context. In many other discussions, it is also clear by context, but you may have to read it carefully to discern that. Jon Roland 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should also look at the USA Today and San Antonio Express-News articles to establish that the movement became active. However, one cannot expect journalists to know enough about a subject to distinguish what you call "branches" from one another. For a better model of how the subject should be treated, see Protestantismm, which lists what might be reasonably be described as "branches" like Lutherans and Baptists, but it also points out that Mormons and Jehovah's_Witnesses do not self-dentify as "protestants", and they get their own article. (Many Unitarians also do not self-identify as "protestant" -- it simply isn't an issue for them.) If you go further into the topic, you will also find that dissident movements from the Roman Catholic Church existed all the way back to the Gnostics and Albigensians, which preceded Martin Luther and the movement he started, but inherited many of the same views, and thus could be fairly described as "early protestants". In other words, I am saying that the CMM is like the Mormons or the Unitarians. Jon Roland 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I strongly disagree with your assertion that we should give preference to your personal knowledge or research over that which we can read in reliable secondary sources.  Also, please be explicit in your reference to those two newspaper articles.  I would like to read them in their entirety.  SaltyBoatr 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Answering my own question in part, here is the USA Today article. Please provide a link to the other newspaper article, thanks.  In the US Today article, I find little to distinguish the 'constitutional militia movement' from the greater 'militia movement'.  It is frankly surprising to see that the April 19th anniversary date of the Waco fire, is also the anniversary date of the seminal meeting of the Texas Constitutional Movement (per the Karl book), and also the anniversary date of the Oklahoma City bombing.  SaltyBoatr 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the USA Today article I cited, which is much more supportive of the point I made. I find no indication that any online archives go back that far for that newspaper, so verification must revert to finding copies, or researching physical archives. It is not reasonable to reject a cite to a newspaper just because it is not to be found in an online archive. If we insisted on that we could not use cites to newspapers before about the year 2000 for most, and not to many even later. Verification requires a reasonable effort appropriate to each kind of source. Many books and journal articles are not available online, either. And even newspapers don't archive everything that appears in them, such as some op-eds and AP or UPI newswires. (And last I checked the AP and UPI don't have such online archives, either.) The question I have to those engaged is, will you accept it if I scan an image of the newspaper article and put it online? That would be a copyright violation, but it can provide verification if it is taken down right after being viewed, which could be reasonably interpreted as "fair use". See WP:NEL and WP:COP. Jon Roland 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I reserve my right to verify your sourcing in explicit detail.  SaltyBoatr 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: :The most prominent such movement in modern times blossomed in the United States the mid 1990s.
Saltyboatr objects "that" is not "said" in the Karl book. The book is about that blossoming. I will later show, in a background section, the antecedent movements dating back to the early 19th century, with an ebb and flow as threats emerged and receded, and how the level of the movement affected things like legislation and operations. But they were not as "prominent" in their time as the upsurge in the mid 1990s was. Much of that will cite the Whisker "Rise and Fall" book, but there are other sources he missed, such as the calls for militia that led to FDR calling up part of the militia on the West Coast in 1942. Jon Roland 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Example of this described by Larry Rohter, Florida County Forms Militia to Protest Gun Control, Dallas Morning News, May 29, 1994, at A13. The Santa Rosa County resolution, for example, declares that "(t)he Santa Rosa County Militia shall consist of all able- bodied inhabitants of Santa Rosa County who are or have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States." Santa Rosa County Res. No. 94-09 (Apr. 14, 1994) (available from the office of the Board of County Commissioners, Santa Rosa County, Florida). The commissioners based the resolution on a provision in the Florida Constitution which provides that "(t)he militia shall be composed of all able-bodied inhabitants of the state who are or have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. . . ." Fla. Const. art. X, S 2(a).
The DMN doesn't have complete online archives going back that far, and even today does not include articles it got from sources like the AP or UPI, or op-ed columns from other newspapers. I vaguely recall that article was from the AP, and you might find it in their archives. Of course, the real verification would be of the documents in the official records of florida, where not just this county, but about six or 8, passed similar resolutions during that timeframe. Jon Roland 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than asserting, let's prove the matter. Let's list the prominent members of the movement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particular points and their sources 

message: The founding Fathers made several comments expressing the consensus view of militia:
:*"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426).
:*"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
Mack Tanner, "Extreme Prejudice," Reason Magazine, July 1995, 43-50, wrote:
:To understand what the militia movement is talking about, one needs to understand a bit of federal law. While most of us never think about it--or even know about it--every American male spends 28 years as a member of the militia, whether he wants to belong or not. United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, describes the militia of the United States as consisting of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age. If we are not members of the National Guard, then we are, by law, members of the unorganized militia who can be called to service at any time by the appropriate legal authority. Any two or more American men can therefore claim to be an association of members of the unorganized militia, just as they might be an association of voters, taxpayers, parents or citizens.
On page 44, Tanner describes activists as
:The armed, but legitimate, political activists. This is a new phenomenon, at least in this century. These are socially successful people who respect and obey the law, but who are organizing and arming themselves because they fear they may be attacked by agencies of their own government.
In the 1879 case of Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 12, the Illinois Supreme Court stated:
:Lexicographers and others define the militia, and the common understanding is, to be 'a body of armed citizens, trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in time of peace.' That is the case as to the ACTIVE [emphasis added] militia of this state. The men comprising it come from the body of the militia, and when not engaged at stated periods in drilling and other exercises, they return to their usual avocations, as is usual with militia, and are subject to call when the public exigencies demand it.
______
Reverted the deletion of the above section. Please do not make major deletions. It is contrary to the directive that articles be left substantially intact during AfD discussions. The connection to the topic will be shown as the section is enlarged.
However, I totally reject all edits or deletions that are based on the material not using the exact phrase "constitutional militia (movement)". An article is about a concept, which may be expressed in many synonynmous ways, and much discussion will abbreviate phrases like this and have to be understood in context. Most people I know who mean "constitutional militia (movement)" omit "constitutional" most of the time, even though that is what they are talking about. Just like most people who write about the "Catholic Church" will just say "Church" most of the time in a discussion among people where the context is understood. Jon Roland 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what is in the article, the constitutional militia movement begain in the 1990s. Rather than devoting space to the 1790s, we should devote space to the 1990s. Who started the movement? What groups belong to it? That kind of stuff. We're not here to justify the moevment or provide an explanation for its philosophy, we're here to describe it. Let's stick with the subject.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:V, material in articles not based on reliable secondary sources, original research, may be deleted.  Also, if the 'constitutional militia movement' is a reliably sourced thing, then you should use reliable sourcing describing such.  SaltyBoatr 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is now made up of two quotes from Mark Tanner, neither of which mention the "constitutional militia movement". Can't we find sources that address the actual subject of this article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanner is talking about the concept, which is indicated by his descriptive language. Like many writers, he discusses concepts by describing, not by labeling. I recall several English teachers, when trying to teach us composition (by Strunk and White, or the Chicago Manual of Style, or The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage): "Don't label. Describe!" Now for people who don't know how to do anything but rather simplistic string processing, that is not very helpful, but that is reality. Jon Roland 08:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tanner article is here:. He never uses the term "CMM". Are you contending that the whole article is in fact about CMM?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. It is easy enough to discern that what he is talking about is semantically equivalent to the CMM even if he doesn't use the same terms. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy enough for you maybe, but you have years of personal research in you head.  We, who are not you, need to read it in 'most reliable' sources per WP:V.  SaltyBoatr 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical and legal background 

message: This article dances around its subject. Who is a part of this movement? If nobody belongs to it then we should delete the article. So far we only have a sentence or two on the actual subject.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can name important liberals, conseravtives, and Christians. Can we name any members of this movement? If there are no members to this movement how can we say what members believe, or how they use terms, etc? There aren't any movements without members. I'm going to delete all mention of there being members since there aren't any.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many leading members of the Maquis_(World_War_II) could you name while still under German occupation? Just the ones the Germans caught and shot. Same principle. The leaders are keeping a low profile. I know many of them, but don't want to know too many, and no, I won't tell you who they are. That's need to know. The advocates for the Constitution_in_exile are keeping a low profile, except for a few scholars and activists who are taking a non-armed approach, especially now that things like the Ron Paul revolution are giving hope for restoration. You can find the members at meetings of the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and many other groups that serve as organizing cover. But yes, then many get together and train with arms. Quietly. Jon Roland 07:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members of the Constitutional militia movement 

message: Only external links that pertain to the topic should be used.  I see that theusma.org includes no references to the constitutional militia movement.
See this google search    SaltyBoatr 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a valid test. The very first words on the Introduction page are "The Constitutional Militia".  If you search on "movement" you will find the phrase "demonized the modern Militia Movement at every opportunity." Those establish the self-identification for the entire website. But the appearance of the word "movement" is not essential, as miltia activists will tend to self-identify as "miltia", and may not refer to themselves as a "movement" except when taking an outsider viewpoint or defending themselves against critics of the movement, as they do there. Activists of many movements do that, and there are many synonyms for "movement". It also provides a hint, although it may not be clear, of a usage of the term "militis" as an activity. At various points in the site you will find descriptive language that show the topic of the site satisfies all three of the defining attributes, such as rejection of bigotry and lack of discipline. Keep in mind what your English composition teacher should have taught you: "Don't label. Describe!" That is what my generation was taught, and it is a standard that what I consider good writers adhere to. Jon Roland 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should primarily be about the 'movement',not about the political hypothesis.  Also, the concept of 'constitutional militia' is clearly an extreme concept.  Which per WP:RS, extreme claims require extreme sources.  And while I see plenty of attention to the hypothesis on blogs, I see essentially no modern books, and the scholarly attention focuses on criminal conduct, etc..  I am not saying we should ignore the 'constitutional militia' hypothesis in this article, but it must be 1) sourced to 'most reliable' standards and 2) be treated neutrally.  So, sorry, the external link to that blog is not appropriate.  SaltyBoatr 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we disagree. The points I made above establish that it is an instance of activity of the CMM. It is not a "blog" as that term is usually understood. It is an organizational website. A "blog" is a forum to which one or more members may post articles to which others may comment. That is not what that site is. Jon Roland 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Further, "constitutional militia" is not an extreme concept, unless you consider other ideas contained in the U.S. Constitution to be "extreme concepts". The word "militia" is used four times in the (amended) Constitution. Many commentators attest that the Founding Fathers intended that there be an active and effective constitutional militia. Perhaps you think "jury" is an extreme concept, or that those who think current practices concerning the use of juries are unconstitutional are advocating an "extreme concept", even though what they advocate was once a prevailing practice when the country was founded. See Stettinius_v._United_States. No, it is reasonable and proper in discussing a movement that wants to restore a previous state of affairs to discuss what that previous state was, or is thought to have been by its advocates. Jon Roland 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the 1995 hypothesis called 'constitutional militia' is obviously part of the Christian Patriot Movement.  Yes, this hypothesis draws upon a rational associated with the Eighteenth Century constitutional militia, but separated by that span of time, the exact association is not a clearly established concept.  Therefore, exceptional claims require exception sources.  (And, presently, I see very few sources of any type.)  The 'most reliable' standard of WP:RS applies.   I am not here to debate the merits of your hypothesis.  Can we please focus on identifying the available sources which we have so we can proceed to collaborate to write this article?  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr 18:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For most of its new and leading activists it wasn't, including me. When I issued that nationwide call-up for April 19, 1994, about the only movement I knew about that might be considered somehow related to the "CPM" was the Fully Informed Jury Association, because someone had handed me a brochure at a gun show. And even they are largely composed of people who don't share views common to people so characterized (who are not all "Christians" -- many are Jewish, agnostic, etc.) Most of them were, or had friends who were, victims of miscarriaages of justice, from a variety of backgrounds. When I sent out thousands of invitations to attend the muster, most of them went to gun rights advocates, veterans, re-enactors, scout leaders, volunteer firemen, red cross people, radio hams, and civil libertarians, and that is most of who showed up. Yes, I suppose some others did as well, as I found out later, but they were not the main ones from the outset. Most were just outraged about the Waco massacre and looking for a movement to become involved in. Jon Roland 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please focus on identifying the available sources which we have so we can proceed to collaborate to write this article?  Thanks. SaltyBoatr 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This is not supposed to be about the usage of a label, but the thing signified, the denotatum of the term. However, every denotatum is, bsides an object, a kind of mental model, that can be discussed in terms of an operational definition, that is used to distinguish the object of discourse from the "background" of things not part of it. What is being used here is an operational definition that movement activists would recognize, at least in the results of its application, even if they aren't familiar with the term "operational definition" or how to use it.  See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to start somewhere, and if we can't find a reliable source for an operational definition then we're making this up as we go along. We cannot say that CMM = XYZ, and then talk about X, Y, znd Z, without any references. So far, we have only one source that defines CMM, Churchill's paper, and that doesn't do so in precise language. We don't even have an agreed-upon list of members, much less of self-described CMMers. Unlees we can find more sources we'll just have to try to summarize Churchill's description.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we do, and that is what I did with the three defining attributes of support I provided. You won't find them in a scholarly source (although perhaps some scholar will adopt them). That definition works, as other operational definitions do not, to serve as a "discriminator" that separates those who will tend to self-identify as CMM if asked, from those who won't. It is not the operational definition used by the antagonists, the closest to which we find in the FBI Project Megiddo document, paraphrasing: "any two or more persons with arms training to their use". That is obviously not the definition that document really used, however, because as stated it would include most of the kinds of groups I inserted with which there is some overlap in membership with the CMM, but which the FBI did not include in their listing. What they were really applying was "any group that looks like it might be able to defend itself against us". But of course they couldn't say that. For the ADL and its allies, it is anyone who insists on a strict construction of the Constitution, and they induced the FBI, in a training document since abandoned, that "extremists" include "constitutional fundamentalists". Now why an organization founded to defend Jews should now be opposing originalism is an interesting story, and I have had a few personal conversations with some of them that, if widely known, would inspire even the most pacifist to reach for a gun. Jon Roland 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We will seldom find precise definitions of who is or is not a member of almost any "movement", that won't depend very much on the POV of the classifier, unless there is some formal membership procedure, such as signing a document and paying dues. But I prefer to use the tests used by adherents rather than their adversaries. As editors we have to do the best we can, and I submit it is not OR to consult their own literature, even if it is only online, and present reasonable summarizations of it for the purposes of an article. Jon Roland 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We should stick to 'most reliable' secondary sources.  SaltyBoatr 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discriminating CMM from others 

message: I object to this diff.  The reason is because I question whether publications of the Reason Foundation have sufficient reputation for fact checking and accuracy on par with the 'most reliable source' standards of WP:RS.  Pretty clearly, the Reason Foundation has a partisan interest.  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  Because of this, we should use the 'most reliable sourcing' standard of WP:RS, Which is: "In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable a work or publication is."  Is there any doubt that the Reason Foundation fails to meet this 'most reliable' guidelines of WP:RS?  SaltyBoatr 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question that the Reason Foundation is a partisan group. I wouldn't call them extremist or fringe, though they may be close. The writer, Mack Tanner, does not call himself a journalist, and the article in question is clearly sympathetic to the movement. The problem is that the sources, pro and con, are likely to be partisan. I think that Reason magazine, the ADL, the SPLC, and other partisan groups may be the best sources we can find about this movement, despite some deficiencies.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Partisan" is not quite the right word. The foundation was formed to advance a cause, so has a POV, but is not associated formally with a political party. Most are libertarians, of course, but few are active in the Libertarian Party, preferring to engage in public education. However, they are not entirely one-sided, and often do publish articles with positions contrary to those of the foundation leaders. The key is whether their magazine, Reason, is a reliable source for articles, and they are so considered. It is a fact of editorial life that not many agnostics are experts on theology. Also note that the policy is to prefer more reliable sources over less reliable ones if both are available. It is not grounds for rejecting sources that may not be as reliable as the more reliable journals, because that would exclude most books (see above) and newspaper articles. The purpose of the policy is to indicate how much confidence should be put in sources, not to insist on standards that would leave us nothing but a scholarly journal. Jon Roland 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the best we can find is not necessarily good enough.  I do see that the Churchill paper you found is solidly 'most reliable' and the newspaper articles I think will likely also meet 'most reliable' standards.  My goal is to make this article to be the best we can with what sourcing is available within WP:POL, even if the article ends up needing to be short due to a lack of available source material.  SaltyBoatr 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't include what we can't source properly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the spirit of Wikipedia is not to just immediately remove anything that is not yet sourced, but to indicate the need for sources and wait a reasonable time for some editor to come up with them. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process of improving articles by adding elements that might not be initially provided, not just summary removal of anything that hasn't been up long enough for this to occur. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spirit calls for consensus, and the letter of the policy says that unsourced material may be removed. There's no consensus for this unsourced material that apparently consists mostly of original research. We only have one reliable source that refers to the CMM by name. Other than that, we only have your opinion of what is and isn't CMM.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to fully remove the text from Wikipedida which appears as unsourced original research.  It can be moved to a sandbox for fixing.  Then when it is properly sourced and ready to go (if ever) we can move it back into the article.  SaltyBoatr 05:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason Foundation 

message: Here is an excerpt from an article from 2000:
:Militia, police at stalemate
:Chicago Sun-Times,  Sep 3, 2000  by PAUL DUGGAN
:TRINIDAD, Texas John Joe Gray's land is 47 acres fenced with barbed wire off a dusty road in the east Texas woods. Posted by the padlocked gate is a hand-painted sign 8 feet wide: "We Are Militia and Will Live Free or Die."
...
:Gray, a carpenter, had no arrest record before he allegedly tried to wrest a gun from a state trooper during a traffic stop last winter. Gray believes U.S. officials are plotting to enslave the nation, said Tarkington. He said his ex-father-in-law began calling himself "Colonel Gray" a few years ago and hosted the ragtag maneuvers of the Texas Constitutional Militia on his property, where he keeps an arsenal of combat weapons.
The article is biased, telling the official line, but interesting. I visited Gray at his ranch, and with some others, investigated his situation. I wrote a report on that. Jon Roland 07:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that article meets 'most reliable' sourcing standards I think.  Unfortunately that article is 99% about Joe Gray and doesn't include much pertinent information about the 'constitutional militia movement' that I can see.  This is constructive though, we should keep looking for secondary sources.  SaltyBoatr 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper cites 

message: "Militias at the Millennium: A test of Smelser's theory of collective behavior", splits "constitutionalists" from "Christian Identity", the discussion of which includes:
*Christain Identity
*C..A.L. Totten
*Howard Rand
*William Cameron
*Gerlad L.K. Smith
*William Gale
*William Butler 
*Wesley Swift
*Robert Matthews 
*The Order
*Turner Diaries
*William Pierce
*Opposition to ZOG (while CMM opposes NWO)
"Arming for the Last Battle: Secular and Religious: Millennial Impulses within the Militia Movement" Robert H. Churchill, splits the "constitutional militia" with a "resistance wing", those holding a "revolutionary libertarian vision". "This wing of the movement also calls itself constitutionalist but is significantly influenced by common law ideology and sovereign citizenship." They "...are almost obsessed with survivalist preparation".  Included in the discussion are:
*Mark Koernke, 
*John Trochman, 
*Jack McLamb, and 
*Joe Pilchak, who commands of the eastern faction of the Michigan Militia.
I can't tell if Churchill means that the resistance wing is a branch of the constitutional militia or a separate type. I suggest we handle them together, and simply mention that there's a subdivision.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-members

message: At some point in time here soon I will be compelled to move the unsourced material, and the original research out of the article to a sandbox for fixing.  It cannot stay up on the main page forever while we wait for proper sourcing.  I am just saying this to give a little more time to fix it.  SaltyBoatr 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes any such removals should be copied to this Talk page, not to your own user sandbox (and the common sandbox autodeletes in only 12 hours). For that matter, it would be courtesy for editors who have already made major deletions to copy those passages to this Talk page now, so we can work on them more conveniently. Sandboxes should be used by each editor to prepare his own contributions, not to work on the contributions of others. Further, the material should remain on the main page for at least a month, with perhaps  tags added at appropriate points, because part of what Wikipedia is about is getting others involved in making improvements, and they need time to find the article and research the improvements. This is a large subject and newcometrs are going to need some time to get up to speed. Jon Roland 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should really start off from scratch with what we can source. Since real people are involved in this movement we need to be very careful what we say and it'd be best to only include what's sourced. The editors of this article have many unanswered questions about what's already here. We can create a special page here for drafting material - Talk:Constitutional militia movement/draft. That's a typical technique.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, foremost, Wikipedia is about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I too favor starting from scratch, but I could be patient if substantial progress is visible right away removing the original research, and using just 'most reliable' secondary sourcing. Otherwise, I am imagining just a day or so. SaltyBoatr 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved OR sections of article to here:  Talk:Constitutional militia movement/draft for fixing.  SaltyBoatr 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but to avoid contention I suggest that the /draft folder be versions that are only added to or changed in very small ways, or else let it my my version, while other editors create their own folders, containing their names in the name of the folder, where you can slice and dice without stomping on my work. If we had a real revision control system, like subversion, this would not be necessary, but in the interest of collaboration, I suggest we each work in different folders and try to reconcile our different versions after each is stabilized.Jon Roland 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving unsourced info, and OR out of the article 

message: I reverted this deletion because there are some minor differences between the terms as they relate to militia generally, militia in the United States, and the Constitutional militia movement. Each builds on the previous one, but adds some new points, which will emerge. For example, the original meaning of militia was "defense activity". Later, the main meaning was "those engaged in defense activity". But with the movement we have been moving the term back to its original meaning, which is driving some of the adversaries nuts. It is now a well-established usage again, and not just with me or my circle of correspondents. Given that usage, a lot of things become clear that were previously obscured. Jon Roland 06:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we confine ourselves to discussing the differences then we won't be redundant. But there's no need to go into the whole history of the word, using the same sources and text as the militia article. However we have to make sure we're using the definition of the "militia" that is sourceable to the "constitutional militia movement" and is identified as their version.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerend that we are speculating about what meaning the "Founding Fathers" would have intended. First, that could be original research. Second, the "constitutional militia movement" began in the 1990s, so the Latin derivation of the word "militia" and the 18th century view of the word are of minor importance. What is important, and is unsourced, is the use of the word by members of the movement itself.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it didn't start in the 1990s. It just became more active then. Any more than "constitutions" started in 1787, or "militia" at some point in early Israel, Rome or England. Yes, we could insert a link back to Militia#Etymology and Militia (United States)#Etymology for different phases of the derivation, but besides being rather awkward to insert internal links that are not much shorter than the text, readers will appreciate having the full story told in one place, especially when the last phase is reviving the original meaning. While too much redundancy is to be avoided, a certain amount makes each article stand alone better as a complete treatment of the subject. Jon Roland 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that is what members of the movement believe. Many movements trace their heritage back, and state that figures from the past agreed with them. However, unless those historical figures acknowledged themselves as members we can't assign them to the movement after the fact. If the Founding Fathers, the Israelis, the English, or the Romans called themselves "constitutional militia", or if other writers outside the movement have called them that then they could be included. If the only ones who make that connection are authors within the movement then we should say something like, "CMM writers trace their movement back to Romulus, Cromwell, and Revere."  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is being excessively literalistic. See WP:NEL. We can't expect ancients to use the same terms used by moderns, any more than we can expect people of one country to use the same words as people of another country, when referring to what is essentially the same movement. We also can't expect scholars or journalists to all use the same words in referring to the same things. Editors have to be able to make reasonable judgments about whether different terms or descriptions refer to the same objects or concepts. Up to a point that is just summarizing. It might be OR to draw conclusions about about someone believed, but not to exercise reasonable judgment that two or more people describing the same thing are actually doing so. For example, we haven't had a separate article on the metric movement, although there has been one, and not everyone who advocates converting to the metric system uses the term metrication. Now of course that movement did have a beginning, but not all movements do. Jon Roland 01:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you used the term 'editors' in the plural, because that acknowledges that you believe that you share the editing duty with other editors.  Sorry Wikipedia is not a place for scholarship or journalism.  We are guided by WP policy to avoid that.  Instead we only edit using reliable secondary sourcing.  Let's get started.  SaltyBoatr 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support real WP policy, but not the personal policies of editors that are not supported by WP policies. WP:NOR and other policies do not forbid primary sources, nor do they define them the way you do. A website is not inherently primary. It may contain primary pages, or it may contain secondary or tertiary pages. A document authored by the editor may be rejected as self-publication if he has not been published in reliable sources on the same field, but may cite to it if he is. A website is a publication like a newspaper or journal, and each document has to be considered on its own attributes. An op-ed column or announcement is primary. A report on an event is secondary, including a report on things said in interviews, citing to the interviewee. This is the standard in other reliable-source media and Wikipedia is not essentially different. Jon Roland 16:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology of "militia" is not directly relevant to this article, which isn't about the term "militia" but is about the "constitutional militia movement" instead. It would be appropriate to discuss how the term "constitutional militia movement" came about, if we can find any sources for it. It would also be appropriate to mention how members of the CMM describe their use of the word "militia", if we can find sources for it. However it is inappropriate to discuss what the Founding Fathers may have thought of the word "militia" because they are not members of the CMM.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

message: I'm skimming over "Militias at the Millennium: A test of Smelser's theory of collective behavior", Stan C Weeber; Daniel G Rodeheaver, Sociological Quarterly; Spring 2003; 44, 2; Research Library pg. 181. It discerns two strains in the militia movement: "Constitutionalists" and "Christian Identity". He describes the two in detail and categorizes groups, though acknowledging that there is overlap. I think this would be a great reference, and is available though Proquest.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good digging Will.  And, a very interesting read.  Of note: William Potter Gale sought 'to find legitimacy in law' that seems to be a central defining theme of the CMM.  Also I notice parallels between the CMM militia musters and the Reconstruction era 'white rifle-club' musters, in key aspects, both were anti-government rebel social clubs.  And, also I notice that the CMM seems to have peaked in about 1996/7.  SaltyBoatr 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeking legitimacy in laws and finding it are two different things. People like Gale are rejected by the kind of CMM groups linked to at http://www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm . At the beginning he had some people fooled, and any of us can be fooled by a skillful pretender, but after he showed his true colors he was abandoned by most of his former supporters. As for peaking, the CMM has become more active since 2001, especially with all the books about nuclear terrorism and the increase in violent crime from illegal aliens. See border control and Minuteman Project. Jon Roland 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being rejected by some in a movement doesn't mean one isn't a part of the movement. As for the size of the movement, such determinations are very difficult to make and we'll just have to summarize what the reliable sources say, even if they are out of date.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected by only a few, no, but rejected by a consensus, yes. When almost all of those in a movement reject people from it, it is almost always because they deem the ones they are rejecting as liabilities, because almost any movement wants more supporters, and will be disposed to accept support where they can get it, even if they don't like them. To reject them is a decision that their support does more harm than good. The rejectees might constitute some movement, but not the movement of the rejecters. The websites we link to are consistent in rejecting persons and groups they do not consider CM. Many have pages with links to other sites and, other than not always being up to date, show a strong tendency to link to each other and not to non-CM sites. For purposes of our edits, it is certainly reasonable and not OR to say "The website <...> has a page <...> which links to other sites they consider constitutional militia (Retrieved <date>)." Jon Roland (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pending a reliable source on the consensus of the CMM, such as an opinion poll or the minutes of a CMM-wide convention, I don't think we can make any generalizations about it. We can say that individual members or groups in the CMM have expressed certain opinions. Regarding your last point, if the original website were a relaible sourec, then we could use it. If it's a self-published website by a non-authority then we couldn't.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smelser 

message: This award winning paper seems to meet WP:RS standards and comes close to 'most reliable' standards because of the peer review.  It does not firmly distinguish the CMM from the greater militia movement, but does pertain to CMM at least in passing I see because of the constitutional militia values described.  http://www.jmu.edu/writeon/2002/bauer2002.htm  
Here is a small quote: "Arriving at a conclusive number of anti-government militia groups in the United States today is impossible. By their very nature, these groups are secretive and seclusive. They often take great pains to simultaneously isolate themselves from parts of society they feel are corrupt or unacceptable, and spread their message of anti-government activism without compromising their security. At a conservative estimate, there are perhaps 200 groups in at least thirty states today that meet the basic criteria of an anti-government militia cell" SaltyBoatr 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not meet the standards of WP:RS. It is only a student essay that won a contest, not a peer-reviewed journal article. I also find that, while it is interesting as an extended op-ed, the author makes some rather long leaps from what can only be secondary or tertiary sources, not adequately cited. I also find that he made a number of errors, apparently speculative conclusions. There is hope for the young man eventually becoming a competent researcher, but he isn't there as of this paper. Jon Roland 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a tricky one. While it is written by a student, it has been reviewed as part of the award process. That would tend towards it beingacceptable. What errors did you find, Jon Roland?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of little things, where he was obviously relying on tertiary sources, like the ADL-network. For example, he has McVeigh hanging out with "militia" in a context that suggests he was talking about the CMM, and in particular, the Michigan Militia. That is not correct. He only attended one meeting and was ejected from it. What he apparently (because nothing is certain about that case) did do was hang out with Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA), a white supremacist group based in northern Arkansas, that never called itself a "militia". This is discussed in David Hoffman, Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, especially Chap. 4. (Yes, we have permission to have it online, but others don't. It is okay to cite to our online copy. "Buck" Revelle sued Hoffman and his publisher, demanding all copies be "pulped", and the publisher caved, before David won his case. So print copies are scarce. For more on the subject see http://www.constitution.org/okc/okc.htm especially the John Doe Times, by Mike Vanderboegh. Jon Roland 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the main problem with the article is that it doesmn't really seem to deal with CMM as a distinct entity. It mentions "anti-government" militias, but it's not clear that it means constitutional militias. Or is it clear enough that the author means the CMM?   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, "comes close" to 'most reliable' WP:RS standards.  The fact that the paper has undergone scrutiny as part of an awards process, I think, clearly qualifies the paper to 'general' WP:RS standards.  In any case, yes, I agree that the paper does not distinguish the CMM as being distinct.  (My personal opinion: This reflects reality, which is that the CMM has a fuzzy distinction with overlaps to other wings of the greater militia movement.)  SaltyBoatr 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But it was only an entry in a student essay contest, which means that, unless all the entries were atrocious, winning only means the other entries were worse. Having won such a student essay contest in college (U Chicago) myself (co-winner with two others), and having had the paper read to an audience with enthusiastic applause (the paper was predicting electronically-mediated forums, much like those we have on the Internet today), I can attest that the standards were far from those for a professional journal article. As for the fuzziness, that is more about outsider perspective than insider. The insiders have a reasonably clear distinction, although of course one can never be sure about every individual in voluntary associations. One of my accomplishments beginning in 1994 was to get the movement determined to exclude individuals who were not CMM material. Most units have been doing a fairly good job of that, better than the military and law enforcement. I used to joke that in the 1950s the KKK could put 3 million on the streets, and that by 1994 they were doing well to get 30,000. The good news is that most of those guys reformed. The bad news is that most of the ones who didn't reform went into law enforcement. Jon Roland 04:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be amused by my report, Exchange between Morris Dees and Jon Roland, Assembly at California State University, 1999 Nov. 9 — Illustrates use of questioning to turn an argument against someone. Jon Roland 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Bauer paper, James Madison University 2002 

message: I found a fragment in the Definition section. The section itself states:
::Operational features include.[5]:
:::   1. Training in combat scenarios and weaponry skills in mock actions and maneuvers.
:::   2. Has an identifiable territory in which members reside.
:::   3. Bases organization philosophies on anti-government rhetoric.
:::   4. Development of contingency plans in case of governmental provocation.
:::   5. Considers bombing, kidnappings, separatism, "paper terrorism", or other extreme measures to protect the organic Constitution and/or the white race.
:::   6. Considers the viability of criminal activity to acquire weapons and explosives.
Mostly the point 5; tell me, please, which members of Constitutional Militia (not CI or "Freemen" groups, only CMM please) ever planned 
bombings or kidnappings? Names and other facts, please. Who among  them promoted
separatism (from the United States; a clearly un-constitutional measure, though not "terrorist" one)? 
The point 6: whom among the Constitutional Militia ever promoted or considered criminal acts? What kind of criminal acts? Names and facts, please.
These are blatant charges, so they should be documented or commented as unverified/untrue. 
And the fact they're presented as "definition" doesn't change anything. It could only be considered a 
cover-up of defamatory speech.
If someone with anti-semitic agenda wrote that a definition of "Jew" is "crook and scrouge" 
would it be some abstractive definition or a plain and blatant DEFAMATION? For me, it would be the 
latter - an ugly, stinking, blatant,  DEFAMATION unbased in any facts and libelous writing.
Also, a question of terminology in p.3 should be raised. The term "anti-government rhetoric' may suggest, that what they think and say
about US Federal Government is somehow not really believed by CMM members, but rather some way, probably a tricky one, of misleading
the public about the real goals and ideas of CMM. I think that the term ideas or ideology should be used instead. Critto (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible defamation of militia (Definition section)