Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Select militia

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 delete. Proto::► 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Select militia

Select militia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete, I am unable to find any serious scholarly or major publication discussion of this entry's title. it appears to be the creation of a handful of right-wing militia proponents. Delete as fringe POV.--Cberlet 04:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak agree. Delete, or redirect to National Guard or other widely accepted version of this topic. Nimur 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Though, Google Scholar[1] pulls up nearly 10,000 references, most of them do not treat this subject as a distinct topic of military or political science. Nimur 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, term appears real but the article is strictly original research. Dragomiloff 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reply --

On the contrary, it was a major topic of discussion among the American Founders, who emphasized the distinction between "militia" and "select militia" as conflicting concepts. Most of the partisan armed groups to which the term is so often applied today would have been considered "select militia" by the Founders, and clear examples of what they did not want for the United States. This would include, by the way, organizations such as the National Guard.

To be historically and etymologically accurate, we should move much of the content from the "militia" entry to the "select militia" entry, leaving the latter to discuss only the original concept, which is now understood in Switzerland but is being misused almost everywhere else.

The terms are terms of law, and while we can recognize contemporary departures from original, correct usage, the emphasis should always be on the legal meanings. Consider, for example, the effect of replacing the meanings of constitutional terms like "due process", "jury", "crime", "speech", "press", "probable cause", or "right" with some modern slang usage that has a quite different meaning. We have a responsibility to preserve the meanings of legal terms on which the integrity of government and law depend.

For more on this see

http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0818.htm http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/penn_min.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar03.htm http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/48senh.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/43hala.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/90thec.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/37val-.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/27thes.htm

For more just go to http://www.constitution.org/search.htm and search on the phrase "select militia", either on constitution.org or across the WWW.

Jon Roland 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Select_militia"

• Reply -- pseudo-scholarship and original research from a marginal right-wing libertarian pro-militia POV. Find a cite to a serious scholar who discusses the concept.--Cberlet 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reply to Cberlet -- The reply by Cberlet is an ideological rejection rather than a proper scholarly one, as shown by his use of such pejorative terms as "pseudo-scholarship" and "marginal right-wing libertarian pro-militia POV". I have provided an abundance of links to scholarly research of others, and such primary sources as Madison's Report on the Constitutional Convention, the constitutional ratification debates, several law review and history articles, and a five-volume set of treatises by James Whisker, a professor of history at West Virginia University. But since the article has already been deleted, I won't argue further, but merely add the material to the main article Militia.

I should point out that I am considered a leading constitutional scholar and legal historian, often cited by others, and my work is hardly "marginal". Jon Roland 18:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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.