Talk:American militia movement

Neutrality
This article has a set and overt focus on certain actions, controversial actions of certain individuals who are connected to the militia movement, which should be a sub-topic of the entire topic. This article needs to be balanced out with an objective description of the militias goals, origins and ideology. -JamesFalklandII (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism Incoming...
XKCD is at it again. This page was referenced in the alt text of XKCD #1485, so just thought you guys deserved fair warning. 50.165.127.150 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Too late, it appears the page is already vandalized. I call for this page to be semi-protected (silver lock) and a revision to the previous copy. K8joc8ohGee9j (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put in a request for semi-protection. (With mild regrets, because the change is funny... but gotta be responsible here.) Evan (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget Militia (United States) which was also vandalized already. Any other pages that escaped my attention so far? --Enyavar (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on, folks, lighten up! :-)

Just leave it like it is for a couple of days, yeah?

(No, it wasn't me. But I almost wish it had been.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.123.184 (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Page needs protection. After the last revert there are still occurrences of "fanclub" everywhere. A revert to the 2015-01-29 version is needed but I don't know how to do that. Keorl (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Advert
how is this unsourced list of private militias anything other than a promotional effort. anyone wanting to join one can find the closest on the list. anyone wanting to learn more about the phenomenon must summarily ignore it as unsourced. this sort of crypto-fascist 5th columning and usurpation of the encyclopedia for political ends is definitely not acceptable. I will remove all unsourced names that dont have articles. do NOT add any back without citations. i am under no obligation as an editor to find sources for them myself. all facts added to WP are presumed to have sources at the time of addition, not later, and any unsourced facts can be removed by ANY editor at ANY time, unless they are of course trivial facts, like "the beatles were an english band" (though i bet the first sentence for the beatles has at least 3 sources identifying them as a brit band)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Rump Militia?
Given that "rump militia" is being directed to this page (primarily due to the Malheur incident), it would really be nice if that term was explicitly integrated and explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4000:7A80:F08D:245F:7C6F:1B47 (talk • contribs)
 * Absolutely, and one of the reasons I oppose its usage there. Nothing is explained. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref to rump militia due to the unexpected hysteria surrounding it. It may have been my fault for presuming a level of knowledge on a niche topic that did not exist. In a few months I'll try to rewrite this page so it's not such a mess and better reflects contemporary scholarship on the subject of armed extremism in the U.S., including pulling in a wider and fuller explanation of terminology such as "rump militia." I hope this quick and cursory fix will do for now, Leitmotiv and Anonymous Editor. LavaBaron (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just now saw this discussion and already put a verification request in. I added it, because the source doesn't seem to cite it (couldn't check p133 though). It would be good to have some refs about it. I checked google scholar, where only 4 refs were found, most related to the 17th century act.. L.tak (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the statement now. Feel free to re-add if the citation turned out to be correct, but leave a not here, or use the term "quote=" to cite the relevant sentence in the reference... L.tak (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Terminology confusion
In the article is the following quote: "...cultural factors paved the way for the wide-scale growth of the libertarian or ideological militia movement..." This sounds to me like the article is claiming that the libertarian political movement and the militia movement are one and the same, rather than claiming that some militia groups may merely espouse libertarian ideals. I'm sure this wasn't intended to suggest that a) the libertarian political movement is merely a collection of militias, rather than a complete set of political ideologies and a political party, or b) that all (or even most) libertarians are militia members. Given that Wikipedia itself claims that the Libertarian Party has 368,561 members, and this article puts militia membership at between 20,000 and 60,000, it seems incredibly misleading to suggest that the libertarian movement and militia movement are somehow interchangeable, and some clarification in the article would be greatly appreciated. Et0048 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This article disagrees with US federal law.
Militias are defined in federal and state law. The definition adopted at the current time by this article as "Militia organizations in the United States are private organizations that include paramilitary or similar elements" simply doesn't match the law.

Militias are defined at 10 U.S. Code § 246. It states "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." Militias are not restricted to private organizations. The whole article needs review and work because of this. TMLutas (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Realigning the article to only use the United States government's definition would run afoul of Wikipedia's neutrality policies because the more common definitions of "militia" don't necessarily reflect government affiliation. I agree with you that it wouldn't hurt to have some clarification about the distinctions of the federally-recognized militia, the state-recognized militia (state defense forces), and the private organizations which use that term to describe themselves. However, as a general purpose encyclopedia that must maintain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not limited to the definitions used by any particular government. The common use of the word "militia" is more varied than the United States government's use of the term. Et0048 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Constitutional militia movement into American militia movement
"The modern constitutional militia movement, the constitutionalist wing of the 'militia movement' in the United States" (from the lede)

What sources cover the "constitutional militia movement" as independent from the larger "militia movement"? If anything it should be covered summary style within the parent article. Courtesy ping for, who previously posted about merging this eight years ago. czar 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

✅
 * Merge. Article appears to be a part of the larger American militia movement (but not part of the United States Militia), so it should most definitely be merged as proposed. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - They seem to cover pretty much the same broad topic. Love of Corey (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge At best a subtopic within the wider movement. Dimadick (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Discerning what "Paramilitary Activity" signifies as.
Paramilitary Activity refers to the fact that the militia can't act during peace times or when tyranny isn't present. It does however mean they are allowed to train and prepare for said case. However, any militia activities outside the parameters of what's set by the law is terrorism. 216.86.84.69 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's NOT a fact a militia can't act during peace time. It just wouldn't be legal.  It's not even clear that their existence is legal.  24.51.192.49 (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The source does not support that ROF is part of the militia movement.
@Wonderland ave

"ROF borrows paramilitary concepts from the militia movement and engages in paramilitary training."

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/republic-florida-rof

"The Republic of Florida Militia (ROF) is a small, Tallahassee-based, white supremacist group that borrows paramilitary concepts from the anti-government extremist militia movement, including rank structures, training style, uniforms, and even a camouflage painted vehicle."

If you want to start a section on groups inspired by the militia movement go ahead, but don't add information that is not supported by sources. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * p.s. Please read WP:OR:
 * You can't imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Not Fucking Around Coalition
The NFAC is described on its page as a black nationalist militia and part of the American militia movement. I think it is a good candidate to add to the 'Active groups' section or, if not appropriate, at least to the 'See also' section. Just a thought; open to discussion. HYTEN CREW (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)