Talk:Militia movement (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] First thoughts
Well, this is an article that I've long thought should be created, rather than being left to sections on other pages. However, I wonder why the article was created with "(United States)" in the title, instead of simply overwriting the redirect at "Militia movement." There doesn't seem to be any need for such disambiguation. I also think the current article reads like the effort of someone trying to be objective, but still subtly biased against the movement; all the sources cited (Pitcavage, Berlet, ADL) come from critics of the militias. --WacoKid 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree this is an article long overdue. I think the title is perfectly accurate for the topic "The Militia Movement in the United States". Notability is clearly established, See 1997 PBS Newshour feature with the byline "the militia movement in the United States". Also, see the Senate Hearings on the topic "The Militia Movement in the United States". SaltyBoatr 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge tags
 |
It has been suggested that Constitutional militia movement be merged into this page or section. (Discuss) |
 |
It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Militia (United States). (Discuss) |
An ip editor, 132.205.99.122, placed tags suggesting a merge to Constitutional militia movement or Militia (United States). Both of these suggestions are completely unsuitable. Merging to constitutional militia movement is a poor choice, as that article in no way approaches the depth of this article or has anywhere near the same content while it purports to be describing the same thing. Additionally sources have described the militia phenomenon as the Militia movement, never using constitutional in the title. There is also no reason to fold this article into the main U.S. militia article. This is not a minor event, as it stands this article could still be greatly expanded. While meeting one of the descriptions in the lead of that article, "Private militia forces, not necessarily illegal, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia." it is also a notable social and political movement that has been covered as an occurrence to itself in numerous reliable sources. --arkalochori |talk| 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following books have been published, all of which refer to a "Militia movement" and deal with it as a movement separate from earlier militias in American history.
- Cozic, Charles P. (1997) The Militia Movement Greenhaven Press
- Levitas, Daniel. (2002) The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right St. Martin's Press
- Crothers, Lane (2003) Rage on the Right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby Ridge to Homeland Rowman & Littlefield
- Mulloy, Darren. (2004) American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, Routledge
- There are many more books, as well as media reports. There is no reason to merge this anywhere. --arkalochori |talk| 05:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not the only one suggesting a merge. Leave the tags, and let people discuss the issue. 132.205.99.122 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Rename. It was proposed by DHowell in the AfD discussion to rename this, and I concur with the addition of quotes around "militia", to Criticism of "militia" movements (United States). Bracton 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Notablity test: Are there any books with the topic "Criticism of "militia" movements in the United States"? I don't see any. I do see many reliable books with the topic "Militia movement in the United States". SaltyBoatr 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually I proposed heavily revising this article, and then perhaps moving it if it a new title would more accurately describe the subject of this article. The article as it exists now is heavily biased against its subject: not even Adolf Hitler gets this much negative treatment in Wikipedia. Whether it gets renamed or not all depends a lot on what its focus would be after getting the article to comply with WP:NPOV. Right now the article gives undue weight to sources critical of militia movements, while ignoring sources such as Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement which documents the heavy bias present in the mainstream media's portrayal of the militia movement.
- I think discussing renaming this article may be premature until the neutrality concerns are addressed. If the article is to remain at its current title, then it needs more material from less biased sources; if it is to be renamed and the focus be on the criticism of militia movements, then it needs languague which describes this criticism more neutrally (rather than accepting the critical views as fact). Either way, unsourced and synthesized claims, which this article is full of, need to be removed. DHowell 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Both praise and criticism should be contained in one, NPOV article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Militias
The John Birch Society and America First are terrorists and militia orginizations? Whats the justification for this other than being against foreign aid/foreign wars and immigration? The trend across virtually every political article on wikipedia seems to be any opinion of the adl and splc, pretty extreme groups themselves, being taken as unquestionable fact. I guess this classifies me as a terrorist. You learn something new every day. I don't even own a gun but i am a militia extremist... This is the type of stuff that results in people being laughed at when they use Wikipedia as a source, fellas. The bias related to anything remotely involving conservative politics whilst making blind assumptions that groups who lean just as far to the left are authorities on the classification of them is obscene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.210.230 (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
