Talk:Constitutional militia movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Plan for this article
2 Notes
3 Self referencing of self published websites
4 Snapshots of the constitutional militia movement
5 FBI reports on "militia movement"
6 Notability of the name
7 Original research exceptions
8 "Private militia-related organizations"
9 "Movements outside the United States"
10 Merge?
11 Particular points and their sources
12 Controversy section
13 See also section
14 Historical and legal background
15 On topic please, use secondary sources
16 Members of the Constitutional militia movement
17 References
18 Collaboration please
19 Scope of article
20 External links
21 Discriminating CMM from others
22 Reason Foundation
23 Newspaper cites
24 Membership
- 24.1 Non-members
25 Moving unsourced info, and OR out of the article
26 Etymology section
27 Cross-linking as evidence of membership

Plan for this article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notes

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

Self referencing of self published websites

Please do not use[1] your personal website www.constitution.org for sourcing of Wikipedia articles. This runs contrary to policy. See WP:SPS. SaltyBoatr 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Saltyboatr is trying to impose his own, idiosyncratic, misinterpretation of WP:SPS. Let us examine the definition of "Self-publishing" from Wikipedia's own article on the subject. It states:

Self-publishing is the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers.

Now saltyboatr seems to be trying to extend this definition to exclude an editor from citing to a work written by someone else because it happens to be on a website for which he is the webmaster, apparently on the presumption that any website is the "personal website" of its webmaster, the editor. But let us examine the personal website Wikipedia page, which states in relevant part:

Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. The content can be about that person or about something he or she is interested in. Personal web pages can be the entire content of a domain name belonging to the person.

By that definition, http://www.constitution.org is not a "personal website". It might contain some pages written by the webmaster, and one of them, his CV, is of a personal nature, but it should be obvious to any fair-minded visitor that those few pages do not make the site as a whole "created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". And as anyone can verify by doing a whois search on the domain name, it is not owned by the webmaster, but by an organization, the Constitution Society, which is incorporated.

Now, it might be possible to satisfy Saltyboatr by citing to a work while omitting the link to the copy on the only site that has it online, but all that accomplishes is to inconvenience the reader by making him go to the library or engage ILL to get a copy. Of course, he can also do a web search on the book and find the link to it that way. But a policy should be about more than inconveniencing readers.

I submit that the WP:SPS policy be clarified to state something like:

It is acceptable for an editor to cite to a reliable source not authored by him, previously published by a reliable publisher elsewhere, a copy of which also appears on a website for which he is the webmaster, without having to omit the link, especially if there is no link available to a reliable site to which he is not a contributor.

Jon Roland 14:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jon, good luck with your efforts to have wikipedia policies and guidelines modified. I think you will find that to be a very difficult task. While I personally feel that much of your website is legitimate for use as a reference, I believe there may be a conflict of interest with regards to you personally linking to your website. In other words, because of your special status as the webmaster of constitution.org, it may be less appropriate for you to link to it than for any other editor to link to it. - Hoplon 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looked at Wikipedia:Convenience_links, and it seems that convenience links is what I am already doing. Now I am not using the style of following the print cite with a phrase "available at <link>", but surrounding the title of the work with the link. However, is that difference in style really material to the concept? If I were just linking to the title and author without the rest of the print edition information, such as publisher and year, then I can see the WP:V or WP:SPS problem, but when the print information is included, it seems unimportant where the link is inserted. I will ask for clarification on this. Jon Roland 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Snapshots of the constitutional militia movement

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)

Using the Usenet archives for research violates WP:V and WP:NOR. Use reliable secondary sourcing please. SaltyBoatr 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

FBI reports on "militia movement"

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)

This information, while interesting, seems irrelevant. The topic hand in this article is the 'constitutional militia movement'. SaltyBoatr 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of the name

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)

Original research exceptions

It should be noted that in WP:OR we find:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

This clearly seems to allow citing to persons or events for which the editor was an eyewitness, such as an interview he has conducted with a person who can be considered a reliable source, even if it is not verifiable except by someone else interviewing the same person. This is an important exception to what might be considered a WP:OR violation by some.

and another exception:

Search engine test Jon Roland 16:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, eyewitness reports are not permitted. That is the chief prohibition of WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. The words "witness" and "eyewitness" appear nowhere in WP:NOR. The meaning of the words quoted above are plain, and while they may exclude reporting what the editor personally witnessed, they do not exclude reporting on what another person, a reliable source (including an eyewitness), said in an interview, as long as one cites the name and credentials, place, and date. Jon Roland 00:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A core policy of Wikipedia is verifiability, WP:V. How is it verifiable if you assert you heard someone say something? If you have special knowledge you may draw upon it as long as you cite your verifiable sources. Unpublished material is simply unverifiable. Saying that readers would need to track down a person interviewed decades ago does not meet reasonable standards of verifiability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, in Wikipedia we do not consider an eyewitness to be a "reliable source". That term is defined in WP:RS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't specifically state that a "witness" or "eyewitness" is never a reliable source. That is one interpretation, but it is not that definite. I submit it depends on the interviewee, whether he is available to ask, or has said similar things in recorded media that make the content of the interview plausible. Many printed works are not readily available, either. Much of what I have put on our sebsite is not available in more of than a few of the largest university collections or government repositorites like the British Museum. Perhaps some day Google Books will have scanned them all but until they do we will just have to fill in. And we can all begin to videotape all our contacts with people and put the recordings up on YouTube. Will editors accept cites to online videos? Jon Roland 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the noncompliant citations read:

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. Interview by editor with several eyewitnesses, including Alex de Pena, in San Antonio, Texas, during September, 1995.

There is no reliable source involved and no way of verifying this information. There are all kinds of important facts in this worl dthat are unverifiable, and therefore are omitted from Wikipedia. This assertion must be among them, at least until it is published in a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I communicated with Bill Utterback, and he corrected me. He did propose the use of the phrase at a meeting in San Antonio of the Northern and Southern Regions of the various units, in the summer of 1994, but the units in the Northern region had already adopted the usage, so what Bill was proposing was to adopt it generally, and it spread across the country. Obviously, we are only talking about labeling here. The movement existed before it adopted any name, and didn't change its goals or methods by adopting a label, whatever that label might be. It is an important principle of law that names are only tools to distinguish one thing from another, and as long as it doesn't cause any confusion, anyone may use any name one wants, for oneself or anyone else. No one owns a name, there are no true "official" names, and there is no requirement that anyone or anything even have a name that they accept for reference to themselves. It is a fundamental mistake to get hung up on labels. the movement is what it is, whatever it is called. What it is not is other movements with other aims, methods, and views. Jon Roland 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's swell and all but it doesn't change the fact that we can't use an unverifiable recollection of a conversation as a source. Sources must be verifiable by any reader. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The test for verifiability is not that it be easy, by just going online. Many kinds of reliable sources are verifiable only by making a much greater effort, such as by visiting archives of old newspaper articles, or flying to a distant library if one can't get the research librarian to look it up and send one a copy. I agree that recollection of an interview is not readily verifiable unless one can ask the interviewee, but the standard in journalism is to cite to the reporter's notes taken during the interview, or to a recording, if one was made. Jon Roland 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I insist we use most reliable secondary sourcing. SaltyBoatr 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Private militia-related organizations"

I removed this unreferenced section because it did not assert that the listed groups are actually connected to the "Constitutional militia movement". Too much of this article relates to mitilias in general, such as the long etymology of the word "milita". Let's keep this focused on its topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to moving it to Militia (United States), which is what I did. I plan to add cites to every item as I get around to it, but it is fair to say the organizations are more closely related to militia than to the movement, even though the movement is active in every one of those items. Jon Roland 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there either until there are sources that call the groups "militias" or "groups that fill a militia-type role". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. A source doesn't have to use the word "militia" if it uses synonymous words or phrases. It is common for the language of things like movements not to always use the same words for the same concepts, and it is a reasonable summarization by editors to find that synonymity, without it being OR. Furthermore, "militia-related" is not about filling a militia-type role, at least not completely. A few examples:

One of the functions of militia and militia training is disaster response, and I will eventually show how militia activists (always presuming the "constitutional" qualifier) engage in activities with most of these, such as Red Cross, ham radio, Volunteer fire departments, etc. There is also a strong tendency for activists in those activities to also become active in things like military field training, and to advocate the resurrection of the traditional militia system.
Most militia activists are both former veterans and former boy (or girl) scouts, and a very high proportion serve as scout leaders, to train the next generation in militia skills. This was, historically, the original vision of Robert Baden-Powell for the Scouting movement.
The connection to gun and hunting clubs should be obvious, with most CMM activists having been members at some time, and likely to be current members of the NRA or Gun Owners of America.
There is a high overlap between re-enactor groups and militia groups, who use it to study and acquire combat strategy and tactics.

I could go on, but it is this overlap among participants in these various groups and activities that makes them "militia-related", as I intend to develop in further sections, probably one for each of the items on the list, which is just a placeholder or sub-table of contents for that. Jon Roland 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source that describes these as the roles belonging to a constitutional militia? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources, but except for a few books and papers I list in the References section (when saltyboatr hasn't removed them), and some newspaper articles and television appearances that are difficult to find, they are not easy to track down. A good example is the April 25, 1995, edition of Dateline NBC in which Stone Philips interviews me in some depth, but I lost my copy of the program on tape and they never sent me the copy they promised. Maybe I need to ask them again. Jon Roland 07:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a source that calls the Red Cross part of the CMM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "part of" is not the point. Many of the same people participate in both, as some of the miltia websites and literature have indicated. Just as many of them are radio hams. By the definition of "militia" as "the whole people, except for a few officials", all of these other activities are "militia", even if most of the members don't apply the word to themselves, but most of them are not activists in the movement. However, many of them are, and the activities are some of the major recruiting grounds for militia, and activities that active movement people will continue to participate in when not doing things like field training. Jon Roland 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Spare us the explanation about what the movement is. We should instead read about what the movement is by reading from 'most reliable' secondary sources. Lets get started. SaltyBoatr 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Movements outside the United States"

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)

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)

When sources are available then you may add the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did add some material, with sourcing. Allow some time for others to write. Jon Roland 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge?

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Militia movement (United States). (Discuss)

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Militia (United States). (Discuss)

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)

I reserve my opinion for now. Based on that one 1995 article in The Washington Times it is true that the 'constitutional militia movement' exists, or existed, as a branch of the Militia movement (United States). The decision to merge there should be decided upon after we determine if there is enough reliable secondary sourced information available to merit that Constitutional militia movement remains as a stand alone article, or is better treated as a section in the 'parent' militia movement article. Hopefully, in the next few days we can work to remove the OR from this article and see what remains. SaltyBoatr 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Answering my own question in part, here[2] 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)

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)

Yes, I reserve my right to verify your sourcing in explicit detail. SaltyBoatr 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Particular points and their sources

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)

Cite to

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)

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)

Controversy section

The constitutional militia movement has drawn professional critics. Mark Pitcavage wrote this about the "movement" into which they were included with other groups: "The movement's ideology has led some adherents to commit criminal acts, including stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives and plotting to destroy buildings or assassinate public officials, as well as lesser confrontations."^[1]. However, others argue that such critics are disingenuously combining individuals and groups holding disparate views and engaged in disparate activities, and trying to demonize them all by focusing on the alleged misconduct of a few, presumably to present them all as a threat to which they can point in their fundraising efforts.^[2] Many of the leading critics are associated with the Anti-Defamation League,^[3] considered by its own critics to have an agenda that involves unfairly criticizing others, especially those that criticize governmental corruption and abuse.

I've moved this material here for discussion. So far as I can tell, these critics are not talking about the "constituional milita" movement - they are addressing the generic militia movement. Further there are numerous unsourced assertions about the ADL and related critics. I suggest that since this article is focused n the constitutional militia movement, we should limit ourselves to sources which mention the movement by name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. Actually, I wouldn't mind leaving it out, except that I incurred WP:NPOV complaints without something like that. In that spirit I think that we can't avoid the controversy by saying the critics are only lumping the CMM with other groups and not not criticizing them "by name". Being lumped with others, especially rivals, besides being annoying, is a criticism of one, even if misguided by the category error, and if it is widespread, then it needs to be addressed to fairly and neutrally discuss the subject. To do that we really need to reference the leading critic, the ADL, which, despite the fact that if pinned down they say, "Well, we don't mean you guys", in most of their rhetoric and fundraising appeals they do mean "us guys". See http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp and subsequent pages for how they dance around the subject. As for sourcing the statements, the Anti-Defamation League article contains all or most of that, only a little of which needs to be sourced in this article. I would rather add more sources to their page and link to it. Jon Roland 06:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV cuts both ways. Just as we should limit ourselves only to criticisms that directly mention "constitutional militia", so we should limit ourselves to other sources that directly mention "constitutional militia". I'm afraid that we are using too many sources dealing with the generic concept of militia in the U.S., rather than this specific form. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is almost nothing I can find in reliable sources that distinguishes the 'constitutional militia movement'. I do see a lot about the United States 'militia movement'. Is this entire article original research? SaltyBoatr 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to apply an excessively literalistic standard. Most articles, including this one, is a about a concept, which may be known by many names, in different countries and times. Insisting on the use of the word "constitutonal" violates common sense. Consider how that kind of standard would apply to an article like Constitution. Would you reject any discussion of matters constitutional concerning Switzerland, when their name for "constitution" is "Bundesverfassung"? Or concerning England, which uses the term but doesn't have a written constitution as such? Just as there have been many kinds of written and unwritten constitutions in many countries throughout history, so there have been many movements to defend them, and to promote a militia system to defend them. And, yes, there is citable literature on the subject, but it is somewhat scattered. If you will be patient, and offer your questions and criticisms here on the Talk page, instead of engaging in edit wars with me, I think I can eventually convince you of what I am trying to do, according to WP policies. Instead of trying to delete things, why not just insert tags or comments here? We can work it out, if you are serious about eventually getting a good article. Obviously, if you are ideologically motivated, then we will have to bring in mediation. Jon Roland 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia writers need to be literalistic. The beginning of the article is:

The term constitutional militia movement has been used to refer to privately organized citizen groups that support...

That's fine. So the article is about something called the "constitutional militia movement". Since we're not the ones doing the "refering" we instead use sources that talk about the CMM. We can't use sources that refer to sea anemones, apocolypic militias, or other topics outside the scope of this article. We can't pick and choose sources that talk about generic militias and decide, on our own, that this one is a CMM whie that one isn't. We can only summarize what source say about things called CMM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear Will Beback. Essentially all the referencing provided so far for Jon Roland's manifesto seems drawn from a greater body of referencing of militia movement politics. The topic here is specifically the CMM. Lets stick to the sourcing explicit to the topic. At present, I see very little of that. Four newspaper article, and no books. Let's start by identifying the WP:V sourcing available to us. SaltyBoatr 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be reasonable except that we cannot expect everyone in a movement to call their movement the same name. They may not even be aware they are part of a movement until others point it out to them. We must not confuse signs for the things signified. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 01:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Either it is the 'constitutional miltia movement' or not. We shall not need to use our imagination. Where are your reliable secondary sources? SaltyBoatr 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical and legal background

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Tanner article is here:[3]. 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)

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)

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)

On topic please, use secondary sources

Far too much of the article is original research about the general militia movement theory and not based on reliable secondary sourced published material directly pertaining to the topic which is: 'constitutional militia movement'. Indeed, there is very little reliable secondary sourcing on this topic. All I see is the four newspaper articles. This article will need to be short if it is to comply with WP:RS. SaltyBoatr 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is not just the recently active phase of it, nor is it just about usage of the complete phrase. It is about the concept, under whatever name, in all countries and throughout all time. The focus might be on the United States, since there has been more activity in this country than in most others, especially recently, but the subject is much larger than that. Keep in mind the three defining attributes, any of which are sufficient to make the term applicable, if not in conflict with the other two, and especially if likely to involve them.

Support for:

Establishment or restoration of a militia system for their nation or part thereof;
Enforcement of a strict construction of the constitution of the nation or political subdivision thereof, according to their understanding of it;
If nonviolent means are not available, defense of the rights of themselves and others, without discrimination, against abuses by officials who exceed their authority.

I will be supporting all this with cites. In the meantime, please don't vandalize with gross anachronisms like inserting nonsense like the 1994 effort in Texas being about distinguishing itself from the "Freemen", which didn't exist then, or other things that happened later. Read the plan for this article and stop deleting entire sections, the purpose of which will become clear.

And it is not a violation to cite to provisions of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Code as "primary sources". That is nonsense. Such cites are well-established in Wikpedia. Jon Roland 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We can cite the Constitution but, according to WP:PSTS, we must not derive any assertions from it. For interpretation we must use reliable secondary sources. The material here appears intended to go far beyohd the simple language of the document. However the Constitution does not appear to be relevant to this movement, unless the members have actually been called up by Congress. Since we haven't determined who the members of this movement are, and since I don't recall any acts of Congress calling up the militia, I'm not sure how any of that is relevant. Rather than bringing in the Constitution, I suggest we focus on the basics: what people and groups belong to this movement, what literature do they write, what deeds have they done, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution is not relevant to a movement to enforce it as they understand it? You can't understand what is essentially a kind of dissident movement without understanding their complaints, and their complaints are that the Constitution is being violated. That is what motivates them. Congress doesn't issue call-ups of militia by legislation, although I may pass acts to fund a call-up. The president issues a call-up, or a governor, sheriff, or constable does, or any private citizen aware of a threat. If someone picks your neighbor's pocket and he asks you to help chase down the culprit, that is a militia call-up, the old term for which was hue and cry. We are all members of the militia (except for a few officials), unless we are enemies of society. Don't have to do anything to join. Merely obeying the law is militia.

The movement's interpretation of the Constitution is very important, so we should talk about that interpretation rather than about the Constitution itself. By analogy, in our article on Protestantism we don't quote the Bible to show why that is the correct religion. Instead we discuss the Protestant view of the Bible, referring to prominent Protestant writers and leaders. This article isn't about the Constitution, it's about a movement that honros the Constitution. What we need is a paragraph that says something like, "CMM write including J and K point to the Militia clause as the most important part of the Constitution, and agree that is it ..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. I need to add that the article is about the "movement", and the "movement's interpretation" should be written into the article based only upon writings published in reliable secondary sources. Unfortunately, Jon Roland is a person very close to this movement, and it is becoming plainly evident that he has an inability to distinguish his personal knowledge, and personal research into the hypothesis of the movement from the published reliable secondary source documentation (if any) of the movement. In short, it is fair to say that this article reads like a manifesto. Instead, it should read like an encyclopedia article. Cooperation and collaboration will be required to reach that end. SaltyBoatr 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article suffers at present from the 'coat rack' phenomena. The manifesto hides the subject, likes coats hide a coat rack. The article should be about the 'constitutional militia movement'. Instead, presently, it is a manifesto of the rational for militia movement politics. In short, the lede should describe the movement. Founded when, founded by who, famous for what, etc.: objective factual things about the movement. Instead, the lede just jumps into the hypothesis for the movement. This needs to be fixed. See diff for an example of an objective neutral sourced lede paragraph. SaltyBoatr 16:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First, the correct spelling is "lead", not "lede". Second, the above makes a false presumption that a movement does not exist before someone "founds" and "names" it. That is itself a violation of WP:NOR. Many movements are extensions into one period of history of legacy movements that may go back centuries or millenia. That is what we have here. By analogy, the libertarian movement did not begin in the 20th century, but has roots that go all the back to ancient times, under other names, with periods of inactivity alternating with periods of revival. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 01:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your legacy movement hypothesis does not appear supported by reliable secondary sources. Can you cite any? SaltyBoatr 05:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Members of the Constitutional militia movement

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)

I've started a list, but it'll need more work. If we can get the list into shape then we'll have a better handle on this movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Few movements have formal dues-paying memberships. Who is a "liberal" (or "progressive" as they seem to prefer to call themselves these days), or a "Republican", or a "Christian", or a "Reds fan", or a "civic leader"? One has to look at ways people aggregate on goals, methods, views, etc. The specifications listed above characterize the people who tend to self-identify as supportive of the concept of "constitutional militia", and do enough to express that support to be counted as part of a "movement". Doesn't have to be much. Merely speaking well of the concept, even by another name, is enough to count as being part of the movement. Look at the current "Ron Paul Revolution". Clearly a movement. No formal membership. Includes anyone disposed to vote for him, but those who campaign for him are deeper into the movement. How do you tell who is a "member"? Ask them who they support. Will you find any varifiable sources studying the subject, or is anything that comes out for the next few decades OR? The test I used to use was to issue a call-up and see who and how many showed up, but with the exception of a few events like the big muster at the Alamo, in San Antonio, Texas, on Nov. 12, 1994, which was covered in newspapers, you won't find much on it. Saltyboatr is complaining about verifying a couple of newspaper articles, but verifiability doesn't have to be easy. A lot of reliable sources are difficult to verify because they aren't online or are buried in an archive somewhere. But that doesn't mean they can't be verified with sufficient effort. It is not, however, grounds to delete because some editor has made only a half-assed effort that could not be expected to verify it. A certain amount of effort can be reasonably expected. Jon Roland 05:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Your example of the Maquis hardly proves your point. today, we have articles on the movement and subgroups. Would we have had an article in 1944? Of course not. So long as a group is secret or obscure there won't be enough sources available to write about them. With all due respect, your personal knowledge isn't a proper source for this article. The maquis have been well studied and there is now plenty of scholarship on the topic. When that happens for this movement we can have a nice article about it.

Here are some of the assertions in the article that refer to specfics that need to be either pinned down or removed:

The movement became active in the United States the mid 1990s
- What activity did the movement engage in. How did it become "active"?
The supporters have not been affiliated with any government organization, although most of them have been military and law enforcement veterans.
- How can we describe the unknown members in this way? Are there surveys to establish their careers?
Many activists in the recent constitutional militia movement of the United States have revived the earlier usage of the term as an activity, and secondarily those who engage in it, because that usage brings a logic to the subject that clarifies many issues.
- If we don't know who these people and groups are, how do we know what their usage of a word is?
U.S. activists cite law and history, especially from the Founding Era, to explain and justify their aims and agendas:
- Which activists, and in which documents?
Others make a broader call for constitutional compliance in general, especially in the courts, which many see as engaged in judicial tyranny.[27][28] [29]
- I see this is cited. Are these "others" part of the constitutional militia movement? If so then we know a least a few members.
Mack Tanner, "Extreme Prejudice," Reason Magazine, July 1995, 43-50, wrote about the movement:
- Surely he mentions some names.
... the FBI differentiated among many kinds of armed groups and distinguished "constitutional militia", which would correspond to their "Category I" or perhaps "category II",...
- It sounds like the FBI has identified some members of the movement, and that list may have been reported on.

If there are not any known members of the movement, and if the names mentioned in sources are incorrect, then there's no way we can ascribe beliefs to the movement. Obviously there are members whom we can identify and to whom we can attribute these activities and usages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

References

I restored the works of James Whisker

The Militia, by James B. Whisker, Edwin Mellen Pr. (1992) ISBN 0773495533. Online copy
The American Colonial Militia, 1606-1785], by James B. Whisker, Edwin Mellen Pr. (1997) ISBN 0773485201. Online copy

which had been deleted by Saltyboatr as "vanity press". First, Mellen Press is not proven to be a "vanity press", and it wouldn't matter if it is, as long as the same author has been published by other publishers considered reliable, and had a position, in this case, Professor of History, at a state university. See [WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)]]:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In this case, it is not even "self-published". Mellen is popular because they do low-volume demand printing of works that most publishers won't take because the subject matter is not of sufficient interest to enable them to sell many copies. The expertise of the author or his writings is not diminished because the material is too long for a journal and not sufficiently demanded to justify the cost of printing a book. Jon Roland 09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have Mellen and Whisker been published in reliable 3rd-party sources in the relevant field? That's the key element. Presumably a full professor would have been, but it might not be the same field. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you ask, look at the his other works I've listed. Mellen is the publisher, not an author. Whisker is perhaps the leading expert in this field, but from the period before 1994. Jon Roland 10:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. "Susquehanna University Press" is hardly prestigous, but I suppose that it's sufficient, according to current Wikpedia standards, to give Whisker standing as an authority. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop adding the reference section to the talk page. We add new comments to the end and having end-notes is incompatible with the usual formatting here. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

I would like to have it somewhere because it is useful to be able to see what footnotes are part of extracts being discussed, but it doesn't have to be at the end. I will try putting it higher and see if that works. Jon Roland 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I (may) disagree with Will Beback. Per WP:RS, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". There can be no doubt that this article falls into a class of exceptional claims, therefore in general I am looking to apply the 'most reliable' sourcing standard of WP:RS. The most reliable sourcing standard 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." SaltyBoatr 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, but they aren't being used as sources for anything. They're just "further reading". I think we should eventually cut down that list, but for the time being we can ignore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Edwin Mellen Press does not have a reputation[4] for fact checking, which is the key element to evaluate publishing houses per the WP:RS guidelines. In short, it appears that anybody can get a book published at that publishing house, with no editorial oversight. Not good enough for WP:RS. SaltyBoatr 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is in good company. Consider this excerpt from Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly, By Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2006:

Indeed, many members of the publishing industry have rallied around Ms. [Nan] Talese and Random House, saying that they would have published "A Million Little Pieces" as well and could have been duped just as easily. Unlike journalists, publishers have never seen it as their purview to verify that the information in nonfiction books is true. Editors and publishers say the profit-margins in publishing don't allow for hiring fact-checkers. Instead, they rely on authors to be honest, and on their legal staffs to avoid libels suits. "An author brings a manuscript saying it represents the truth, and that relationship is one of trust," says Ms. Talese.

This supports what I have said previously. Few publishers do any fact-checking any more. So that is not a valid way to distinguish Mellen from other book publishers. Jon Roland 06:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually not. That is why I am looking to use 'most reliable' sources as defined in WP:RS, quote: "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." SaltyBoatr 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration please

OK, lets join together and write this article. The way it works at Wikipedia is WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. I intend to be very careful to adhere to all three of these policies.

Let us do this sequentially, in an ordered manor.

The topic at hand is the 'constitutional militia movement'.

We must agree the sourcing will be reliable secondary sourcing, per WP:V.

I am committed to advocate for neutrality too, I hope we all share that commitment.

The only sourcing of this topic I have seen so far is [[5]], four newspaper articles. No books have yet been identified.

So, as a start, lets see what sourcing is available. Anyone see any more sourcing about this topic?

And, the article as it presently exists has largely been written by Jon Roland, who is an expert on this topic, being an active member of the Texas Constitutional Militia. Unfortunately, WP:NOR prohibits Jon Roland from bringing his personal research about the constitutional militia hypothesis to this article unless it has been published elsewhere in a reliable secondary source. Also, there is the policy that extreme claims require extreme sourcing, and this contentious topic certainly qualifies for that policy.

In short, this article must be on topic, see Wikipedia:Relevance of content for thoughts about this concept, and this article must be verifiable and not a repository of original research.

Let's start with the first task, I ask again: What reliable secondary sourcing is available? I see the four newspaper articles. What else? SaltyBoatr 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, lets agree to WP:Civility. I take offense when I am accused[6] of vandalism. SaltyBoatr 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then how about agreeing not to make edits like the one you made 00:30, 9 November 2007 below with obvious gross errors:

The term constitutional militia movement originated in 1994 in Texas as part of an effort to separate association from the Freeman militia in Montana to restore legitimacy in the wake of tenuous media association of militia with the Oklahoma City bombing.^[4]

Two obvious anachronisms. First, the Montana Freemen did not become known to most of us until they came to public attention in 1996, two years later. Perhaps they existed in some state, but we in Texas hadn't heard of them. And the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred April 19, 1995, a year later. If the Washington Times article said that, the writer and the editor for that writer should have been severely criticized. Jon Roland 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'constitutional' branch of the militia movement is part of the Militia movement (United States) which became active in the United States the mid 1990s.^[5] The supporters have not been affiliated with any government organization, although most of them have been military and law enforcement veterans.^{[citation needed]}

I don't recall Karl describing it as a "branch", but if he did it was a careless usage. The CMM had roots that go directly to previous constitutional compliance efforts and for the most part knew little about many of the other "patriot" activities, and were not, for the most part inspired by them. Most new activists came out of the gun rights movement, and many were veterans, but most hadn't had much more involvement previously than voting and serving in the military. Jon Roland 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit of 00:30, 9 November 2007 was based on a good faith reading of reliable secondary sources. You assert 'obvious gross errors', but it appears these errors are obvious only to you based on your personal knowledge or personal research. That is why we must compile a list of the available reliable secondary sources now. Then we can both read the available source(s) together and collaborate together to write the article. This should be easy, because indications are that there are very few reliable secondary sources on this topic. This collaboration process breaks down when an editor draws upon personal knowledge or personal research when writing. I cannot collaborate with what I cannot verify. SaltyBoatr 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the years 1995 and 1996 occurred after the year 1994. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If Karl made errors, and if we regard his book as a reliable source, then the article may just have to be erroneous. Unless we have other reliable sources pointing to those errors we can't decide they are errors on our own. All we can do is verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If an editor from his own knowledge knows some detail is erroneous (such as a date, typo, etc.) the reasonable solution is to just omit that detail, insert a comment doubting it, or summarize in a way that omits the error. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If an editor claims that a reliable source is erroneous then he should present a case showing how his knowledge trumps that of the reliable source. Otherwise it would be possible for any editor to simply assert that there's an error and remove sourced material. Personal knowledge is only valued when supported by sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article

Before we can get into sourcing we need to agree on what is and is not relevant to the topic. From Wikipedia:Relevance of content we have the key sentence:

Wikipedia articles should be written in summary style, providing an overview of their subject. This overview may touch upon several related topics or subtopics, but any details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate.

What this is saying is that we should not let a subtopic overshadow the main topic. For example, if there is too much on the movement in one state, that content should be spun off into its own article. The focus on the United States in this article is okay as long as there isn't much to discuss in other countries. If one or more other countries developed similar movements, then it would make sense to spin out the content for the United States into a CMM(United States) article, and the content for those other countries into an article for each, with the main article remaining to summarize what they have in common. But this is not the case for the moment, as there is not enough on other countries.

But the first thing we need to to is agree on the article being about a concept and not a label. Many different labels are used both by insiders and outsiders to refer to a movement, and it may take examining the descriptive discussions to discern what are the semantics involved. Simple string searches and comparisons are not valid tests. I have identified three defining attributes:

Support for:

Establishment or restoration of a militia system for their nation or part thereof;
Enforcement of a strict construction of the constitution of the nation or political subdivision thereof, according to their understanding of it;
If nonviolent means are not available, defense of the rights of themselves and others, without discrimination, against abuses by officials who exceed their authority.

For purposes of identification of elements of the CMM, reference to any of these, by some labeling or description, is sufficient, as long as it appears that they may also satisfy the other two. It is to be expected that many discussants will focus on just one or two, and not label them in a consistent way. "Support" need not be strong or highly active. The key test is how likely a person would be to at least speak out in defense of any of those points if challenged to do so. A member need not, for example, take up arms, because some may not be fit for that, but are able to play a supporting role.

These criteria serve to identify those elements that tend to self-associate and collaborate. They distinguish CMM from, for example, survivalists, who are only concerned about protecting themselves, their families, and perhaps a few friends. Or from racists, who might try to protect one subset of humanity, but not others. Or from "loose cannons" who are prone to to foolish and violent things that would violate the law rather than help enforce it.

However, this formulation does allow for elements violating statutes they consider unconstitutional, such as anti-gun statutes, which, if unconstitutional, are not laws. One doesn't have to agree with their originalist interpretation of the Constitution to recognize that they hold that position and that it provides a bond that unites them.

I will go back up to the "Plan of this article" to insert a list of what I consider within the proper scope of this article. I should have inserted it at the outset, and it will serve as a guide to what I am trying to do in deciding what to include in this article rather than in other articles.

So by this we can see that Tanner was writing about the CMM even if he didn't use the word "constitutional". Jon Roland 16:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your efforts to collaborate. Sorry, I strongly disagree with your three 'identification elements' which plainly spring from your personal (unpublished) knowledge of the topic. Instead, we should look to reliable secondary sources for the identification elements of the topic. The best, and nearly the only, source about this topic I see is the 1995 article in The Washington Times[7]. SaltyBoatr 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor may make use of his personal knowledge in exercising the editorial judgement on what to include and what to leave out. In listing the defining attributes it is merely making the selection criteria explicit, rather than hiding it by just using it without making it explicit. Every editor has to to that to some degree. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In summarizing a subject editors must necessarily develop some identifying attributes of the subject to decide what to include and what to leave out. It is not OR to do that, up to a point. Once again I ask you to look at the treatment of the Constitution article, which was confronted with the problem of what is and what is not a "constitution". Believe it or not, you will not find (or at least I haven't, and it is unlikely I wouldn't find) a scholarly treatise that both defines what a "constitution" is and is not, and also lists those things it considers to be "constitutions" and those it considers not to be. You can find plenty of papers or books that might argue for a particular thing being a "constitution". You will also find some that discuss the concept as an abstraction without applying it to specifics, such as Principles of Constitutional Design, Donald S. Lutz (2006) ISBN 0521861683. But the editors had to establish some standard of identification, and that involves looking for attributes that constitutions have and non-constitutions don't. In some sense the entire article is about trying to find such standards. What I have tried to do is summarize the attributes of those who self-identify and distinguish themselves from others who lack those attributes. Perhaps Churchill's upcoming book will do that, "for the record". (I invited him to read these articles, and he has, and to also read the discussions. We will see if some ideas being debated here find their way into his book.) Jon Roland 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to resort to a straw man argument about another article. It is fair for me to demand this article to be drawn upon reliable secondary sourcing. Let us begin. Thanks. SaltyBoatr 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sources that define our CMM, at least one of the Churchill papers describes CMM.[8]

What follows is an attempt to distinguish between the millennial vision of the constitutional wing of the militia movement and a more apocalyptic vision held by a smaller wing of the movement devoted to resisting the onset of the New World Order.
In the Turner Diaries, whiteness is the supreme value to which all else is sacrificed. According to Martha Lee, for Earth First, wilderness uncontaminated by man was the cardinal virtue. For the constitutional wing of the militia movement, the doctrine of natural rights occupies a similar place of absolute good. The unalienable liberties of the individual are held as sacred, more sacred even than human life. The movement holds equally sacred Jefferson’s precept that “all men are created equal,” and they apply this ideal without regard to race, religion, or gender. They view these liberties as threatened by the corruption of the original constitution by power hungry politicians and special interests. They are uncompromising in their stance that the federal government must be confined to the original eighteen powers granted under the constitution and that the individual liberties granted in the Bill of Rights must be respected. Indeed, they see in gun control legislation an attempt to disarm the populace as a means of imposing despotic rule
To what extent then has the ideology of the racist right penetrated the militia movement? For the constitutionalist wing of the movement, formed in response to Ruby Ridge and Waco and composed largely of veterans, libertarians, and second amendment advocates, the answer is hardly at all. The roots of this movement lie in government provocation and in a rather problematic set of ideals that is as old as the nation. For the resistance wing, influenced in part by leaderless resistance theory and constitutional theories originating in the Posse Comitatus movement, the answer is that white supremacist ideology is an important ingredient in an unstable mixture of libertarianism, anarchism, and pre-millennial apocalypticism.

Regarding the scope of the article: the topic is a movement, not a concept or a label. JB has listed criteria that he believes defines the movement, but unfortunately we can't use that criteria unless there's a source for it. We can summarize Churchill's description, and if there are other's like it we can use those. If the real-life Jon Roland were to publish an article describing the CMM then we could probably use that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This 1999 Churchill paper, being published by a university, seems to meet the 'most reliable standards' of WP:RS, plus it refers to a constitutional wing of the militia movement, so I accept this as a reliable and pertinent source for this article.. SaltyBoatr 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

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)

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)

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[9], and the scholarly[10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Discriminating CMM from others

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)

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)

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)

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)

No. We should stick to 'most reliable' secondary sources. SaltyBoatr 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason Foundation

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)

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)

"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)

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)

I agree that we shouldn't include what we can't source properly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Newspaper cites

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)

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)

Membership

The constitutional militia movement includes a number of groups and individuals.

Groups:

Georgia Constitutional Militia
51st Militia
Posse Comitatus
Kentucky State Militia
Ohio Unorganized Militia Assistance and Advisory Committee
Southeastern Ohio Defense Force
Michigan Militia
Southern Indiana Regional Militia
Southern California High Desert Militia
Texas Constitutional Militia
Alabama Constitutional Militia
South Carolina Civilian Militia

Individuals:

Ed Brown ^[6]
William Potter Gale ^[7]
Ian Roebuck ^[8]
Jon Roland ^[9]

______

Moved from main article. This requires discussion, and I don't think a really complete list belongs in the main article -- it would be too long. Would you try to list all the leading groups and figures in the "peace movement" (any of the many)? Useful exercise, with some discussion, but leaving it on this Talk page is likely to be the best solution. (Can insert a link in the main article to the Talk page section later as one solution.) Jon Roland 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Who belongs to the movement? If there are no members then there's no movement. This is sourced material. We don't need to list every individual and group, but who are the top members? If you can't name then then we're chasing shadows here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there are activists, because there is a constitutional militia movement, which is being written about by a few scholars and journalists, and more adversaries. I have tried to maintain a list of links to sites at http://www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm and http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm , and some of the sites have their own links, such as http://texas-militia.us/main/component/option,com_weblinks/catid,16/Itemid,23/ , http://www.awrm.org/MilitiaContacts.htm , and a few more. Haven't checked them all out. If I find signs that they are not militia, that is, bigoted, violence-prone, or otherwise noncompliant, I spread the word and most of the groups, who probably hadn't vetted them, drop the links, so I suppose you could say I play a leading role in keeping out the bad elements. Jon Roland 07:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scholars and journalists? From which universities? From which newspapers? SaltyBoatr 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your list above is very out of date, and Gale was never accepted among CMM people once his bigotry became apparent. Roebuck is marginal. Brown hasn't been active for years. And, despite the characterization of me, I am not "right-wing". I'm a libertarian constitutionalist, you know, one of those social liberal/fiscal conservative guys. You will find, however, that much of the literature used for discussion and training comes from our website, and many of the sites link to ours. Jon Roland 07:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where can we find a better list? Being out of date is irrelevant, since we're dealing in historic issues. A militia leader of ten years ago is as important as one from 200 years ago, even though we should indicate they are no longer active, or whatever the case may be. The issue is sources. We seem to be using Jonathan Karl's, "The Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of America's New Militias" as a standard source for this topic. What groups and individuals does he mention? What sources are there for newer groups and individuals? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Best recent writings are those of Robert Churchill, which I cite, and I expect his book to be good. He actually flies out to meet and talk to people. When he came to Austin to interview me, I met him at a nice Mexican restaurant, then we went over to the State Capitol building where I had reserved a meeting room. Made a suitable setting. As for Karl's book, Saltyboatr says he got a copy from amazon.com. Jon Roland 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a start. Churchill's "Arming for the Last Battle: Secular and Religious Millennial Impulses within the Militia Movement" lists these writings and indivuals as being part of the CMM:

“Sundown at Coffin Rock,” by Raymond K. Paden
"Turner Diaries,"
"Cracking the Liberty Bell, a novel by former Ohio militiaman J. J. Johnson.
J. J. Johnson and Tom Plummer in Ohio, Lynn Van Huizen and Tom Wayne in Michigan, Jim and Michael McKinzey in Missouri, Oral Deckard and John Hakes in Indiana, Jon Roland and Bill Utterback in Texas, and Mike Vanderboegh in Alabama.

We don't need to include every name in the article. Let's check more sources and see if there are parts of the movement that they agree on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Turner Diaries is not really popular among CMM people. The few who've read it didn't like it that much. Too angry. CMM people are trying to rebuild a constitutional republic, not tear things down.

The others are good names. There is also a funny story about one of them. There was a public meeting led by activist Bruce Chesley, and someone in the audience, with the approval of others, launched into a tirade complaining that militia were racists and anti-semites. Bruce replied, "Well, I'm Jewish, and the other guy here with me is J.J. Johnson." At which point J.J. stood up and grinned. J.J. is black.

I will try to come up with some more writings. I tend to favor prose and neglect fiction (except science fiction), so I don't have those in my collection. Jon Roland 10:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The groups, individuals, and literature that Mack Tanner mention include:[11]

Bob Clarke, a member of the Michigan Militia
Idaho leader Samuel Sherwood
United States Militia Association
James Johnson, the elected communications officer for the
Unorganized Militia of Ohio
Sheryl Tuttle, a movement supporter..., Tuttle and her husband Bill are typical militia supporters.
John Wallner, an ex-Marine tank crewman who heads the San Diego Militia
Mark Koernke, the shortwave broadcaster
John and David Trochmarm, who founded the Militia of Montana,
The Resister, a publication of the self-proclaimed Special Forces Underground that is read by some militia members.

Curiously, there's only one name in common with the list above, James Johnson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnson has always gone by "J.J.", and if you are going to search for references to him, that is what you will need to search on. I don't know what either of the "Js" stands for, but I submit it is reasonable editing to use "J.J.". These are all CMM people, which confirms that Tanner was writing about the CMM even if he omitted the word "constitutional". See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is the publisher for the Tanner article? More specifically: Did the publisher engage in fact checking? That article may not meet the standards of WP:RS. Also, regarding the Karl book, it is marginally useful (at best) for this article. It does not address the topic 'constitutional militia movement'. Also, it is a pulp mass market paperback, without footnotes or referencing, so it barely qualifies for 'reliable source' standards, and wildly fails 'most reliable source' standards. I bought my copy on the used book market. There are dozens of copies around selling for $1. SaltyBoatr 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tanner article is from Reason, ad his being discussed below. There's a question below from JB as to whether the Karl book is accurate. We may decide to discount it. However being mass-market doesn't automaticaly mean it's unreliable. Does it list groups, individuals, and literaure? Does JB consider it to be about the CMM? I think if we can use some agreed-upon sources to give us a picture of the composition of this movement it'll be easier to find other sources talking about them. For example, there are many sources that cover Samuel Sherwood, so if sources agree he's part of the CMM then we can add sources that mention Sherwood than don't necessarily mention CMM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

By 'JB', do you mean 'JR'/ Jon Roland? Jon Roland was one of the interviewees for that book. Anyway, I agree that the Jonathan Karl book is not automatically unreliable, just that it fails the 'most reliable' standard by a mile. The book does name some names, but it doesn't distinguish a 'constitution' wing of the militia movement that I can see. It reads a bit like fictionalized or glorified history, a polemic, so it is hard to know what to take serious and what to take as 'fact'. The book entirely lacks referencing and footnotes which hinders efforts to confirm its WP:V value. SaltyBoatr 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant JR/Jon Roland. Since he says there are errors, and since you say it seems biased, I think we should probably exclude it as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is accurate with few exceptions, which I have noted, and more reliable than most newspaper articles and most of the other books by antagonists. See WP:NEL. Jon Roland 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the "Militia, police at stalemate" Chicago Sun-Times, Sep 3, 2000 by PAUL DUGGAN [12] that JR has proposed:

John Joe Gray
Texas Constitutional Militia
Embassy of Heaven Church

No overlap with the other two sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Per "Militant militia fringe is setting off alarms Most extreme splinters going underground" Mark Potok. USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: Apr 17, 1996. pg. 04.A

Militia Of Montana
Michigan Militia
Idaho Sovereignty Association
Texas Constitutional Militia
Unorganized Militia Of The United States
Police Against The New World Order
United Sovereigns Of America
North American Freedom Council
Lone Star Militia
Robert Spence
Bob Fletcher
John Trochmann, his brother David and nephew Randy
Norm Olson
Gary DeMott
Jon Roland
Louis Beam
Linda Thompson
Jack McLamb
Jerry Henson
Joe Holland
Cal Greenup

A couple of names from this source overlap with the other sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"MILITIAS TURN FIGHT AWAY FROM US, AT ITS ENEMIES" Ellen Barry, Globe staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Sep 22, 2001. pg. A.3

Republic of Texas
Daniel Miller
Constitution Society
Jon Roland
Mike Rapchack
Michigan Militia Corps Wolverines
Norman Olson
Fitzhugh MacCrae
Hillsborough Troop of Dragoons
Ed Brown
Constitution Defense Militia
Stephen P. Brown
Southern Region Texas Constitutional Militia

Note that this article includes several groups with "consitution" in their name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Militias down - but not out ; Membership decline seen since '96 peak may be reversing.;" [METRO Edition] Dick J. Reavis. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: Jun 17, 2001. pg. 1A

Stephen P. Brown
Earl Forrester
Gary Graham
Archie Lowe of Rice,
Rick McLaren of Fort Davis.
Jesse Enloe of Grand Prairie
Jon Roland
John Zimmerman
Al Adask
"The Anti-Shyster" magazine
Citizens for Legal Reform.

Groups in Texas

Texas Unified Field Forces Militia, Northeast Brigade (Amarillo)
John Birch Society (Austin)
Living Truth Ministries (Austin)
East Texas Militia (Bowie County)
Constitution Party (Brenham)
13th Texas Infantry Regiment (Bryan)
Constitution Party (Burleson)
Buffalo Creek Press (Cleburne)
Republic of Texas (Dallas)
Texas Constitutional Militia (Dallas)
Texas Guardians (Dallas/Fort Worth)
People's Court of Common Law, Gulf Coast Districts (El Campo)
Republic of Texas (Fort Worth)
Republic of Texas (Houston)
Republic of Texas Defense Forces, District 4 (Longview)
United States Militia (Mesquite)
American Opinion Bookstore (San Antonio)
Constitution Society (San Antonio)
Texas Unified Field Forces Militia, Southeast Brigade (Southeastern Texas)
Texas Unified Field Forces Militia, South Brigade (Southern Texas)
Republic of Texas (Victoria)
Church of God Evangelistic Association (Waxahachie)
Republic of Texas (White Oak)

Quite a bit of overlap with other sources and several groups with "consitution" in their name or a constitutional justification. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Brothers reportedly booted from Michigan Militia group Others in movement viewed the Nicholses with suspicion", Joe Williams and Peter Maller. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: Apr 22, 1995. pg. 7.A

James and Terry Lynn Nichols
Michigan Militia
Jon Roland,
Texas Militia Correspondence Committee
Militia of Wisconsin
Will Holzli
Family Farm Preservation:

There's a specific quotaiton from Holzliof about defending the Constitution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Call to arms: Militias feel duty-bound to stop tyranny" Dennis B. Roddy, Post-Gazette Staff Writer. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Apr 22, 1995. pg. A.

Keystone Militia
Terry Nichols
Michigan Militia Corps
Ray Southwell, chief of staff of the Michigan Militia Corps.
Jon Roland, who runs a pro-militia information clearinghouse
Mark Koernke of Dexter, Mich.
"Intelligence Report," broadcast nightly by WWCR,
Militia of Montana

This was right after the OKC bombing, in the midst of debate over the connections between Nichols and the militia movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"CITIZEN MILITIAS SAY THEY'RE UNDER GUN -- FEAR OF CRACKDOWN STRENGTHENS RESOLVE - AND RHETORIC;" [FINAL Edition] ANN LOLORDO. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 19, 1995. pg. A.12

Texas Constitutional Militia
Across the country, hundreds of citizens have gathered under the banner of the "unorganized" militia, so called to distinguish them from states' national guards or other government-sanctioned units. They claim as their forefathers the Revolutionary War Minutemen and trace their origins to the Constitution. Although independent of each other, the militias espouse the same creed: a literal interpretation of the Constitution to govern. And they see themselves as the last line of defense against tyranny.
Curtis Dodson
Delaware Minutemen
Johnny Johnson, an officer of the North Gulf Region of the Texas Constitutional Militia.
James "J.J." Johnson
Ohio Unorganized Militia

"Militias willing to take up arms to "save' constitution;" ALLAN TURNER. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Nov 27, 1994. pg. 1

Kyle Norman
Victoria County Constitutional Militia
Bill Utterback
Texas Constitutional Militia

"Texas militia rejects rumors of links with bomb suspects" Ralph Winingham. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: Apr 22, 1995. pg. 1

Texas Constitutional Militia
Michigan Militia
Alex DePena, a member of the committee of safety for the Southern Region of the Texas Constitutional Militia,
Russell Smith of Dallas,

"Oklahoma City tragedy/Extremists are pro-gun and anti-fed" EVAN MOORE. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Apr 25, 1995. pg. 7

[Norman] Olson said the Texas Constitutional Militia was modeled after the Michigan group and, indeed, its legal counselor, Houston attorney Carl Haggard, echoes sentiments almost identical to Olson's. Haggard, who serves as captain of the Fort Bend Militia, also said there is no single roll for all the units in Texas, but members would number in the hundreds.

"FAR RIGHT RALLIES AROUND WACO SITE IS SACRED TO EXTREMISTS;" MITCHELL LANDSBERG AP National writer. Times - Picayune (pre-1997 Fulltext). New Orleans, La.: Apr 30, 1995. pg. A.14

Other, officially non-racist, militia groups were formed in the months following Waco. Among them was the Texas Constitutional Militia, which, like its counterparts elsewhere, is dedicated to upholding state's rights - at gunpoint, if need be. "It was a galvanizing situation," spokesman Ralph Turner said.

"The Militia Movement Vanguard Friends, Foes Agree Montana Group Links National Network" Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: May 4, 1995. pg. 1

Militia of Montana
"We don't always agree with them," said Ralph Turner, spokesman for the Richardson-based northern region of the Texas Constitutional Militia, "but we look to them for training and information. Most militias cast their eyes to Montana." ...Militia organizers say that's nonsense. They see themselves as patriots concerned with preserving the Constitution and saving the nation from control by a socialistic one-world government.
John and Dave Trochmann and Dave's son Randy -
spokesman Bob Fletcher

"Bombing's Repercussions Rattle Militias", Serge F. Kovaleski, Susan Schmidt. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1995. pg. A.01

Oregon Militia
Michael J. Cross
Florida Patriots Network
John Adams,
Texas Constitutional Militia
Robert Bass
Militia of Montana
John Trochmann
Mark Koernke, 37, a member of a Michigan paramilitary splinter group who is considered the voice of the militia movement,
Michigan Militia Corps
Norm Olson
Ray Southwell
Ken Adams

"MALIGNED MILITIAS MAINTAINING LOW PROFILE ANGER BUBBLING BELOW SURFACE" DAVID SNYDER Staff writter. Times - Picayune (pre-1997 Fulltext). New Orleans, La.: Jun 25, 1995. pg. A.1

Texas Constitutional Militia
Carl Haggard
In a long statement of grievances, the Texas Constitutional Militia concluded that "Federal officials have made war on the people" and have "established a criminal, secret government."
Norman Olson
They are computer software dealers, army surplus salesmen, contractors, retired armed forces personnel, gun store owners, doctors, and the unemployed.
Tom Parker
John Whittington, a Bossier City builder and Red River Militia leader,
Drew Rayner, who heads up the Mississippi militia.
John Vernon, a militia member from Birmingham, Ala
Johnny Johnson
James King

"Heads of militia groups consider strategy for national organization" Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Oct 16, 1995. pg. 18

John Parsons, a South Dakota militia commander
Raymond Smith, a colonel in the Fairfield militia unit and a member of a national council
National Commanders Council
Tri-State Militia
Jim McKinzey, commander of the 51st Militia in Kansas City.
Texas Constitutional Militia.

"Terrorism at home alarms most in poll; Proximity of Oklahoma bombing brings fear of attacks to Texans' doorsteps" Bob Banta. Austin American Statesman. Austin, Tex.: Aug 21, 1995. pg. B.1

Paul Velte, a member of Texas Constitutional Militias, an umbrella organization for militia groups in the state.

"Federal judges warned of abduction plot/ Texas militia groups cited in memo" DEBORAH TEDFORD. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Feb 21, 1996. pg. 17

Rocky Mountain Resistance

Six militia groups are known to operate in the Central Texas area:

Texas Light Infantry, Austin;
Texas Constitutional Militia, Bexar County Unit;
Freedom Fighters, Fredericksburg;
United States Civil Militia Organization, Kerrville;
Texas Constitutional Militia, Southern region, San Antonio;
Texas Militia Correspondence Committee, San Antonio.

"Militia Interest Mushrooms, Leader Says", Wesley Brown. Tulsa World. Tulsa, Okla.: Apr 16, 1996. pg. A.1

Ross Hullett, head of the Oklahoma Citizens Militia
Steve Brown, head of the Texas Constitutional Militia

"Rousing the Zealots" Jeffrey Ressner. Time. New York: Jun 5, 2006. Vol. 167, Iss. 23; pg. 36

Mike Vanderboegh, 53, of Pinson, Ala. Once the "commander" of what he called the First Alabama Cavalry Regiment Constitutional Militia,

"Some Border Watchers Are Involved in Militias" RENE ROMO Journal Southern Bureau. Albuquerque Journal. Albuquerque, N.M.: Oct 2, 2005. pg. B.5

Hobbs resident Steve Studley, who is operations manager for the New Mexico Minuteman effort and master sergeant for the selfstyled 1st Brigade New Mexico Militia.
Eunice resident Bob Wright, head of the New Mexico chapter of the Tombstone, Ariz.-based Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, is also commander of the 1st Brigade New Mexico Militia.
Mike Vanderboegh, spokesman for the Alabama Minuteman Support Team, who trained volunteers there.
n late 1996, Vanderboegh, identifying himself as a colonel of the 1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment, Constitutional Militia, was one of dozens of signers from 19 states of "The Alabama Declaration," a document that condemned terrorism and sought to distance the signers from racist and neo-Nazi militia groups. Wright also signed the document.

OK, that's enough for now. There's considerable overlap betweenthese sources and I think we can begin to do research based on these names. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where you heading with this information Will. It does appear clear that these militia movements probably are best described in the Militia movement (United States) article. The specific 'constitutional wing' is but a subset. I wish I could read this book: WEEBER, S. C., & RODEHEAVER, D. G. (2004). Militias in the new millennium a test of Smelser's theory of collective behavior. Lanham, Md, University Press of America. in its entirety. I am curious why the phrase 'constitutional militia movement' only appears once, and only in the appendix as 'messages coded 2'. What does that mean? In any case, the table 14 of organizational models on page 61 [13] is especially topical, but probably also belongs in the 'parent' article. SaltyBoatr 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I did this research is to work towards developing an answer to the question, "Who is the CCM?" I'd asked that question earlier on this page and even the local expert couldn't think of any members. The trick is that almost none of these sources use the term "CMM". However once we decide, based on sources, that the CMM is composed of X, Y, and Z, we can then summarize the sources on those components, even if the individual articles don't mention CMM. For example, the Texas Constitutional Militia (and/or its leaders) is described as a part of the "Constitutional militia movement". Therefore material the mentions the TCM but not the CMM is still talking about the CMM because it's a part of the "Constitutional militia movement". Furthermore, this article seems a bit nebulous, and the more we can pin it down the better. I think we should have a list of significant militias, and maybe quote some of the leaders. That would be far more on point then quoting people who died long before the modern CMM. Anyway, this working list may be getting so long it'll need to be moved to a subpage. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-members

"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)

Moving unsourced info, and OR out of the article

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)

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)

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)

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)

Moved OR sections of article to here: Talk:Constitutional militia movement/draft for fixing. SaltyBoatr 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Etymology section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cross-linking as evidence of membership

For the convenience of editors trying to determine who self-identifies as CMM (or at least CM), I have updated the links at http://www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm . If you visit the verified sites, which seem to be fairly complete, as I have been gathering them from other militia sites, you will see that they contain certain things in common, such as the other sites they link to (including constitution.org), and certain recurrent themes that fit my definition attributes. Jon Roland 04:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But how do we know that these groups are part of the CMM? I see some of the groups listed aren't even militia, and very few of them use "constitutional" in their name. We can't use your webpage as a source, so I'm afraid it's only useful as background. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You can recognize them as CMM by the criteria I set forth. If they declare in their sites that their mission is to help enforce compliance with the Constitution, that they consider themselves and their activities to be "militia" as prescribed in the Constitution, and welcome any responsible citizen to join them, and that they intend to defend the constitutonal rights of anyone without discrimination, then they are "constitutional". Don't expect elements of a "movement" to label themselves in a certain way. It is their descriptions that matter. You will find very few movements that do that, but we still recognize each of them as a movement and their supporters as components by whatever name they might use. See social movement and political movement. Recognition consists of discerning who they regard as supporters by their goals, agendas, and methods. Which websites link to other websites while indicating the sites linked to are allies is one of the best ways to determine this. If a few use the identifying words or phrases you are looking for, and they consider one another aliies in the same cause, then that should be sufficient. Jon Roland 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You might also consider using the Tilley paradigm discussed in the social movement article:

Campaigns: a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on target authorities;
Repertoire: employment of combinations from among the following forms of political action: creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions, public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering; and
WUNC displays: participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies.

Best evidence for that is to be found on websites and in online discussion forums. Don't get distracted in the latter by interlopers trying to hijack the discussions for their own agendas, though. Such forums are rarely successful in excluding those not considered supporters, so you will find adversaries and those trying to recruit for other causes, even conflicting ones. Jon Roland 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not interested in original research, like reading the online forums. I am looking for reliable secondary sources on the topic. If reliable secondary sources draw from the online forums, that would meet WP:V, but directly reading the forums does not. Interestingly, the Weeber book talks of this:

"Where is the militia movement headed? Right now, as it has relocated some of its most serious discussions to a Yahoo! discussion group, it appears to be regrouping and healing some of the bitter, divisive wounds that it suffered in the late 1990's. Within the more restricted environment of the Yahoo group, people who join the group to sow seeds of doubt or to be divisive influences are simply dismissed by the moderator. You can see a certain amount of convalescence going on and we can see that the movement is going back to fundamentals, reviewing the kinds of strains that caused the movement in the first place as well as reinforcing or reiterating the generalized beliefs. Constitutionalism breathes easier and is nurtured in this kind of environment; people advocating for Christian Identity appeared to get bounced, at the discretion of the moderator, a constitutionalist and Internet mentor of the original movement born in 1994."

Who is this moderator? SaltyBoatr 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like he is referring to David Hollingsworth, the moderator of the main militia-related usenet group, misc.activism,militia . For more on that newsgroup see its site. There are many yahoogroups and other email forums on which discussion occurs, but it appears only mine at cs_milit@topica.com is actively moderated (by me). Jon Roland 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V we find in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples the following statement about using websites:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

So reading and citing websites and documents on them is not necessarily OR nor are the sites and all their contents primary sources. Jon Roland 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in WP:NOR citation to primary sources is not forbidden. See this from it:

A primary source is a document or person very close to the situation being written about. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should (1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself or from another source. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Se we are discouraged from quoting extensively from one, but not from summarizing it, with the stipulations stated above. That certainly applies to websites, which are a kind of publication, albeit one that can be altered, so the citation should say something like "Retrieved <date>" Jon Roland 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If we had a reliable website that said "these groups are members of the CMM", then we'd be able to use that. But to create a criteria (especially without sources), and to decide, on our own, which groups or websites meet that criteria, would tend towards original research. Unfortunately, self-published websites are considered unreliable aside from their status as primary sources. I think the best we can do is, if we find a source that says that Group X is a member of the CMM, use quotations or summaries from the group's website to illustrate details about the movement. We do have at least one reliable source, the Churchill paper, that names several members of the movement. So we can take that list and see if there is anything informative in other articles or websites concerning those groups and individuals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Hidden category: Articles to be merged since November 2007