Jump to content

Talk:Militia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Western Goals Foundation.

[edit]

I removed[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Sri Lanka

[edit]

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)[reply]

John Parker statue

[edit]

Yaf recently reduced the size of the existing lead photo and added[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Present day militia groups tend to be rag-tag[3][4][5][6][7][8]. Indeed, even John Parker's militia is described as rag-tag by reliable sourcing[9]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The original Lebanese militia photo, [10] 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)[reply]

B-class, but definition and references are inadequate

[edit]

I have done some looking into the definition of militia, admittedly with a focus on Europe, and the current introduction seems lacking.

Currently it says (in part)

Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

  • Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
  • The entire able-bodied male (women are usually called to work in munitions factories) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
    • A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
    • A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
  • A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
  • An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers.

It seems to me that historically in Europe, where the term originated, "militia" went through several stages of development, namely:

  • Classical antiquity - the obligation by all male members of the given community or state to serve in its defence, effectively it was as the Latin etymology suggests, the armed force
  • Middle Ages (Europe, 4th century - 15th century) - the entitlement to conscript into service any male deemed able to serve; something of a transition from levy en masse - the act of drafting into military service
  • Early modern period (Europe, 14th century - 18th century) - the taking of steps by governing authorities to introduce organisation into service of groups not otherwise belonging to standing regular armies
  • Modern era (Europe, 18th century - 20th century) - the transition of obligatory service of those able to serve in times of national emergencies, and trained for it, into an organised voluntary service administered/commanded by defence hierarchies; contemporaneous introduction of conscription towards the late part of the period that largely eliminated militia organisations through their incorporation into regular forces reserves
  • Post-Modern (1949 - Present) - the almost complete disappearance of militias outside of the actual conflicts, such as Yugoslavian wars

My point is that current summary intermixes these stages of development of the concept, usually unreferenced. For example the legal meaning during the Middle Ages was derived from the "temporal power" of the monarch, while that of the late Modern era was usually based on constitutional considerations and economic realities.

It seems to me that the application of the various stages of development was differentiated in different parts of the World and perhaps the article needs to divided the sections based on these considerations, with appropriately cited sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality of American Militia Section in the 1990s?

[edit]

The description of the origin and purpose private US militias in the 1990s seems to be from the miltia point of view only. Some mention of the accusations of miltia groups as being radical right organizations should be made. The Militia Movement and Militia (United States) articles would be good places to start , although the neutrality of those articles have been questioned as well. --Biophysik (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City guard

[edit]

Some sources seem to refer to historical city guard as militia, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective Article on Washington State Militia

[edit]

Hi, I'm crafting a draft article on the Washington State Militia. I would appreciate it if some of you folks could take a look at it and give a few criticisms. I'm new at this. The page can be found at User:MDLEgon. MDLEgon (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Statement - End of the American Civil War

[edit]

"The war did not end with Lee's surrender at Appomattox and continued to be fought by insurgent groups through Reconstruction." I understand that some fighting did continue after the official end of the war, but this statement seems to me like it should be revised. Elpucko (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

[edit]

It seems like the Norwegian army has changed the Norwegian section. Norway has a history of militias, during the Danish-Norwegian union and during the Second World War. Now it seems as if Norway just got the Home Guard and no history of militias, which is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.94.54 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section for Libya?

[edit]

Like it or not, much of Libya is still controlled and administered by various militias. Various organizations and units that existed during Gaddafi's time could also be accurately described as militias. Does anyone else think this can warrant its own section? Jetpower45 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian Militia

[edit]

Starting with this edit a section was added to the article on Venezuela's Bolivarian Militia. The section text was, in part, a very poor translation from this page. The translation rendered it as patent nonsense, and even if the translation had been accurate, the original Spanish is buzzword-heavy PR copy that doesn't actually say what the heck the militia is. WP:NONSENSE and WP:COPYVIO are clear that in such a situation text may be removed, without any requirement to keep it around waiting for someone to improve it. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Heritage

[edit]

Wait, wait, what? I know lots of americans would visit this article but starting the wikipedia article on the concept of milita with two dictionary quotes, one from the American Heritage something, is just inappropriate: wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and ecyclopedic: the opening paragraph for this article sounds like it would belong in conservapedia, rather.

I'm changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSBoncompte (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Militia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a bit of cleanup

[edit]

I removed this dubious statement: "The historical view is when three or more citizens gather together in the common defense of their country or state, they then become a militia." This is from IP edit from April 2014. It's not in the reference provided, "Walker, D. "Militia" 2003". In fact the entire reference appears to be bogus.--Lockley (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Militia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Militia

[edit]

this is the current and standing United States federal law

10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA §246. Militia: composition and classes (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.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:800C:10:3195:C6F:3138:3B1A (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fencibles

[edit]

I removed

Because to quote the article Highland Fencible Corps states "Unlike the militia regiments which were raised by ballot, the fencibles were to be raised by the ordinary mode of recruiting, and like the regiments of the line, the officers were to be appointed, and their commissions signed by the king." -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Militia in Australia

[edit]

While the information in the Australian section is fine as far as I can tell, it doesn't portray the militia accurately in Australia. For instance, while it does mention the volunteer movement in Colonial Australia, it should be said that it actually happened instead of a passing mention. Each State/Colony had their own system but it generally went in a category system of volunteers, semi-paid militia and paid permanent soldiers. It is also important to note that between the periods of 1901-1929 and a period in WW2 that Australia had conscription, which was mostly limited to the continent for service. It is important to note that after the first period of conscription abolishment, the citizen's force was referred to as the militia. Until the Permanent forces were expanded in the mid 20th century, most of Australia's army could be classified as a Militia, or Australians call it - a Citizen Force IronBattalion (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militia&oldid=1194057941"