Talk:Militia (United States)

Source for expanding Early Republic Period and added Mexican-American War section
I am not someone with a much experience on Wikipedia articles so I wanted to bring this source and the areas that I think it could be used to expand on before I started doing anything to the actual article. Please give this a read and see what you think of the information relating to the Early Republic Period, chiefly Jefferson and the Madison administrations, and the militia during the Mexican-American War.

On a broader note, the development of the volunteer militia companies during the post War of 1812 could be expanded to some extent with this article too. —71.219.84.229 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the source calls itself a "libertarian publication". Any source identifying itself with fixed political viewpoint is going to be immediately suspected of not passing WP:NPOV, so isn't going to be helpful here in general.  The article itself has sources; perhaps they can be used, if some specific points of interest can be itemized.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph of lead needs to be more informational
Since the first paragraph of the lead is what pops up in the browser when one hovers over the term as referenced in another Wikipedia page, we should be careful that this provides meaningful information to the reader. Currently, this appears to the reader as follows:

Since this is not particularly helpful, I propose to change it to something like the following: "Militia has been defined as "A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency." In practice, however, (especially as used by lawmakers within the United States), the definition has changed over time."

This will result in the following display when the user hovers over the term, providing a better experience for the user:

Any discussion? If there is no objection or discussion within a reasonable time I will assume that either nobody reads these talk pages or that there is no objection, and I will proceed to make the change. --John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
 * No discussion heard, so fixed this by removing paragraph break between first and second paragraphs of lead. --John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

Speaking of the first paragraph, the second sentence is inaccurate:
 * During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.

It might more correctly say "… all able-bodied white men …," though I expect a new reference would have to be added. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reversing addition of irrelevant material
the material you have added to this page diff has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the U.S. Militia. The group referred to in the article is a militant "... an anti-government, anti-law enforcement ..." (quoting from the article) organization of which the persons arrested for the kidnapping attempt of Governor Whitmer are alleged to be followers. The article speaks of such groups as being "militia" groups, but in reality (even according to the article) they are terrorist organizations operating outside of the law. How is such an organization consistent with the Militia Act of 1903 and the State defense forces authorized by state and federal laws? I will be reverting your edit now. — John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC))
 * , has a hatnote link to Militia organizations in the United States, ostensibly as a summary style split from the former section about unorganized militia organizations. Where do you see them as being disconnected? Their lawfulness?  czar  21:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The cited article indicates that the actors in this instance were acting outside of the law, using terrorist methods and violence against individuals and property.  Statute 775, USC 32, in sections 4 through the end of the statute refer to the powers of the US militia (which includes, according to sections 1-3, both the organized and unorganized militia and defines these terms), "... when called upon by the President of the United States ..." to suppress "... rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States ...".  The cited article does not indicate that the President of the United States had in any way "called upon" these groups to in any way suppress such rebellion, and in the absence of such an indication we must assume that he did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnie Bob (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand that, but my question is why that category of militias is out of scope for this article or more specifically, why Militia organizations in the United States is linked from the aforementioned section but not summarized? If "Militia (United States)" is a summary style expansion of the section at Militia, then it should include both federal/state-organized militia as well as citizen-organized militia with no civil authority. It's unclear why this article's scope is drawing the line where you say it is, which means that either the scope should be reconsidered or perhaps the title and lede paragraphs should become more precise? czar  16:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , ok I understand. I would say that the scope of at least this article (and perhaps also the other one you referred to) needs to be more well-defined and also, that the titles (including the redirects) to the two pages need to be examined very carefully.  For example, there is a redirect to this page called Militia in the United States which is deceptively similar to the other article Militia organizations in the United States.  As an aside, there are also redirects to a couple of states with names like Illinois militia that also link to this article.  (I will attempt to correct this latter issue now.)

whereas the current definition at dictionary.com includes the foregoing language plus the following:"a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government."
 * The underlying problem, I believe, is that the distinction between these two opposing uses of the word "militia" has become distorted over time. For example, my desk dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979), which I use daily, defines the term as follows:"1: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"


 * Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time right this moment to dig into this deeper, but suffice it to say that this and many other articles of a similar nature need much work to prevent this sort of thing from happening and, in some cases, reverse damages that have already been done.


 * By the way, thank you for your understanding and open-mindedness ... Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , would it be accurate to call this article "federal militia of the United States" or "official militia of the United States" or something like that? czar  01:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , actually, I think that:
 * Both this article and the other one (Militia organizations in the United States) should be renamed. Perhaps this one should be renamed to "United States Militia" (note that there is already a redirect by that name.  The other one could be named "Unlegislated militia organizations in the United States."  I know that's a long title, but the word "unlegislated" clearly conveys the fact that they are not covered by U.S. law without the POV problems created by other modifiers.  I think the existing title for that group is too similar to this one and needs to be changed to reduce the possibility of people drawing the conclusion that they are legitimate government organizations.
 * All redirects should be examined carefully to insure that they do not blur the distinction between the two articles.
 * Both articles should be edited to clearly state their scope and to clearly indicate that this one is about the Militia (both organized and unorganized) that are explicitly covered by U.S. law, and the other one is not.
 * I would be happy to continue to volunteer my time in making any edits or doing any other such work as necessary to make these improvements to these articles. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , based on what I'm finding in sources, I think American militia movement might make for a better name for the other article, but for this one, I'm still stumped. United States Militia, as you suggested, at least puts "militia" as a proper noun and makes the current title less ambiguous. I'm not as familiar with the sources for this. Does the U.S. Militia have an official or most common name? I would leave the assessment of the redirects to you. Does this sound right to you? If so, I'll make the change and see if anyone objects. If someone does, I'll start a formal discussion. czar  22:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , my only comment there is that the word "American" could be interpreted to mean the North American or South American continents or even the Central American region, not just the United States of America. But I like using "militia movement."  Please do what you think is best.  I am just glad to see some progress toward clearing up the confusion between these different articles.  Once the page move takes hold I will begin to work on the redirects and DAB's as well as think about how to clarify the wording in the lead sections of the articles involved. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)