Talk:Militia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Explanation of reversion to previous version

1. It is important to make clear at the outset that the common usage of the term today is different from what it was in the past, especially when the opening is followed by a list of most of those different meanings, including the older ones, which is further discussed in the etymomogy section. Simply relying on one dictionary, especially one that does not adequately treat the legal and historical background, is not sufficient for maintaining a neutral POV, especially when the term is a legal term in the U.S. Constitution. Consider the effect on public discourse if recent meanings of constitutional terms like "jury", "due process", "law of nations", or "commerce" are substantially different from their meaning when used in the Constitution, and the article fails to make this change clear from the outset.

2. As is made clear later in the article, a militia is not an "army", and using that term in the opening sentence is simply an error.

3. One of the main functions of militia is law enforcement, and it is a mistake to omit it.

4. It is also important to explain from the outset how a militia is legally distinguished from an army, and the two criteria are fixed term of service and payment of a salary.

5. As can be seen from the etymology, the first and oldest meanings are defense activity *or* those engaged in it. The original meaning in Latin was activity. Use of the term to mean those engaged in the activity is a later usage, peculiar to English, which emerged after the transition from Latin to English as the principle language used in law courts.

6. The posse comitatus is a tradition. Common law doesn't have "provisions".

7. It is also important, especially in the Anglo-American legal context, to distinguish between militia and "select" militia, which were considered not to be true militia. Since there is not a separate article on the subject, it is appropriate to insert it into the main article, and this is the most appropriate place to put it.

8. It is similarly important to distinguish between those who are legally required to respond to an official call-up, and those who actually do engage in militia, either as volunteers, or in response to a threat for which no official call-up is issued. The term is used both ways and while in most cases the meaning is clear in context, it does cause some confusion.

9. It is better to use the heading "Notes" for endnotes and "References" for published books and papers that are not included in the endnotes. The article needed some standard references on the subject, and I added some, and will add more later. James b. Whisker, a professor of history and political science at the U. of West Virginia, is a leading scholar on the subject.

If anyone disputes any changes I make, I would invite him or her to email me at jon.roland@constitution.org for discussion before engaging in rounds of reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Roland (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


______

Saltyboatr has raised a question of "original research". I have answered that in the above section, Item #9. If you want more specific cites for points regarding "select" militia or "mandatory" miltia, I can provide those, but they are embedded in long works that would take some time for you to read to verify. Jon Roland 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Japan

Projected casualty rates for Allied invasion of Japan was edited to be less specific. 20 million Japanese + 1 million Allied was the official projection from Allied Command. Shall I dig up the reference and re-instate? --EllisWyatt 01:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, there is more controversy on this point than I realized. I concede the issue.--EllisWyatt 01:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Swiss section is opinionated and needs to be neutralized.

The section has been edited with more neutral language.

--David3565 22:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: It is neutral language in the strictest sense, in that it is a pure statement of fact. The previous use of "militaristic" has certain connotations about the policy itself.

--David3565 03:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] armed citizen(s)(') militias

OK, this is tricky. It depends on the source document. armed citizens militias armed citizen's militias armed citizen militias Any questions? Is there a style for this on Wikipedia?--Cberlet 02:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They're all valid, because they are all slightly different things.
  1. "armed citizens militias" are militias consisting of armed citizens (emphasizing distinction from the government)
  2. "armed citizens' militias" are militias belonging to armed citizens (implying acting on behalf of other citizens)
  3. "armed citizen's militias" are militias belonging to a single armed citizen (probably incorrectly used)
  4. "armed citizen militias" are militias that are armed and citizen (no particular emphasis)
The distinctions are minor, and probably an arguable POV anyway. Applying the KISS principle yields "armed citizen militia". Actually, saying both "armed" and "militia" is redundant; "citizen militias" should be sufficient. -- A D Monroe III 15:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question: what requirement is there that a militia be constituted of citizens? Seems many armed insurgent militia often lack citizenship and/or citizen rights. Thank you. Nobs01 16:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--User:Anonymous

Title 10 of the United States Code

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes creates membership in the unorganized (i.e. citizens) militia for citizens and those "who have made a declaration of intention to become..."


     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
   males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
   313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
   declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
   and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
   National Guard.
     (b) The classes of the militia are -
       (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
     and the Naval Militia; and
       (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
     the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
     Naval Militia.

In the U.S., the term "unorganized militia" is more technically correct than "citizens militia".


Errr ... why the revert? Tannin 13:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see two problems with this argument. First, this is a specifically American definition. Second, "citizen" in this sense is meant to distinguish from "government". It has the weight of history and poetry behind it; the phrase "citizen soldiers" is a popular and romantic description of militias. Perhaps a less ambiguous adjective would be "civilian," in that militia members are intrinsically separate from active duty soldiers and even reservists. --CKozeluh 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq insurgents are not a militia

While I agree that definition of militia given at the start of the article might allow for it, I don't know of any source that refers to the Iraq insurgents as militia -- it's certainly not the widely accepted view. Many of them aren't even Iraqi, much less an official military organization, which is usually a criteria for militia. The different types of irregular military are better differentiated under Irregular military. Unless others object, I'm going to remove the Iraq insurgents references and tighten up the opening definition. --A D Monroe III 1 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)


I agree with you, A.D. In fact that is what brought me to this discussion page--the numerous references not just to the insurgents as "militia" but also to their suppossed success against the Allied Forces. First of all, the so-called "Iraqi" insurgents are primarily foriegn mercenaries (Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, etc.), especially in the leadership and planning areas. Secondly, there is very little open fighting between the insurgents and the Allied Forces. The insurgents mainly target the Iraqi population, with Suicide/Homicide bombs, IED's and assisinations, using these terror techniques to attempt to replace the newly formed government with their Islamo-Fascist version. As such, it is highly inaccurate and misleading to compare the Iraqi insurgents to the Polish Jewish uprising and the Japanese of WWII. In my opinion it is a blatant attempt to politicize this article (ie, it is POV) and should be removed.
Also, the very specific estimate as to how long it will take to quell the Iraqi Insurgents under the heading "Efficacy of Militias against Modern Armies" currently reads as:
"Another case of the effectiveness of militia is that of the Iraqi insurgency; while the regular forces and Republican Guard were quickly crushed by the invading Coalition, the insurgency is estimated to continue perhaps another 12 years."
This very specific statement needs a cited source. Where did that figure come from? Unless someone objects, I am going to rewrite (or remove as appropriate) the problem areas that I have just described. William 14 September 2005
Not quite. The insurgents are not militia because they are not defending their country and its sconstitution and are not broadly representative of all of the people of the country. If they were fighting as Iraqis and only targeted foreign troops they might qualify, even if misguided, but they are sectarian and target their own countrymen. Moreover, they are operating to achieve anarchy, not constitutional compliance, which is also part of militia, properly understood. Jon Roland 03:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of National Guard as federal militia as opposed to Constitutional militia

I have just completed an extensive 18 month research paper on this subject. After going over the 6 page treatice at the ADL website, the Brady Campaigns website, the NRA's website, and the various "militia" websites I took it upon myself to do the research and learn the truth about this subject. In short (make that very, very short), all able bodied men (after the 14th Amendment, all races of men are included) are subject to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15, and 16 of the US constitution and the 2nd amendment. This constitutes a compulsory service in the militia of the several states. As this mandatory militia was unpopular (to say the least) the Federal Congress passed the Militia act of 1903 and created the National Guard, which later became part of the federal military in 1933 as part of the war powers act. The federal government had to continue to recognize the militia in order to have the power to "draft" people into military service (the ADL is wrong on this one, Congressman Bob Beauprez was very clear on this). This is why under Title 10, the term "un-organized" militia appears. All US male citizens are memebers of the "un-organized" militia and contrary to the political beliefs of many legal professors, federal courts, and even state and local judges, we are required to train ourselves so as to be of "usefull purpose" to the military of the United States in time of war or emergency. This was the reason for the creation of the Department of Civilian Marksmanship and its successor the Civilian Marksmanship Program, it is also in part the reason for the boy scouts of America, the civil defense corps, and the civil air patrol.

With that said, I edited the United States portion of this article in order to clarify that the National Guard is statutory militia rather than a Constitutional one.

The controversy over who constitutes the militia has been going on for the better part of 200 years of US history. One side claims that Constitutional militia no longer exists, the other side states that it is the people. Which side is right is a matter of opinion, however, what is not a matter of opinion is the status of the National Guard. Tetragrammaton 04:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It is vandalism to simply delete the entire bottom of the article, including references and links. Your views are not widely shared in scholarly treatments of the subject. Nevertheless, should you wish to cite published work of significance other than your own, your edits could add more detail to this article. It is not, however, appropriate to do what you did. Please use standard Wiki guidelines in editing--Cberlet 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"My view" as you put it, is in accordance with the Federalist papers, U.S. Constitution, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (which was used prominently in the Pre-American Colonies), Black's Law dictionary, U.S. vs Miller (1939 case), and a long, list of case law. As well as the current opinion of the Department of Justice. I am not sure what scholars you speak of. Are they of the kind found at the ADL or the Brady Campaign? If they are then their motive for complete disarmament of the US population is well documented on their own websites. Any professor or "scholar" who would mimic anything from these extremist left-wing organizations is simply uneducated on the subject and unqualified to make any judgements on the subject matter.

As for my corrections, they are to provide a truthful, neutral, article that is not tainted by either side. Were I left or right wing on this subject I would have modified the section on "right-wing militias." I have only clarified the difference between the National Guard and the militia of the 2nd amendment. Nothing more or less. Tetragrammaton 07:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Your research must have been fascinating, but here it only counts if you provide an outside source for your claims. Your edit cut off the bottom of the article, including category codes. Your edit reflects a tiny minority view that is hardly NPOV. If you want to add some cites to published material that supports your POV, please do so. Deleting cites is not a proper way to create balance. Please edit more carefully --Cberlet 13:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The research was very enlightening. I spent many hours at my city's University Law Library first learning how to look up legal documents(a learning experience in and of itself) and then compiling the information from various cases which dealt either indirectly or directly with the subject of who or whom comprises the militia. Ultimately the source I found to be the most supportive of my thesis was the National Guard itself. As you may know, the militia spoken of in Article 1, section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16, and the second amendment, cannot be used as a standing army. (Alexander Hamilton in Federalist paper 26, and James Madison, in Federalist paper 46, both make the distinction between the regular army and navy and the militia.) The National Guard can be called out to fight in War, a mission the militia was not granted to fulfill under Article 1, section 8. The only missions the militia are allowed to perform are 1)Enforcing the laws of the union, 2)Providing for the common defense their home state or an adjoining state, and 3)Repelling invasion of the United States. Invading other countries and policing them is NOT a part of the militia's duties, those are the missions of the armed forces/regular military. The Republican Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and some 85 million plus citizens of the United States (the number of gun owners in the US according to the 2003 BATF census of gun owners via the Brady law background checks) are hardly a tiny minority view. Also, the department of defense recognizes the difference between the National Guard and the militia of the constitution. Their view is hardly a point-of-view. I suspect whomever is feeding you your information is doing so in a very bias manner. However, since you seem determined to keep the cites on this page I have put them back.Tetragrammaton 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The person "feeding" me this information is an attorney who wrote a book on the subject. According to Wiki guidelines, your original legal research has no place on this page.--Cberlet 14:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Really? What is his name, and what book did he write on this subject? I hope its not Sheldon Sheps, the juggling clown from Canada.Tetragrammaton 03:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does Tetragrammaton's original legal research "have no place on this page". The truth as to what exactly a "militia" is can only come from legal and historical research, Chip. A consensus of opinion, whether right- or left-wing, does not the truth make. As a holder of a Bachelors Degree in Government and a Masters in Political Science, having done tons of research and work in the field, I must say to you, Chip, that concerning the definition of what constitutes a Militia, Tetragrammaton is more accurate than you are. I do agree with you, though, that he made some mistakes in his editing etiquette which could be termed vandalism here, but that doesn't negate the truth of his content. If Tetragrammaton can't cite his research simply because it is his own, he can send it to me, I'll read it, verify it and edit this article accordingly, citing his research. William 14 September 2005

That would still be original research. A work you can cite must be verifiable, and therefore accessible to others, generally as a published work. Passing info between a couple of users doesn't qualify. Especially if some of the users might be suspected sockpuppets.
Remember that Wikipedia doesn't reject original research because it's inaccurate, but just because it's original. The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to reproduce the world's collected knowledge, not create it. As others have pointed out, if Albert Einstein wanted to put Relativity in Wikipedia 100 years ago (before his work was published), it would have been called original research. --A D Monroe III 02:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words William. However,I am afraid Monroe is correct. My research entailed a great deal of mostly offline sources. I do have some examples of what I found to be relevant information and interesting points of view. Here are some of them below.

raw data article on disarmament collection of articles on gun-control Interesting anti-private militia article African-American viewpoint a Democrats viewpoint Policy Analysis Virginia Institute a conservative viewpoint an excellent article on the militia Healy law offices, article on the 2nd amendment

The above are only the so called "tip of the ice-berg". Strangely, the Army National Guard website's History page provides some of the simplest and best information against the National Guard being the militia.

Anyhow, I hope you all enjoy the links. A good place to start, for anyone really interested in this subject, is Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England. I cannot stress enough how much the delegates of the Constitutional Convention of May 25th, 1787 were influenced by this four volume set of books (I have a set, copyright 1826). You may also wish to read up on the British Bill of Rights of 1689, as this was the "blueprint" for the US Bill of Rights. Tetragrammaton 06:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 It's too bad that this is late in the day for this discussion. Instead of citing all sorts of law journals and court opinions one might consider the source. i had this same discussion 40 years before this and was advised to check the constitutions of the several states, in that, prior to their admission into the union, the were certain mandates.

one madated insertion into the constitution of each of the several states was the recognition of the need for the "minuteman," remember?

 the constitution of each state stated to the affect that "all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 65 are members of the militia." within the last 50 or so years (mostly since korea) efforts were made changing this definition. (see any old state constitution prior to 1934)


Not sure, but I think you are addressing my reversion of the edit you made today. If I'm understanding you correctly, we are in agreement as to the content of your contributions. However my main concern was the formatting. Much like your edits above, it appeared in a box becasue you began the line with a space. Please see Help:Editing for easy formatting tips. I would have fixed it myself but it was very hard to read and so I wasn't sure what your intended point was. Also, it wasn't logically placed, it didn't follow from the previous paragraph. The citations were just a suggestion to make your argument stronger. It is not always necessary to cite firsthand sources (ie, the old constitutions themselves). You can cite second hand sources as well, for example reliable websites, news publications, magazines, PBS documentaries, etc that reference the information you put forth. I, too, believe state militias were (and still should be) mandated by state constitutions. I look forward to your next contribution.--WilliamThweatt 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I happened to read both of your discussions on US militias and thought you both may wish to review some pertaining documents that will help in writing this article. One issue that you have seemed to bypass is that "rights not "necessarily" delegated remain with the states or to the people". All previous rights remain. The federalist papers need to be weighed with the constitutional debates (federalist and anti-federalist) to understand the "intent" of the founders.

You may want to review the one constitutional debate in particular: MONDAY, June 16, 1788. - Note: Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.

Study version

The militia of 1776 is far more localized and independent. The purpose of the militia was to protect against (oppose) standing armies and "enterprises of ambition".

Note that there was no congressional act for the militias of 1776 to confront and engage the standing army at Lexington or chase the british (their own government's standing army at that time) back to Charlestown. The constitutional debate presented for your review above makes clear the intent of the founders and the intent.

James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To these would be >>> opposed <<< a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, "officered by men >>>chosen from "among themselves<<<", fighting for "their" common liberties and united and conducted by government"s" (local) possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of "ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.

If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

Note that the colonists were also fighting against "distant legislatures" which because of britain ruling from afar, had no ability to have any true interest for local interests or needs.

These fairly well define the original intent and purpose. The confusion is with the purpose for the militia, and that the true militia of 1776 is all those willing to fight for (and/or what would be considered against those listed definitions of tyranny in the "Grievances" of) The Declaration of Independence which with all earlier retained rights, the Constitution is still subject to (Constitution: Article VI).

One other note on the draft, involuntary servitude is unconstitutional regardless how the federal government wishes to reword or define militia and is also opposed in the grievances (#26). Study

--66.82.9.49 09:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)User Richard Taylor APP, Chair: American Patriot Party

No, the National Guard is not militia because it is organized as a component of the U.S. Army. The system of "dual enlistment" means that whenever anyone enlists in the National Guard for state service he also enlists in the U.S. Army (or Navy or Air Force).[1]

Jon Roland 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

This section begins with a curious account that implies a continual state of conflict between militia and army, which isn't correct. It would also be doubtful to categorise the army as being under Parliament's control. Would someone care to re-write this?Ncox 02:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the English Section. I have included subtitles, but I'm not sure if they are stylistically correct....

--Train guard 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected POV vandalism of US private-militia entry, and left wing-milita entry

The discussion over the use of the term "citizen's militia" has already been concluded here. Wikipedia is not for left-wing, right-wing, or other political points of view. I have corrected the entry to a neutral point of view. As the individual or individuals who altered the article did not have the courtesy to give their reasons and/or back up their changes with any evidence, I can only assume they meant to vandalize the article with emotionally charged personal opinions.

The Citizen militia, as far as the United States is concerned, in a purely legal sense, is as follows;

From Black's law dictionary page 1145;

Militia: The body of citizens in a state, entrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies as distinguished from regular troops or a standing [permanent] army. Ex parte McCants, 39 Ala. 112; Worth v. Craven County, 118 N.C. 112, 24 S.E. 778; Story v. Perkins, D.C. Ga., 243 F. 997,999.

Militiamen: Comprehends every temporary citizen-soldier who in time of war or emergency enters active military service of the country. Critchlow v. Monson, 102 Utah 378, 131 P.2d 794, 798.

Therefore, the term "citizen's militia" is both inaccurate, and a political point of view when used to describe the private organizations that call themselves militia within the US. These right-wing organizations have no exclusive right to be called "citizen's militias" and although each and every one of their members are, have been (if older than 45 years) or will be (if younger than 18 years) a member of the militia of the United States, their organizations are not. Even though their right to train in the use of arms is secured within the 2nd amendment(see US DOJ memorandum on "Whether the 2nd amendment secures an individual right" August 24th, 2004), and their right to assemble peaceably is secured in the 1st amendment of US constitution, they have no authority to act unless called into duty by the governor of their respective state or the president of the United States, or in the event of an immediate emergency where there is little or no time for actvation(like an invasion of US soil by a foreign power or group).

According to the Militia act of 1792 “ each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,...”,.

Therefore, the citizen's militia of the United States is comprised of every able-bodied person (the Militia act of 1792 was amended in 1860 to include all freed slaves, and woman as the term "able-bodied white male" was shortened to "able-bodied citizen") between the ages of 18-45 years. It should be noted that the Militia act of 1903 only clarifies the difference between the citizen's militia or constitutional militia and the militia of the United States army/armed forces.

The left-wing militia entry, in so far as ALF, ELF, and the black panthers were concerned, needed correction. None of those organizations are classified as "militia groups" by the US DOJ, and those groups do not consider themselves militia. However, the FBI does consider those organizations to be domestic-terrorist organizations. Therefore, I made the necessary clarifications based on US government classifications and not some POV source.

I shall stay vigilant with this article in order to maintain its neutrality.

What if one militia were to collapse because of battles between that militia?

Tetragrammaton 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Tetragrammaton

[edit] Moved US milita information.

Article was slanted towards US militas and was unbalanced. US entries consisted of US milita, US organized private militia, most of the Left wing milita entry, and references in the Efficacy part. Militia is an international concept and the entry should reflect that. Therefore I asked an Administrator for permission to create a separate article on the subject.Tetragrammaton 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A good idea, and you don't need permission, but asking here first would have been more courteous.--Cberlet 14:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, I see no good reason to keep any commentary on the United States militia here. It's a waste of page space and rude to peoples of other nationalities who may want to add an entry for their nation. After all, an entire page is now dedicated to it, why should the United States milita article consume any space on the main page?Tetragrammaton 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it is standard procedure to offer a summary, otherwise the page lacks context. I am happy to discuss he actual wording, but total deletion is not appropriate. Your bias on the page you created is already pushing the boundaries of NPOV.--Cberlet 02:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no bias on my part. You and I have been through this before. I have continued my research into this facinating subject (in so far as the United States is concerned). The only bias that is here is comming from you. I have listed the facts of the matter, I have not seen any crediable evidence from you on either page.Tetragrammaton 04:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Club

Added this reference connecting the militia with the Scottish Enlightenment. Fenton Robb 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic militias

Should the Islamic militias in the Middle East be included in this article? How does a national militia differ from a terrorist organization? A militia's organization is based on heirarchial control. It has a command structure and holds its members accountable. The terrorists recruit followers to support their actions but this is to cover their actions and to provide a diversion for these actions. They are likely attempting to foment a mass uprising and the resulting civil unrest. To the terrorist, a population is a tool to used to advance its goals. Terrorist actions tend to exceed the bounds of acceptability. A militia might be vunerable to infiltration by terrorists as can be seen by the insurgency in Iraq.

One might also examine the legitimacy of militias under international law. This could be done on a case by case basis. The Geneva Convention presumes a organizational structure for combatants--name, rank and serial number. In it the combatants are fighting for some organized entity. They are distinguished from autonomous units as one would find in a mob action or some rogue military unit. The international community needs to decide whether military organizations are acting for the people of a particular country or if they are just armed gangs and act accordingly. Its goal should be to ensure a secure society. --Jbergquist 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Militia defined as paramilitary too narrow

Describing a militia as paramilitary suggests that it is lacking somehow or that it is a NGO and not officially sanctioned. The definition of militia needs to be broadened. --Jbergquist 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the distinctions between the two, if important, should be clarified, as well as the difference with guerilla and Paramilitary and Mercenary.Brallan 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to conspiracy theory

How does a link to "conspiracy theory" belong in this page? Someone please justify it, or let us have it removed.--59.95.15.151 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Added a more precise etymology section, before the "The original meaning of the Latin word" paragraph.

In the original Latin, "militia" referred to "the state, quality, or condition of a fighter or warrior".

The "militia" today is the total collection of persons engaged in this state, quality, or condition. Exact mission, national identity, organizational affiliation, or moral legitimacy has nothing to do with it. It is solely the state, quality, or condition of being under arms for purposes of defense that constitutes "militia".

[edit] Australia - "chockos"

Feel free to correct me: I thought "chockos" was exclusively used to refer to the conscripts. Were the Australian militia and the conscripts seperate entities? Htra0497 14:37, 21 November 2006 (AEST)

[edit] POV

Is "The Founders" a common name for the Founding Fathers? Are people outside the USA (a.k.a. "Rest of the World" people) going to know who "The Founders" are? 81.156.251.223 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited POV Claims

I have removed a paragraph that was uncited and represented a POV claim that was idiosyncatic to a handful of U.S. civilian militia units not recognized by the government.--Cberlet 14:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klux as militia

The question arises as to whether the Klux is and or has been an non-governmental militia. After checking credible research, the answer appears clearly yes. In the Reconstruction era of the United States, in post Confederate states, there was a widespread and prominent White Line movement, Klu Klux Klan and the White League et. cetera circa 1875. This was very much non-governmental and arose in various opposition to the Republican Negro Militia in Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, North and South Carolina. This had roots in the volunteer militia units in the southern states prior to the Civil War. The most comprehensive book on this history which I have seen is the Otis Singletary book Netro Militia and Reconstruction especially pages 129-131, Greenwood Press reprint 1984 ISBN 0-313-24573-8, originally University of Texas Press 1957, . This book is not online, but is available in libraries. For a quick 'online' verification, see page 25 of the the Google digitized book[1] African-Americans: Essential Perspectives ISBN 086569222X by Wornie L. Reed, 1993 published by Praeger/Greenwood from the William Monroe Trotter Institute from the University of Massachusetts. Short quote: "The Klan has always functioned as the armed militia for white supremacy". SaltyBoatr 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the key elements of a correct use of the term "militia" in the original, constitutional sense, is that it be broadly representative of the community as a whole, not just one party, sect, or race. Otherwise they are a "select militia", armed partisans", "guderrillas", or "terrorists", depending on how they operate and for what purpose.

Keep in mind the Mafia, which some think started out as a militia, to defend the Sicilian people against Italian oppression. But it later descended into criminality, making the transistion from being the defender of the people to being the enemy of the people. Keeping militia accountable to its original purpose is one of the reasons for establishing elected "committees of safety" or other such mechanism that can supervise them and keep them "well-regulated". Jon Roland 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Whisker Militia Mellen Press book

I am concerned that the references to the Militia book by James B. Whisker, recently cited by Jon Rollin to not meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V. Specifically, I see that the Edwin Mellen Press has a questionable publication process, and identified in the Library News newsletter[2], excerpt copied below: SaltyBoatr 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING IN THE HUMANITIES : THE EDWIN MELLEN PRESS Many readers may already be aware of the publishing activities of the Edwin Mellen Press and of the controversy that has arisen concerning the quality of the books which they publish. Those who have not already done so are strongly encouraged to read an account of the publisher's somewhat unusual practices reprinted in the December 9-15, 1993 issue of the newspaper "Campus Review".

Briefly summarised, the reprinted report suggests that this publisher produces what appear to be from their titles to be properly researched, refereed and edited scholarly books but which often prove to contain quite extraordinary gibberish. It is suggested that manuscripts are accepted unread and that proof readers are strongly encouraged not to correct errors.

Edwin Mellen Press uses electrostatic (photocopying) technology and usually prints only 300 copies of any title, but titles are guaranteed to stay perpetually in print. A recent catalogue from the Press promises 450 new titles per year and also makes it clear that academic and research libraries are their target.

By getting their books included in approval plans and publishing nearly all of their books in series to induce standing orders, Edwin Mellen has succeeded in selling some very bad books to many of the world's best libraries.

Monash University Library (MUL) too has purchased many titles from this imprint in good faith. Possibly some of these are quite good scholarly works which were judged to arcane by other publishers. At least one title is on a recommended reading list for an undergraduate course. Nonetheless we cannot but be concerned on reading the allegations in "Campus Review". MUL has no brief as a censor of scholarship, but would be very grateful to hear the opinion of Monash scholars on the value of many Edwin Mellen titles which the Library holds and can supply at least partial lists of these. Contact the Collection Management Librarian, Robert Stafford by telephone on 52613 or email roberts@lib.monash.edu.au

The success of this publisher, who to date has generally confined its interests to the humanities, cannot be separated from the publish or perish syndrome which has long plagued the sciences. In sciences, and indeed the social sciences, one consequence has been ever increasing serials costs to libraries, who have had to develop a range of strategies in response. We would be very pleased to have the advice of the academic community on whether or not we should continue to circulate new title information for this publisher's books. For those who are interested we can also supply copies of a four-page extract from Mellen Books in Print entitled 'how to publish a scholarly book '.

Robert Stafford Collection Management Librarian

______

This is interesting, but derogatory comments by one person against a publisher who has published some works without editing them for accuracy are hardly a basis for rejecting everything they publish, or for reverting all the changes in an article just to omit some references.

The standing of a work depends on its author, not the publisher. It is common for publishers not to edit the works of the authors they publish, and if they are not careful to select their authors, this could impair their reputation. However, that should not reflect on the authors or their works. As the comment indicates, some of the works may indeed be of high quality, and that is the case for these works. Yes, there are some minor errors in it. I have found a few myself, and intend to eventually put a corrected edition online. For example, in an endnote the author misspells the name of the journalist, Hedrick Smith. But the errors are minor. Jon Roland 16:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the policy about reliable publication process at WP:V. I don't see that Mellen meets those standards. Certainly, higher quality sources are available, and could easily be used when editing this article. SaltyBoatr 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

______

I am familiar with WP:V and it does not clearly call for rejection of all works published by a publisher just because some of them may be unreliable. As I said, the standard is the author, not the publisher. It is easy enough to verify his academic credentials, which I did before putting his works online. I regularly communicated with him through a university email address, and found him listed in the faculty directory. The versions of his books we have online are taken from his Word files he submitted for publication, not scanned from the print editions, so the publisher did not introduce any errors. If his choice of publishers was poorly made, that should not be held against him. His last book was published by the Susquehanna University Press, and I understand he may have relocated to that university. Jon Roland 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

______

I just phoned West Virginia University at 304-293-3811, and they confirmed he was a professor of political science there, but retired a couple of years ago. They provided his email address, jwhisker@earthlink.net. Jon Roland 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

______

I have asked for mediation on this. If the result is to reject the works published by Mellen Press, then I ask for reversion to my changed version with only those two works omitted, or I can remove them. I was also planning to add some more, but to my latest version. Jon Roland 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See this policy specifically: WP:SPS. Surely you can find more reliable sources for your editing here. Also, you citing your own use of this author's material on the website which you self publish raises questions of WP:COI. SaltyBoatr 17:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See comment below. Can you provide recent criticisms of Mellen Press publications? As I said, I can and will provide additional references. The problem is that there really are no comprehensive works on on the subject comparable to those of Whisker. All the others are fragmentary and, although interesting for the historian, do not lend themselves to investigation by the student. What Whisker did was gather most of those sources into a few volumes. His endnotes and bibliography alone are enough to cite his books, even if one might argue with some of his commentary.

As for WP:COI, that is a bit absurd. Our site is one of several that publish online editions of important works, most of which we either carefully edit, or when the editing is unfinished, indicate that fact. We do not differ in essential ways from Google books, Gutenberg, the U. of Chicago, the Yale U. Avalon Project, or the Library of Congress, except that we have some works they don't, and ours are often more accurately edited. (Try to get the Library of Congress to correct an error. We are often able to correct them within minutes.) Jon Roland 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your impressive website appears to be a self published website, and as such is not allowed to be used for sourcing in Wikipedia per WP:SPS. SaltyBoatr 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On that interpretation of WP:SPS would you reject cites made by the webmasters of Google books, Gutenberg, the U. of Chicago, the Yale U. Avalon Project, or the Library of Congress, especially when hundreds of other editors cite to it in their edits? And especially when the work is not available online at any other site? How does it help Wikipedia readers to cite to the work and omit the link? No, a plain reading of WP:SPS finds that it is only about cites to one's own writings published on one's own website and not also by a reputable publisher, and as a way to establish expertise. I am not citing to writings I have authored, with the exception of a few also published in professional journals, but to the writings authored by other people. That is not excluded by any policy I can find. Jon Roland 12:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

______

I just did some browsing of the Edwin Mellen Press site and checked some of the books and authors. While I could not check every work, I was able to recognize many of high quality, written by scholars with good reputations. If they were careless about vetting their authors prior to 1993, they seem to have substantially improved since. I suggest that a single critical comment that is 14 years old is itself questionable, and if there are still questions about their publishing practices, those should be from recent sources and more than one. Jon Roland 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show that your sourcing is based on a reliable published source. Your pointing to the promotion website of the publisher is hardly proof. SaltyBoatr 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't cite the Mellen site as the proof, but as a way to begin researching their authors and books, which anyone can do for himself. You have based your reversion on a single, 14-year-old criticism from one source. While that can raise some questions, I don't see that every cite must be supported by proof of the reliability of the publisher. There are too many publishers to make that feasible. I submit the actual, practical standard is and must be a presumption of reliability of publishers. If that reliability is challenged, then it is certainly appropriate to investigate to see if the criticism is justified, either at the time it was made, or currently. But the next step is to first investigate the authors. I don't think Whisker would have been a professor at a state university for many years if he produced "gibberish". And if the work is available online, the next step would be to check the cites of the work itself. Jon Roland 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your personal standard of: "I submit the actual, practical standard is and must be presumption of reliability of publishers." is flatly at odds with Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr —Preceding comment was added at 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have done a random check of other publishers cited in many other articles throughout Wikipedia and I do not find any evidence that proof of the reliability of every publisher was required before any of them could be cited. So it is not just a "personal standard", but the common practice of article editors to presume the reliability of publishers. It is also not obvious how one would prove the reliability of any publisher. Having other publishers publish works that cite it's published works? That would require research into the works themselves, and would discriminate against new publishers that haven't been around long enough to have their works cited. How does one know those others are reliable? A little common sense is in order here, or is common sense a violation of some Wikipedia policy? I'm sorry, but this appears to be selective enforcement that indicates a POV. I have offered to remove the two Mellen published books if the mediator demands it, but in the meantime the other changes in the article should stand unless you have valid objections to any of them. Jon Roland 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While we are questioning the reliability of sources, has anyone questioned the reliability of a newsletter submission to Library News newsletter[3] by an unverified "Robert Stafford" which does not support its criticism with examples of "gibberish" that can be verified? Jon Roland 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

______

I just did a search and find other cites to works published by Mellen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics (since removed?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_of_Destiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick (since removed?)

The removals seem to be of important cites that should not be removed without more evidence of unreliability.

I also found an apology to Mellen Press that suggests the critic changed his mind. I have sent an email message to Robert Stafford asking him if he still stands by his criticism.

I just got a reply to my message to Robert Stafford:
Dear Jon,
I am unaware of any Wikipedia debate on this publisher much less on what I wrote in an internal library newsletter but perhaps you are unaware that some controversy surrounded this publisher in the 1990s. What I wrote over 14 years ago referred to this and to a damning report reprinted in Campus Review, an Australian university newspaper, in 1993 from Lingua Franca an American magazine . The accusation was that books were not properly refereed or edited and we certainly acquired some bad books from this publisher at that time, but of course this does not mean that everything they published was bad. It may also be possible that their standards have improved since.
regards,
Robert
We have a Wikipedia debate over something you are alleged to have published in http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:j_563-ASC1sJ:www.lib.monash.edu.au/libnews/issue12.html+Edwin+Mellen+Press&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a about Edwin Mellen Press. Do you still stand by that criticism, and can you confirm that many of its works are unreliable, or is it possible that their standards have improved since 1993?
-- Jon

Jon Roland 12:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A Clusty and Google search for "Edwin Mellen Press" also finds many credible cites to its books that seem to indicate a lot of people think at least those works are reliable.Jon Roland 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relax. It should be easy to rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also, for an article as important at Militia, we must favor peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. SaltyBoatr 19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be, but it's not. I am very familiar with the field and there are no other book-length works that cover the subject. It is one thing to "favor" cites when alternative are available, but for this subject one is left with 17th and 18th century works that hardly do justice to the subject. As I have argued, and you have not responded, the issue of these cites should be separated from the other changes made to the article at the same time. Are you going to undo those changes if I make them again before I even have an hour or two to add some references? Jon Roland 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect that I will have no problem with you edits, if you cite to reliable sources per WP:V. If you do not, I have a right and duty to challenge your edits per WP:V. If there are no reliable sources available to reference your edits, your edits should not be included in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, especially on endnotes supporting particular points in the body of the article, but there is a special problem here when one is selecting references that cover the entire topic of the article, even in the first book, the historical background beyond the United States. For this topic there is no comprehensive book-length treatment of it that covers the entire time period from ancient times to the present, other than the Whisker treatises, the last of which was not published by Mellen press but by Susquehanna University Press. A search of books at amazon.com finds he is the author of 42 books on history and political science, published by many academic publishing houses, such as Prentice-Hall, beginning in 1972 with the last published in 2005. 7 of those books have "Militia" in the title. That body of work has to be considered in selecting references on the topic as a whole. I don't agree with excluding every work published by one publisher because a few bad ones may have been published more than 14 years ago, or the works of one author because he happened to use that publisher for a few of his books. Jon Roland 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

______


I just did a search and find other cites to works published by Mellen:

The removals seem to be of important cites that should not be removed without more evidence of unreliability.

I also found an apology to Mellen Press that suggests the critic changed his mind. I have sent an email message to Robert Stafford asking him if he still stands by his criticism.

The message bounced, and I fon't intend to make a long-distance call to Australia. Jon Roland 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A Clusty and Google search for "Edwin Mellen Press" also finds many credible cites to its books that seem to indicate a lot of people think at least those works are reliable.Jon Roland 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

______

Further Wikipedia articles that cited Mellen books:

And defenses of Mellen Press and its books:

Jon Roland 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your point? I repeat, we must favor peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
I don't see your proof that Mellen Press is peer-reviewed. Nor that Mellen Press is anything near being a 'respected publishing house'. Any Wikipedia editor has the right and duty to challenge and remove edits that do not meet the policy of WP:V. Again, what is your problem with finding and using mainstream peer-reviewed sources? SaltyBoatr 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My point is that two cites you don't like don't justify reversion of all the changes I made everywhere in the article. I prefer to make many changes before saving them. I am prepared to remove those two cites if you can find another editor who demands it. But at this point I don't see that you are in a position superior to mine as an editor. You are applying a standard that has not been applied to many other Wikipedia articles. As for peer-review, it is also peer-review for other scholars than those engaged by the publisher to review and cite the works themselves after they are published, and there are plenty of those online. You are not engaging in a good-faith discussion here. Respond to my arguments, all of them, or I will have to escalate this.Jon Roland 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The justification of removal of your edits is that they appear to be original research. I did not entirely revert, as I think you have a good point about posse comitatus and welcome that improvement to the article. SaltyBoatr 20:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
They are not original research, as you can easily discover by doing a little web searching, and as anyone venturing to edit this topic should already know from background study of the subject. Some of the changes were to correct internal inconsistencies within the article itself that glare at one who reads all of it. If you have questions about particular points I will refer you to the sources, but to cite every sentence would make the article as a whole too unwieldy.Jon Roland 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Web searching generally does not meet the standards of WP:V. SaltyBoatr 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On that logic, you shouldn't have quoted that excerpt from one item found in a Google search that was disparaging of the publisher (but not the author or his work). The point is that if you suspect something written is original research, and you do a web search that finds a lot of other people have written similar things, especially prior to the one whose writing you suspect, then that should be sufficient to find that it is not original research, and therefore not a reason for rejection. Jon Roland 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
When making a claim that a particular publishing house doesn't meet the standards of WP:V I would think you'd need some pretty solid evidence that itself meets WP:V. I don't think a single librarian complaint from almost 15 years ago qualifies as notable enough to disqualify an entire publishing house. Is there additional evidence against the quality of Mellen's publishing process? Arthurrh 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have the burden of proof backwards. The burden is on Jon Roland to show that his proposed edit meets WP:V He should show that he is using reliable sources. Reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. SaltyBoatr 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So would you be satisfied with all the cites that support the reliability of works published by Mellen Press, which you could not help but skip over in looking for the one you quoted? If you like, I can list them, quote them, or whatever, in an entry here that will run to thousands of words. Jon Roland 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand the burden of proof - Jon Roland has given lots of evidence that his source is reliable. You have given one piece of very old evidence that it may not be reliable. Unless you have something better, I'd say Jon is in the right on this, per WP:VER. Arthurrh 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
May I take this as support for reverting to my last version. Then if there are any further issues we can address them one sentence at a time. I would appreciate it if you examine my other changes and give us your view on them. Jon Roland 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't say whether or not I support revert at this moment. But currently I haven't seen any credible support for the complaint that the source is unreliable. Arthurrh 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, backwards. It is not up to me to prove Mellen Press is unreliable. It is up to Jon Rollin to show the reliability of Mellen Press. And, per WP:V, reliability is measured by "the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work" SaltyBoatr 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please investigate our disputes and post your finding. Note that I have an explanation of my changes at the top of this Talk page. If you have any questions, email me at jon.roland@constitution.org . Jon Roland 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I did, and I challenge you to show the reliability of your sourcing. Per WP:V, "...any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." It is your duty to show sourcing. SaltyBoatr 14:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of posse comitatus

No, "authority" is not an acceptable compromise substitute for "provision". Although it has since been codified in U.S. law, it was and remains a common law traditional legal practice. There is common law about the practice, in the form of court decisions on it, but in common law only the decisions themselves are any kind of authority. The closest correct word, without getting into a long explanation, is "tradition", and tradition "exists", not "existed".Jon Roland 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this idea your original research, or can I verify this by reading it in a reliable source somewhere? SaltyBoatr 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the 'past tense' from the posse comitatus (common law) article, 'generally obsolete'. SaltyBoatr 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You can verify it, but it will take a lot of reading. I do not consider it "original research" to summarize key ideas in long works that anyone can discern who cares to take the time to read them. That is what encyclopedia articles are supposed to do. Don't assume that just because something seems unfamiliar to you it is original research. These points are familiar to anyone who really knows the subject well. If you want to do so, you can start with Blackstone's Commentaries and Coke's Institutes. But my key points above are just simple understanding of the words. Common law is the body of abstract legal principles which are considered to be "discovered" by the decisions of courts that are common to all the jurisdictions in England. But if you really understand the concept, it should be obvious that principles of how to decide court cases (lex non scripta) don't fit with the words "provision", which is about written statutes (lex scripta), or "authority", which goes to the question of who has authority to do what under what circumstances, and involves a historical event of delegation.Jon Roland 21:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I also see the need for some edits of posse comitatus (common law), which itself supports my insertion, which you undid, to add hue and cry after citizen's arrest. where it belongs to provide an explanation of the historical scope of the subject. Just because sheriffs seldom issue militia call-ups, at least to an entire county, it is also an invocation for any law enforcement officer to ask any civilian to assist in a law enforcement operation, and that is done all the time. The legal authority for it remains posse comitatus, even if neither the police officer or the civilian has ever heard of the term. Jon Roland 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to read. Please provide your sourcing. SaltyBoatr 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is far too much material to try to list in this forum, much less quote much of it. I can refer you to our page on the subject, and you can follow the links from there, but that is only the beginning of the research process. Whisker's treatises represent a long career of research in the field, during which he found a huge amount of material, most of it in obscure locations that it would take you almost as long to find to read. Check out his bibliography and then ask again about sources. It is our long-term goals to find most of that material ourselves, scan it, and put it online (before Google does). But until then it will be a lot easier to read the works we already have online, more of which you can find by doing a local search on our site. using any of the forms at http://www.constitution.org/search.htm .Jon Roland 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You write: "...this is only the beginning or the research process." Please re-read the policy WP:NOR, Wikipedia is not a place for a research project. SaltyBoatr 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not making it "a place for a research project". Wikipedia is a research project. If you want to research the subject further, I am providing guidance to you (and any others) how to do that. Jon Roland 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please reconsider you assertion that "Wikipedia is a research project." Please review and adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with WP:NOR, which is about an editor not publishing his own original contributions to a field that have not previously been published in a notable or reputable outlet. You asked for materials for further reading and I began by pointing out where you can find some, and that there was too much material to put it in this forum. By that I mean entire multi-volume treatises published over the last 1000 years. I have since been inserting a few of them as endnotes to passages in the article. If you don't want to begin reading them, fine. You obviously aren't reading some of them very carefully. My point about Wikipedia being original research is that is what we are all doing when we do the research that supports our edits. By one, somewhat extreme, interpretation, every edit is "original research", even if all it is doing is quoting passages from other works, because in the academic world, "editing" counts as research". Jon Roland 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your synthesis of your ideas from the treatises appears to violate WP:PSTS which states in part: "Secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources." Also, I did not ask for material for further reading. I asked you to cite your sources for your edits. And further, Wikipedia is not part of "the academic world" and Wikipedia has different policies. SaltyBoatr 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I maintain that what I am saying is present in the sources, only summarized or restated in terms comprehensible to modern readers, which is what has to be done to reduce things like encyclopedia articles to a reasonable length. It seems clear that what you are perceiving as "original research" is just the result of unfamiliarity on your part with the subject matter. The original point of contention was about "common law" and what kinds of words, "provision" or "authority", could be correctly used with it in the way you were trying to do. I simply pointed out that the usage you were attempting was semantically in conflict with the fundamental idea of what "common law" is. The common law article needs some work to clarify issues like this. But you will not find anywhere in original sources, which is what I prefer to cite, any pithy passage that states that common law doesn't have "provisions", or that it authorizes some activity other than how court decisions are to be made. Lawyers and jurists in the Anglo-American common law tradition disdained any attempt to express deep ideas like "common law" in a few words. Yes, they did have legal maxims, mostly in Latin, but those were decision rules intended as a short way to refer to fairly deep concepts, such as "due process". Early authors of encyclopedias or dictionaries, like Samuel Johnson, got a lot of criticism for trying to summarize complex meanings with short definitions or articles, which the critics considered oversmplifications or distortions, especially when they ventured into a field like law, especially common law. A lawyer was expected to spend years of study of the subject before practicing, and it was considered a bad idea to try to summarize deep concepts in short statements. As a result, to really understand a term like "conmmon law" and how to correctly use it in a sentence with other words, one was expected to read all of such works as Bracton, Britton, Coke, and Blackstone, as well as hundreds of cases. Yes, when something like law schools emerged, the students would demand shorter explanatory statements, and we can sometimes find those in their notes or correspondence, but one doesn't find such things in the treatises their professors wrote. (No law review articles in those days.) I do plan to enlarge the references for common law and cite to a few somewhat more modern writers who try to characterize the subject, but this article is not really the place to do that. I will eventually get around to editing that article, but I do have other things to do, and I have to sleep sometime. Jon Roland 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, if it is present in your sources, I challenge you to point specifically to it so I can confirm. Your suggestion that I need to know Latin to understand your source indicates to me that you are involved in original research using primary sources, which is against Wikipedia policy see WP:PSTS which admonishes us that "...care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways." Without the ability to specifically verify from your sources, I question whether you have 'gone beyond'. SaltyBoatr 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I will if the subject matter allows it, but not all material, especially from before the 20th century, lends itself to citing to some specific passage in the cited source, which is what you seem to be asking for. Let us consider an example. Suppose some editor inserted a statement, "the blue courage prevailed over the yellow deception", and another editor removed it, arguing that neither "courage" nor "deception" takes the attribute of color, nor can one be meaningfully said to "prevail" over the other. Then another editor replaces it with "the wet courage was overshadowed by the dry deception", and the second editor replaced it with "his courage enabled him to prevail despite the deception of his opponents". Now the first and third editors demand the second prove his version with a cite to a reputable source on the attributes of courage and deception. Suppose further that the subject was events in the 18th century. I guarantee that you will not find an 18th century source that asserts "Color is not an attribute of courage", etc. What you can do is cite many works that use the terms for courage and color, but nowhere make color an attribute of courage, but use the terms in ways that any competent reader shold be able to discern that color is not an attribute of coursge, even without finding a short, explicit statement of that. Now let us move to the actual dispute that led to this discussion. First you wanted to use the term "provision" (of the common law), then "authority" for miltia that is provided by the common law. I simply pointed out that neither "provision" or "authority" work used in that way with the term "common law", because common law doesn't have provisions, and does not authorize activities, but only provides guidance to the making of judicial decisions. Now nowhere in any reference will you find a statement that can be cited that flat out states, "Common law does not have provisions", or "Common law is only a guide for making judicial decisions." For the early writers on the subject those points would be so obvious that no one would ever make such statements. You won't find many specific cites to the proposition that "the sky is blue when there aren't any clouds and the sun is shining", or "water is wet". That kind of insight is background, or common knowledge, so common that no one bothers to state it explicitly. But if you are a visitor from another planet who doesn't know the language, and want to answer the question of whether courage can have a color, or whether the sky can be blue, common law doesn't authorize activities like militia, but only court decisions, and wants cites to specific writings that support or refute those questions, all one can do is invite the visitor to immerse himself in the literature of the field until he acquires the deep, complex ideas that come only from immersion, not from citation to specific, explicit propositions in some reliable writing. Now I don't think that the insights one gains from immersion in a field that is not represented by sxlicit propositions on every question that might be asked of the material is "original research" in the sense that WP:PSTS contemplates, because that policy has really been developed for late 20th and 21st century discourse, in which the culture calls for succinct and explicit expression of almost everything. As you move back through the 19th century to the 18th and 17th centuries and before, one has to adjust to the quite different culture of discourse, and policies like WP:PSTS don't work as well for that environment. This kind of thing became apparent to me in college when I took a course on philosophy in which we read Immanual Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. Kant wrote an entire treatise to say what I found could be restated in about two pages of tight, logical propositions that lost nothing of the content of the original. I presented that as a paper, got an A+ and effusive praise from the instructor. I later found I could do the same for all of Kant's writing, and the writing of most other philosophers of that era. But apparently no one else had done what I did, at least my instructor, a Kant scholar, wasn't aware of any. Now, was that "original research"? I don't think so. Neither my analysis, synthesis, or ideas went beyond those of Kant. I just found a way to express them more succinctly (and more clearly, as some who read my paper suggested). Yet the only propositions in both Kant and my paper that were recognizably identical were the final conclusions. With the aid of my paper my readers of both works immediately recognized mine as equivalent and not really original except as to economy of expression. But it took my restatement for them to see that. I liken it to the story about the Sunday Mrs. Calvin Coolidge couldn't accompany her husband to church, but asked him to reports on the sermon when he got home. "What did the preacher talk about?" she asked. "Sin", said the president. "But what did he say about it?" "He was against it." Another way to illustrate the point also occurred in college (U. of Chicago). Everyone hung on the writings of sociologist Philip Hauser, so I took one that everyone was oohing about and started striking out every word that did not add to the meaning of what he was trying to say. When I was done, there was nothing left but the title. The paper was literally devoid of all propositional content. It was nothing but fluff, long on style and short on substance. A few people in the Sociology Department were a little upset by what I did. They insisted they were finding all kinds of deep meaning in the paper. Well, they could find deep meanings, but not in Hauser's paper. His words were a kind of literary Rorshach that might induce readers to bring their own ideas to something that had no ideas of its own. Was I doing original research? I don't think so. I was just doing aggressive editing. Edit the nonpropositional content out of a Rorshach inkblot and you wind up with a blank page. Jon Roland 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Further, the association of militia and Posse Comitatus in the right wing extremism of Gordon Kahl warrants our caution in the referencing of posse comitatus here in a militia article, because Wikipedia should not be used to advance a right wing point of view without proper balance. SaltyBoatr 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does require caution, and I would not have put that passage there. It should be moved down. However, your statement above reveals a POV on the topic. First, just because some modern group adopts a term or phrase from antiquity to either signal its purpose or lend it credibility does not affect the proper use of the original term in context. Such usages do not change the meaning of that term, although they may add a new usage that has to be added to the list. The term "militia" is just such a term. Second, if you read the article on Gordon Kahl you will find no evidence that he was "right-wing", "left-wing", or something else. Those are just labels, and they should be confined to political positions on distribution issues. He protested what he considered unlawful taxes, but a lot of people from all points of any political spectrum do that. It led to enforcement action, and ultimately, to his death and the death of an agent. By this time it should be clear to anyone with even a superficial acquaintance with the issues of the legitimacy of the federal income tax that such events prove nothing about the rightness or legitimacy of any of the contenders or their positions. but only about their ability and willingness to use force. Determination of legitimacy has to come from a deep legal analysis of the legal sources (which you can find on our site) and the application of logic. That is beyond the proper scope of this article, and I would suggest it be kept out of it. Jon Roland 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The two of you, SaltyBoatr and Jon Roland, have had quite a conversation. Reading what you have written so far, I do not know if you will find a middle ground. I believe you are both correct to an extent. Being somewhat familiar with SaltyBoatr's edits, he is a person who tends to prefer that references be to specific pages or even sentences in the source material. This makes verifying references very straightforward. However, it is not always possible to make such a reference. When an author explains their position over multiple paragraphs or even chapters, unless they stop to create a single brief summary passage, all one can do is summarize what the author has said and reference the relevant portions of the work. It is completely legitimate in Wikipedia to do this; summarizing primary and secondary sources is a key part of what we do. At an opposite extreme, Jon Roland appears to write paragraphs of explanation, cite a single work as his source, and expect other to accept that his summaries properly represent the work in question. In my attempts to verify a few of his summaries, I have found that I do not agree that he has correctly represented points in the work in question. Without pulling these talk pages into a debate over Wikipedia policies (a debate that would more correctly take place on those policy pages), I'd like to make what I hope is a constructive suggestion. Anybody challenging one of Jon's edits should be able to state what they find questionable. In return, Jon should be able to clearly state how he came to that summary based on the work in question. If this sounds reasonable, I'd like to start with one specific challenge below to Jon. - Hoplon 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Jon, in text you wrote that I partially restored last night, you claim that "all males between fifteen and fifty were liable to be called to be called out and embodied in one" of either the posse or the militia, and you cite Pollock and Maitland as your source. Could you please source this claim from that work? - Hoplon
I didn't write "all males between fifteen and fifty were liable to be called to be called out and embodied in one". I did cite the wrong work of Pollock and Maitland, from memory. You are correct that it should have been The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I, Pollock and Maitland, Cambridge U. Pr. (1898), and thanks for the correction. One can verify that one by going to http://books.google.com/books?id=UhE7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=The+History+of+English+Law+Before+the+Time+of+Edward+I&ei=NuIgR7G1O5uI7AKfnvjvBw

but I have some other works in mind that are better that I will add later when I have a chance to find and re-read them. Jon Roland 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What Hoplon proposes sounds entirely reasonable to me. Arthurrh 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It is, and I will try to do so, but sometimes the nature of the material will not lend itself to doing that, at least not without very long insertions in this Talk forum. What we have been disputing is the proper use of terms whose meanings lie deep in history. It is one thing to support a usage of a term with a cite, and quite another to support the position that someone else's usage is not correct, as I did in some of the edits of words chosen by others. You can't expect to find cites to all the ways that words can be used in ways that don't make sense if one understands the key ideas involved. Jon Roland 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Jon, I apologize if I misattributed the "all males between" passage to you. After reviewing the article history I see that text was long-standing, and I misunderstood what SaltyBoatr was challenging. Either way, the reference I found to "fyrd" should have been there anyway. - Hoplon 03:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the "males between" phrase is not correct, and I removed it. There were no statutes establishing the age range in that era. "Able-bodies males" were usually deemed to be those of approximately that age range, but in practice it was more a matter of whether a male seemed to be able-bodied, no matter what his age might be. On another point, Saltyboatr's insertion of "National" before "Militia" in the sentence about the fyrd is incorrect. There was no "national militia", only local militia units that could be assembled into combined efforts in some situations. Saltyboatr seems to be pushing a POV that "militia" only be used to refer to officially sanctioned, nation-level bodies of multiple fighters, when the original concept is about defense actvity, and only secondarily those who engage in it, singly or in combination with others, regardless of who might issue the call-up. Jon Roland 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"National Milita" is a direct quote from the definition of 'fyrd' in the 1989 Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, which meets the standard of WP:V. SaltyBoatr 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's see the complete definition. Your interpretation is not plausible. At the time "fyrd" was being used the concept of "nation" was not yet developed, at least not using that term. The earliest usages of the word generally meant ethnic groups, not what was later called a "state". England was still only a collection of fiefdoms who owed fealty to the monarch, but the monarch didn't provide much in the way of direct governmental administration, other than to appoint sheriffs, judges, and tax collectors. In that era militia was almost entirely local, although there could be a term of a countrywide system of such activities, each operating mainly under its own local rules. Of course, it could also be that the OED is wrong, but let's see the complete definition first. Jon Roland 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I found the entry in the Century Dictionary, on which the OED seems to be largely based. The entry for "fyrd" states in relevant part:
...the army, an expedition. In anglo-Saxon hist., the military array or land force of the whole nation, comprising all males able to bear arms: a force resembling the German landwehr. ... composed of the whole mass of free land-owners who formed the folk: and to the last it could only be summoned by the voice of the folk-moot.
So the Century (and perhaps OED), is doing a little original research in using the term "nation", but it is not quite correct to summarize that with the phrase, in caps, "National Militia", suggesting it was some kind of organied force like the "National Guard". I know of no historical examples of the entire body of able-bodied males of a country being called up at the same time for a single concerted action. It is only saying that all able-bodied males had a duty to respond to a call-up, not that they were in a state of organization and training beyond that of ordinary civilians, or in a called-up state, most of the time. Most civilians in that era could go through an entire lifetime without ever being called up by anyone but a neighbor to catch a chicken thief. But the duty did extend down to that level. It wasn't limited to actions on a "national" scale. Jon Roland 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In England, the militia and posse commitatus were, in law, two very different things. At the time of the jacobite invasion in 1745, there was some dispute as to how the militias of Cumberland and Westmoreland (I think) were to be called out, whether by order of the local magistrates as the posse commitatus (which would be quicker but have certain legal restrictions) or by royal warrant through the lieutenancy (which was the way in which the militia was supposed to be embodied). The details are, I recall, in a book of essays about the '45' by Rupert Jarvis.

--Train guard 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By 1745 they had a somewhat different legal basis, but overlapped in practice. The tradition of posse comitatus tended to be about the use of citizens who were in a low state of training, organization, and equipment, and by then militia tended to be identified with a higher state of training, organization, and equipment. As some of the history essays and treatises pointed out (I will try to provide a cite later if anyone is interested), counties or villages were held legally liable for any crime that occurred within them that went unprosecuted. Under threat of being fined or losing their lands if they didn't produce the criminal, the hue and cry had an additional incentive to drive people to pursue criminals, and it is suspected that in a few cases innocent persons were tried and convicted when the community couldn't find the actual culprits. This also led to the pattern of excluding visiting strangers from the area because they could commit a crime and leave the area, and leave the community to explain why they hadn't captured the offender. Jon Roland 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's examine the definitions of each term from the Century Dictionary:
Posse comitatus, the power of the county; in law, the body of men which the sheriff is empowered to call into service to aid and support him in the execution of the law, as in case of rescue, riot, forcible entry and occupation, etc. It includes all persons above the age of fifteen. In Great Britain peers and clergymen are excluded by statute. The word comitatus is often omitted, and posse alone is used in the same sense.
Now it should be noted that the above definition does not place the term in a historical context. It reads like it was to be considered an 1891 term. This is the hazard of using dictionaries as references. In a section on origins we need to know what it meant at the time the other terms were first being used, not when the dictionary was written.
Now let's look at the next term, enclosing examples in brackets []:
militia ... [L. militia, military service, the soldiery, <miles (milit-), a soldier.] 1. Military service; warfare. [Another kind of militia I had been theirs. Baxter] 2. Soldiery; militants collectively. [Rare.] [Know then, unnumbered spirits round thee fly,/ The light militia of the lower sky. Pope, R. of the L., i. 42.] Hence -- 3. The whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed or drilled or not. [U.S.] ... 4. A body of men enrolled and drilled according to military law, as an armed force, but not as regular soldiers, and called out in emergency for actual service and periodically for drill and exercise. [The feudal array of the middle ages was properly a militia, and the first proceeding of modern warfare consisted in the gradual adoption of permanent and regular troops, which superseded the militia.]
Now at least this definition does include a reference to the middle ages, albeit from the viewpoint of 1891. However, it should be noted that the first definition is "military service", and the second and third definitions are those engaged in it. This supports my earlier point about the English idiom of using the same word for an activity and those engaged in it. Other examples are service, movement, private, jury, court, assembly, congregation.
Now what if anything do these definitions say about the legal difference between the terms? Not much, other than a matter of emphasis. The first mentions a minimum age, but that was a later statutory innovation. It also emphasizes local service, with call-ups by the sheriff, but that only means the mandatory militia, that is, those who could be penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. The second emphasizes actual enrollment, organization and training, whereas the first doesn't mention that. However, we can reasonably summarize the difference as a matter of level of preparation, not composition. If anyone wants further exposition, I will see what I can find. 75.44.30.166 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is clear (at least by what went on in 1745) that they were two separate legal concepts. There were no doubt many instances of the magistrates calling out the posse in connection with local crime or disorder, but I cannot think of an instance where this was done in the case of military defence. Throughout the eighteenth century, the militia was embodied by the normal means, utilising the Lieutenancy. But this was for training or to safeguard vulnerable points against possible invasion. My reading of Jarvis is that this was an exceptional instance. This was an actual invasion, and the posse was only considered as a way of short circuiting the usual process. (News was arriving from Scotland in the border counties earlier than it was in London, let alone orders in response to the situation from the capital.)

--Train guard 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the first paragraph of the section on England to the original sense of its meaning, in which the posse commitatus and militia are kept as distinct legal entities. Although the obligation to serve is derived from the same common law tradition, the regulation of the militia in England was always based upon statute law. It had a distinct separate legal identity from the posse, and ought not to be confused with that institution.

--Train guard 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Etymology

You are claiming the root "itia" is not contained in the two references cited. Try doing a search on the pages. You will find it easily.

It would also be helpful if you would not try to stomp on my edits made within minutes of me making them. It should be obvious that I am in the middle of making more. Have the civility to wait for at least an hour after my last edit. Jon Roland 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please include valid and accurate references to sources when you insert your edits and this collaboration can proceed more smoothly. SaltyBoatr 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to, but during the course of an edit it is very helpful to save it from time to time to check for errors, then go back and insert other things, or sometimes move them around. You are still trying to edit the same sections I am working on at the same time. We need to avoid that kind of competition, and since I am initiating a editing session, it is appropriate for others to step aside and let me finish before stomping on my work in progress. Jon Roland 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you use a WP:SANDBOX for your tentative editing. Also, I am willing to help and collaborate with you to give you another opinion about the WP:V and WP:RS suitability of your sources relative to Wikipedia guidelines. SaltyBoatr 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with what seems to be your interpretation of WP:RS if it leads you to omit a valid reference because I also happen to include a link to a copy of it on our site, such as the cite to The Swiss Report. I am willing to use links to other sites, as a matter of propriety, but in some cases our site is the only one that has a copy, or the other sites contain inaccuracies that have been corrected on our site, which strives to be the most accurate. Is it really better to send the reader to the library (or use ILL, since most libraries won't have most of these works in their collections), than to provide a link to where he can read it online? Jon Roland 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't start as tentative. Like many people, I make an edit, save it, read it, and after a little thought, decide it needs to be changed, or a cite added. Sometimes that comes after re-reading the rest of the article to get a sense of where the holes are that need to be filled. Sometimes it occurs to me to add a cite, but I want to check that it hasn't been inserted by someone else, which would make it somewhat redundant, or perhaps suggest reorganizing passages to pull together those that are supported by the same cite. It is an iterative process. But as a matter of Wikipedia etiquette, editors should defer editing passages that have been edited by someone else so recently that there is a strong likelihood he is still working on it. Jon Roland 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you use a WP:SANDBOX for your iterative process. SaltyBoatr 17:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Then may I suggest you follow your own advice. But if we each have our own sandboxes that stay open until we are satisfied, they will never be completed or committed to the main article. Jon Roland 20:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the etymology section...why is this important? "Most of the leading Founding Fathers of the United States were Latin-literate."

I think that it should be removed. Any oposition to it? Hugo cantu (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whisker

I confess to being disconcerted to find that James B. Whisker has published several articles in the controversial Holocaust denial publication Journal of Historical Review. See [4][5]. They were written in the 1980s, which is a long time ago, but nevertheless, I believe this is relevant when considering his reliability as a source.--Slp1 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? You can read one of his articles online and neither it, nor, from the title of the other, is related to Holocaust denial. Yes, the journal was used to publish a lot of controversial material, but much published on it were respectable scholarly articles. Each writing has to be judged on its own merits, not on the publisher, or even the author, unless that would provide evidence that the contents of the writing are unreliable. Wikipedia is not the place to take positions on controversial issues or present them with a POV. Jon Roland 17:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I find your answer extremely worrying, given that the Organization of American Historians commissioned a study of the journal in which a panel had found that it was "nothing but a masquerade of scholarship". There are other vigorous criticisms of the Institute for Historical Review and its non-peer-reviewed publication, at those page. Judging by the evidence it seems highly debatable that they publish "respectable scholarly articles" as you so confidently describe it.--Slp1 20:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
During their early years, to build respectibility, they solicited articles from many scholars, before revealing their ideological agenda. It would seem that Whisker was one of those. I'll ask him the next time I talk to him. But it should not be held against anyone that he published in a journal before it revealed its true colors. Jon Roland 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, I think they revealed their ideological agenda pretty early on. Check out some of the articles in the same issue that Whisker published in: "The Holocaust As Sacred Cow" and L. A. Rollins's review of Walter Laqueur's The Terrible Secret.[6]. And yet he went on to publish more articles in the journal. --Slp1 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not fair to hold an author responsible for knowing what else was going to appear in a journal, which may not publish submitted articles for months or even a couple of years after articles are submitted. I also know a lot of scholars who don't read the other articles in journals in which their articles appear. I often don't. I usually just ask for reprints and never get around to reading the other articles unless the titles or authors catch my attention. My submissions are often requested by an editor and I usually don't bother to check out the journal. But perhaps I should. Jon Roland 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI I present part of an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education who sadly has a not terribly flattering view of Whisker's work.
From Exploding the myth of an armed America by Micheal A Bellesiles
The Chronicle of Higher Education; Washington Sep 29, 2000 47; 5 p. B7-B10
"It often seems that historians lack confidence in their research. Many have noted that Americans did not have very many guns only to fall back on an insistence that most men must have owned guns, On the basis of extensive research in the source materials, one scholar of gunsmithing, James B. Whisker, observed that there was a "scarcity of firearms" in early America, which became evident "in times of national emergency." After providing 90 pages of evidence attesting to that scarcity, Whisker concluded, "It is probably [sic] that most urban and nearly every rural household in the United States had at least one gun. ... With the exception of a few religious pacifists, every american [sic] was tied to firearms in some way: they hunted, they sought protection and they enjoyed sport, all with guns" (The Gunsmith's Trade, by James B. Whisker, Edwin Mellen Press, 1992).
Elsewhere, Whisker writes about Americans' unfamiliarity with firearms, citing Jeffrey Amherst's shock when he discovered that most colonial militiamen had no idea how to use a gun, and remarking on the "generally unarmed civilians" of Revolutionary America. Defying his own research, Whisker then declared that "Americans, accustomed to firearms since birth, realized the importance of good guns" (The American Colonial Militia, by James B. Whisker, Edwin Mellen Press, 1997). No one could be familiar with a 10pound, 4-foot-long flintlock from birth, though it is a favorite image within the myth of American gun ownership." Slp1 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. And further, why the emphasis on the "myth" associated with the politically charged issue of United States gun politics in a global article on Militia? Looks like POV pushing. SaltyBoatr 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't Bellesiles work been thoroughly debunked at this point? Using him as a guideline probably isn't a very good idea. Arthurrh 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, not maybe not thoroughly, but certainly good deal! I should have checked, I guess. Sorry.Slp1 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Bellesiles also cited Pitcavage heavilly, because they shared a common ideological agenda. However, Pitcavage is more careful with his cites, and pretends to be balanced by occasionally saying something nice about the militia movement. I have been challenging Pitcavage since 1995 to debate these issues in public forums, but he always begs off. He and these others are part of a counter-movement launched with the Oklahoma City bombing to demonize the militia movement and talk radio, characterizing them as a vast right-wing conspiracy. (Actually, the constitutional militia movement is libertarian rather than conservative.) Jon Roland 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Militia Movement

The insertion of the passage

"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."[2]

violates several policies, mainly WP:NPOV and WP:V. It comes from a professional detractor of the militia movement who is unable to refrain from interlacing his factual cites with defamatory characterizations. I would argue that this source is unreliable, as I have caught him in many errors over the years. Jon Roland 17:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also propose to create a new article on the constitutional militia movement, since others have referred to it and there is now no article on it. That is the place for contentious passages about it and its adherents.

Incidentally, I have personally investigated many of the cases in which some militia advocates were convicted, and leaving aside the minor problem that the statutes are unconstitutional, found in each such case that the accused were factually innocent of the charges, which were prosecuted using fabricated evidence and suborned perjury. This has been a common and well-documented practice for many decades and deserves a better wikipedia article on it than COINTELPRO. Jon Roland 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that we ensure balance in point of view by showing both (all) significant points of view. That paragraph does so presently, though it could be improved with better sourcing, the last sentence appears unsourced. That ref from the journal American Behavioral Scientist appears most reliable. SaltyBoatr 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The journal American Behavioral Scientist[7] is a longstanding peer reviewed scientific journal and meets the standards of WP:V. SaltyBoatr 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, any such contentious material should be moved into a new article constitutional militia movement. It doesn't belong here. And while the journal in this quote without context might be reputable, the author is a propagandist, not a scholar. The journal should not have published it without editing out his defamatory, judgmental characterizations. It is one thing to say that someone was convicted of an alleged offense, and something else to assert he did it, if one was not a witness. Jon Roland 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Propagandist? The opinion of the editors of a peer reviewed scientific journal trumps your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an article on Mark_Pitcavage that makes it fairly clear that, despite his academic credentials, his work is "advocacy", which means propaganda. Almost all of his "academic" work is colored by that. Such people can be published in reputable journals, especially if they are intimidated by the author's sponsors, the Anti-Defamation_League, who have a history of that kind of thing. That is not to say their advocacy position should not be heard, but it needs to be balanced, and a lot more is needed to balance a mere insertion of a quote like that -- an extended discussion and opposing points. If we were to include all this in this article, it would unbalance it. I urge it's deletion here, and when I create the constitutional militia movement article I can include his viewpoint as well as opposing ones. Jon Roland 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view, and can believe your point of view is shared by other people (but not all other people). Yet, the encyclopedia should written with a 'fairness of tone' and we can 'let the facts speak for themselves'. Please read the WP:NPOV subsection's on these two principles. SaltyBoatr 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
We all need to be cognizant of the fact that political movements provoke opponents, and either or both may try to advance their causes with apparent scholarly works that are thinly disguised polemics of dubious reliability. We can't rely on apparently peer-reviewed journals to always screen those out. It is one thing to verify their cites, but when those are selected to distort the subject matter, or characterized in a way that distorts their meaning or significance, then we need to take special care to examine the work itself and how it treats the subject, and not rely on author or publisher credentials. Bellesiles made it through "peer review" until an amateur historian, Clayton Cramer, who knew the subject better than Bellesiles did checked the cites and found them fabricated. There is a limit to what kind of review "peers" can be expected to do if they don't have expertise in the field. (On the other hand, if they do they may have their own ideological agendas that cause them to exclude positions that conflict with their own, as we can see in many scientific fields, such as the way that geologists rejected the theory of plate tectonics.) There is no substitute for simply gaining a deep knowledge or a field without having a stake in established positions. Jon Roland 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The change to "Mark Pitcavage writes of the Constitutional Militia Movement in the journal American Behavioral Scientist" violates WP:NPOV as it stands. My previous edit made it clear that he was a leading figure in the countermovement against the militia movement. To simply introduce his quote in that way gives the impression that is he a neutral scholar, and a cursory reading of the article on him should nake it clear that he is a partisan propagandist. The quote itself reeks of bias. It should also cite to an endnote, not include the publication. Note that the previous passage, now flagged with "citation needed", actually came from his writings, somewhat paraphrased, but not inaccurately. I think that is enough from one source in a single section. 75.44.30.166 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again Saltyboatr has removed my identification of Mark Pitcavage as an opponent of the militia movement. I maintain it is a violation of WP:NPOV to omit to identify the position of an author in discussions of controversies on the topic. The omission suggests incorrectly that the comment is neutral when it is not. I ask for mediation on this point. Jon Roland 18:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to request for third opinion: In short, you're both right. We want the sum of all knowledge on Wikipedia. We want a statement that is attributed to one person to be indicated, as it's important to not use Weasel words. But at the same time, it's also important to adhere to WP:BLP, to avoid libelous information being listed. That said, it's not a violation of WP:NPOV to state that someone who did something actually did it. It's like saying that Hitler didn't head up the Nazis and was responsible for the deaths of countless innocents. He did and he was. The same applies here. We're not looking to state something as fact that is opinion: we're noting one opinion of an historian of the radical right. What we're not doing here, and this is the clincher, is noting that his position is a subjective one. We're not supporting nor opposing his view, we're simply reporting what his view was. The only time where bio of living persons would be infringed is if he were a closet militia opposer, but as he has published works to the effect, then it's verifiable. I'm assuming noteworthiness has already been assessed. I haven't heard of him before, so I don't know the gravity of his words how deeply entrenched in the matter he is, but from what I've learnt in the 5 minutes looking over this article, his article and your discussion, he seems worthy of note and his opinion is one valued enough to be listed here, but only ever with his name against it. If we don't indicate his name, it's potentially more libelous because it means that we (wikipedia) are opposing militia, and we do not take a point of view, which is the very core of WP:NPOV. --lincalinca 16:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This controversy over whether or how to insert a quote or characterization from Mark Pitcavage belongs in the new article I created on the constitutional militia movement, into which I inserted his quote, and removed it from this article. I submit that when there are controversies on the topic of an article, and there is an article for it, they should be placed in that article rather than in related articles that only discuss it in passing. As a matter of editorical policy, I also suggest that when a summary of some author's point is about as long as a direct quote it is better to insert the direct quote, which provides only the conclusions of the author cited and not the additional level of conclusions of the editor. Jon Roland 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militia in United States

I removed Saltyboatr's insertion of the unsupported phrase "by the federal government" because fundamental rights like the right to keep and bear arms apply to the states even if federal courts may not have jurisdiction to decide cases between a citizen and his state over a violation of a right by the state. The historical background of the amendments, and in particular the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, clearly supports the position that militia were not to be disarmed by any level of government, something that was further emphasized by the adoption the following year of the Militia Act of 1792, that required the people to be armed, which is in conflict with any disarmament by the states. Still further, the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution show clearly that the right to keep and bear arms was a special target of that amendment. See cites in http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights. However, this discussion should probably be moved to Militia (United States). Jon Roland 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This reasoning appears like original research and is irrelevant. The original research on your personal website is also irrelevant. Your point of view appears on the fringe. SaltyBoatr 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not original research, but well-supported by the documents cited in the documents cited. There is some of my original research on the website of the Constitution Society, but most of it consists of accurate editions of the works of notable others, and it is not just my "personal" website. It is a real organization with a charter, by-laws, members, and meetings. But the last remark clearly indicates that Saltyboatr is an advocate, determined to push an anti-miltia POV.
On the point of the constitutional militia movement being mainly composed of veterans of the military and law enforcement, that is covered by the note at the end of the paragraph, which covers all of that paragraph, not just the last sentence. Now, admittedly, I was one of the sources Jonathan Karl interviewed when he was writing his book (and he mentions me prominently), but there were other sources. Jonathan was then a reporter with the New York Post and is now a correspondent with ABC News. Jon Roland 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about anti-militia POV. You could better describe me as neutral-militia. I am simply against original research on Wikipedia, and against unbalanced points of views in articles. Could you please be more specific, by quoting exactly the relevant passage from the Karl book? Also, the issue with Constitution.org is that does not meet the standards for reliable sourcing: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You speak of your 'society' in the 'third person' but I notice that you also claim to be the founder, president and webmaster. SaltyBoatr 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could but if you believe that then you don't know your own biases very well. As for citing to documents on constitution.org, that is for the convenience of people reading this Talk page. I am not citing my article in the main article. The cites on point are the ones within my online article. You can go look them up or not, depending on whether you are really a scholar or an advocate. The mere fact that there is a copy of someone else's work on a site does not detract from the value of the cite, or are you arguing that people should be forced to go to a library to read it there and not have the convenience of reading it online? (It is not on Google Books yet.) Since you are always after me to provide supporting cites, do you have one to support your apparent (original research?) position that the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the federal government, which your insertion seems to suggest? As for the Pitcavage quote, how can you contend it is needed for balance when it is defamatory and there is no laudatory quote to balance it against? No, critical comments should be balanced, if there are any at all, but in this article the only ones that keep appearing are yours, and they are all derogatory.
As for Karl's book, it is packed away in a box somewhere, so I don't have it handy to quote. However, the part on me is in the first chapter when he reports on the first militia muster in San Antonio, Texas, on the morning of April 19, 1994. I review the book at http://www.constitution.org/col/jdrnkarl.htm , where I point out some of the inaccuracies in the book, such as him writing that I delivered words in a speech that I actually delivered in a written handout. To the best of my recollection his comment on the kinds of people who became active in the movement was somewhere about the middle of the book. But it is a short book, so it shouldn't take you long to find it. Jon Roland 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this nonsense about an "opinion needs balancing" for the cite on "dual enlistment", which was published in a reputable law review journal? It is a simple legal fact that whenever anyone enlists in the National Guard he also enlists in the Army (or Air Force for the Air National Guard). One can reasonably conclude that that means the National Guard is no longer "militia" while the Army enlistment remains in effect, but although that could be considered an "opinion" (a statement that "water is wet" is also an opinion, but I don't hear many calls to "balance" it), that is not being stated. "Dual enlistment" is a well-known and much-discussed arrangement. Jon Roland 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You may reasonably conclude, because of your extreme personal definition of militia, based on your point of view. Your point of view here is far more fringe than 'water is wet'. Another point of view is that the colonial militia and common law militia are obsolete (in the US), therefore your reasoning is flawed. The meaning of militia today has evolved. See the Uviller and Merkel book for another point of view. SaltyBoatr 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Note though that U&M is only one opinion, and is in no way a simple "fact" or majority opinion. In fact, current US code still does define a milita, a fact that U&M conveniently skip over in their work. US Code Section 311, Title 10 (2003) “Militia: composition and classes” reads:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Which stands in direction contradiction to U&M's assertion. In such a case where a theory conflicts with actual federal law, the theory falls apart. Arthur 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, U&M reflect a minority and novel opinion. It is the very novelty of their opinion that has gotten them so much attention. - Hoplon 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
In any case we are obligated to show a balance of opinions here. The claim of one side having a majority opinion versus another appears as POV push, and at the least, unfounded in credible data. Can we please agree that this article should present a neutral point of view? Perhaps we also can all agree that the 'militia' issue is relevant to US politics? If yes, then we must agree that we have a duty to ensure this article is neutral on politics, and extra attention will be needed to subjugate our personal politics from our duty as neutral editors of this article about worldwide militia. SaltyBoatr 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Which "militia issue" specifically are you asking us to agree is relevant to US politics, and relevant to this article? There seem to multiple issues getting intertwined here. - Hoplon 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hoplon, The Elephant in the room in Greek, is Hoplon. SaltyBoatr 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Now you seem to be speaking in code. You ask us to agree that the "militia issue" is relevant, but you won't tell us what you mean by the "militia issue"? How do I know if you are talking about the definition of militia, the relationship of the militia to the personal right to bear arms, the militia movement, the national guard, or the state militias? - Hoplon 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me. The political issue is Gun Politics. As you well know hoplon means weapons in Greek, considering your username you appear to be feigning ignorance of the importance of militia to this political issue. SaltyBoatr 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not ask what political issue you were referencing, I asked what "militia issue" you were referencing. - Hoplon 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Further, the balance of opinion per WP:WEIGHT should be roughly in proportion to the prominence of each. Measuring prominence is often problematic. One test of prominence would be to look for the balance found in mainstream books on the subject. I suggest we set the balance based on the balance of mainstream books[8] on the subject. SaltyBoatr 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll remind anyone who is fond of using google book search that the search is still considered beta software by Google. I doubt it could be used for any sort of "testing of prominence", especially considering that it counts zero books as ever having been written on the second amendment[9]. - Hoplon 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I accept your suggestion of caution. Still, a similar test of prominence could be done by checking books on a university level library shelf, etc.. SaltyBoatr 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
University libraries do not reflect the prominence of topics of society as a whole, but instead a specialized set of knowledge. If one is attempting to establish the prominence of a topic, I doubt that this would produce results indicative of society. Also, I am unclear on your intent. You wrote about balancing opinion per WP:WEIGHT, and you made it clear that that the "militia movement" was one thing you wanted to balance. You did not write, among other things, what you wanted to balance it against. - Hoplon 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
University libraries (scholarly prominence) is a much better choice than 'prominence of topics of society as a whole' because WP:RS gives emphasis to the scholarly over the popular. The balance I want to achieve is the neutral point of opinion described in WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr 18:15, 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)

[edit] Western Goals Foundation.

I removed[10] the link to the Western Goals Foundation because I am concerned that their publications to not meet the standards of WP:RS. SaltyBoatr 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I undid the removal. We have permission for all the works apparently still in copyright, where it could be ascertained there was anyone left alive to assert it. We have little difficulty getting permission. Out of many hundreds of requests over the last 12 years I can recall only about 3-4 rejections. Jon Roland 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be additionally pointed out that there is a statute of limitations on copyright claims. even if we didn't have permission, putting a work online for enough years without a protest from the copyright holder effectively puts the work into the public domain. Jon Roland 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Saltyboatr keeps changing his reasons for deleting things. He first cited WP:COPY, then switched to this excuse when I pointed out we had permission (which was not easy to find someone to give, but we got it). He cites a POV article criticizing their political activities, with no balancing defenses since they are no longer operating to defend their former efforts, but nowhere in there is evidence that their scholarly publications were unreliable. i have verified the content of the report and found no errors. Jon Roland 01:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your irrelevant Ad hominem argument. 1) Please identify the publication process of Western Goals Foundation, they appear to fail the standards of WP:RS, that is: reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 2) Also, could you please explain in more detail the explicit release of copyright conveyed by the copyright holder? You describe that they no longer are operating. 3) Also, you write "nowhere....is there evidence that their scholarly publications were unreliable" which has the burden of proof backwards. Rather, you have the burden of proof to prove reliability, which you have not done, other than expressing your opinion. 4) And more, how is Western Goals Foundation "scholarly"? In a traditional sense? Please address these four points. SaltyBoatr 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Foundation was not the "publisher", but the "funder". They issued a grant for the research and expense of publication and distribution, but the reliability rests on the authors, Gen. Patton and Gen. Walt. Everyone might not think so, but I consider being generals a credential of reliability that matches any Ph.D. plus tenure from a major university. As Rep. McDonald explains in the introduction, it was written as a policy paper to explore other alternatives than the alternatives of a volunteer Army and the draft. It was used as a war college instruction manual by the U.S. military and the military of several other nations. As is often the case, such manuals are privately funded, but written to military standards. The U.S. military attache in the U.S. Embassy in Switzerland arranged for the engagement of several Swiss officers in helping to put together the report. This was not the first such study. I remember reading something similar to it when I was an Air Force officer, about 1968. So, in a sense, the real, unoffical, publisher was the U.S. and Swiss militaries, who I would consider RS. As I recall, contact was arranged through Charlie Reese, longtime columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, who now writes for LewRockwell.com. I asked for permission and got a phone call from a lawyer, who, as I recall, was associated with Rep. Philip Crane, but I could be mistaken about that. He said he could speak for the group and that we had permission. Jon Roland 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So that all may know, there's an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN.--Aldux 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka

The conversion of text from "massacres done by the LTTE" to "several massacres carried out by the LTTE" is distorting the citation. The revision my users to the latter form is not what is claimed on the citation. Please abstain from such revision. Watchdogb (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Parker statue

Yaf recently reduced the size of the existing lead photo and added[11] a photo of a well known USA patriotic statue of John Parker with the edit summary "adding balance". Please elaborate further about how this de-emphasis of a contemporary global militia and the enhanced emphasis of centuries old USA patriotic militia icon is 'adding balance' to this global article. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Emphasizing a large photo of a Lebanese militia (Lebanon is not even mentioned in the article, I might add) casts a badly unbalanced view of militia by pushing a photo of a ragtag group in a small country. Putting in a historical statue from a major country shows that not all militia are regarded as such. Rather than remove the Lebanese militia photo, I elected to try and balance the presentation. Yaf (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Present day militia groups tend to be rag-tag[12][13][14][15][16][17]. Indeed, even John Parker's militia is described as rag-tag by reliable sourcing[18]. You didn't really answer by question as to why adding emphasis to a USA patriotic icon adds balance to this global article. If anything, it seems to worsen the problem of USA centric systemic bias in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is original research on your part, that there is even a problem, let alone "worsen the problem of USA centric systemic bias in Wikipedia". You state the statue of a militia minuteman is patriotic, I did not. Besides, a well-regulated (orderly) militia was the goal in the US, not a "rag-tag" group without discipline. Balance of all major viewpoints of militia is the goal of Wikipedia for this article. This does not mean emphasizing non-US content, solely. Balance is the key. I didn't remove the Lebanese militia photo, although there is probably good reason to do so, as Lebanon is entirely not mentioned in the article anywhere. The US is clearly mentioned in the article. The Lebanese millitia photo is an entirely unrelated photo to the article. Yaf (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How is giving extra emphasis to the USA in a global article 'balance'? You reduced the size of the contemporary photo, to be half the size of your USA patriot icon photo. Indeed the article already gives undue weight to the heritage of the US and British militia tradition. I see no way to justify that even more weight should be given to the US/British militia system. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
They are the same width in pixels. Not half the width. This is balance. Besides, the total area of the photos largely parallels the content of the article, which does contain considerable US/UK militia content. The photos largely parallel this proportional content. Yaf (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Size by area, your patriotic icon photo is twice bigger. Explain now if the article contains 'considerable US/UK content that your justification of 'adding balance' is correct? Your contrived logic seems to spin both ways. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The original Lebanese militia photo, [19] was removed for lacking a source. Derivative works of it, such as your copying of this now-deleted image and the cropping of this image, are likewise not permitted. Please follow Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)