Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Constitutional militia movement

(discussion moved here from vote page) SaltyBoatr 16:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability
What we are considering here is not notability like that of an individual or organization, but for the usage of a term. For that purpose web searches may indeed be useful ways to find out how many people are using the term, even if scholars may not yet have given it much attention, or chosen to use that term themselves. See the article Search engine test which confirms that such a test does not violate WP:OR.

Let us consider doing a count of hits in a search on "constitutional militia" on groups.google.com for each of the years since 1994, keeping in mind that Usenet groups are no longer used as much as some of the listservs and blogs.

Now let's look at two general web searches on Google, Clusty (most engines other than Google), and Yahoo:

But this last count for Yahoo is for the number of groups containing the term "constitutional militia".

The numbers are interesting, because an aggregator of most of the engines except Google finds a lot more than google does, but Google finds that most of the hits on "constitutional militia" are also hits on "constitutional militia movement".

These string counts are just the tip of the iceberg, because most people who use a long, three-word phrase will tend to use a shortened version of it, in this case, probably just "militia", once the context of the discussion being confined to "constitutional militia" or "militia movement" is established. That could be done by one contributor to a long thread, and only at the outset, to distinquish the context from other groups with which some participants might confuse it. It would take further statistical analysis, but I predict that the frequency of the meaning "constitutional militia (movement)" is probably at least one and probably two orders of magnitude greater than these counts.

It would be further interesting to do a similar analysis on other kinds of phrases that have been established as sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. I expect that there will be many with much smaller numbers.

Now all of this further analysis would be OR, but Search engine test allows this to establish that the terms are actually in use by a significant number of people. Jon Roland 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the only real basis for deletion is the notability of the name of the article, then these results (which I have verified) work for me. I have been reading stuff on this online for years, and even have some acquaintances who are not involved as supporters but seem to be familiar with the movement, and what I mostly find is people saying "militia" or "militia movement" without the "constitutional" until someone comes in with a criticism of them as bigoted or violence-prone, and the person using the term corrects that by saying, "I mean the constitutional militia (movement)". So I agree that usage of the concept is widespread and has been going on for long enough, and the qualification "constitutional" is mainly used when someone wants to distinguish the constitutional movement (perhaps by a synonym) from other things that some people might ignorantly or maliciously want to confuse it with. Bracton 18:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This "analysis" of usenet activity is truly astonishing in its depth of undisclosed WP:COI. A huge portion of this usenet activity which Jon Roland analyzes to 'prove' his point involves Jon Roland directly.  I see over 6000 usenet messages from someone named Jon Roland in 1995-2007, primarily on militia topics etc. This vagary, plus his undisclosed involvement as founder of an organization with a self coined name: 'Texas Constitutional Militia' raises serious WP:COI questions.  Further, to what extent is his promotion of this article title associated with promotion of his similarly named website constitution.org?  Sorry, it is becoming increasingly difficult to WP:AGF.  SaltyBoatr 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from Project page.)
 * Comment Rather, the standard to apply per WP:N is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources..."  DHowell's Google News search found just four articles.  This paltry number falls far short of meeting the "significant coverage" threshold.  This begs the question: With so little 'reliable source' material available, (just four short articles that only mention the term in passing), just how will this article be written?  And a corollary, after the original research is removed, what will be left in the article?  SaltyBoatr 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response. It is not the number but the quality that makes something significant, and a low hit on a Google news archive search is unduly weighted to modern news media whose archives are online and searchable (not hidden behind a login). Most media didn't have online editions going back to 1994, and most of them aren't putting their old issues online. Hits there are evidence of notability, but a lack of hits is not evidence of a lack of notability. I find the four hits make it notable, especially the Ft. Worth Star Telegram article, even without the counts in the Usenet groups. Roland might have posted a lot of messages there, but a random look at some of them shows that he was only one of the discussants using the phrases "constitutional militia" or "militia movement" in connection with one another. I am also persuaded by his argument that most discussants who would talk about the concept would only use the phrase when distinguishing from others with which there is disagreement. Bracton 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response. Saltyboatr seems to consider OR anything that doesn't agree with his POV. He is reading WP:OR selectively, to exclude edits by those with knowledge of the subject. See WP:OR:


 * This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.
 * Jon Roland 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see that Jon Roland has published in a reliable publication as required by policy: "...If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."  SaltyBoatr 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Response. That is the second of two main statements in that section, the first of which I quoted, which, by plain meaning and the rules of statutory interpretation, are independent of one another, each granting permission with its own restrictions. They are not joint conditions, both of which have to be met. Only one of them needs to be satisfied. The first sentence allows an editor to report an interview he conducted with a reliable source (or eyewitness), citing the name and credentials of the interviewee, and the place and time the interview occurred, without being OR. It should be noted that I have published in reliable publications to establish "specialist knowledge" in the general fields involved. Jon Roland 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
Compromise. I propose that Jon Roland withdraw his request to delete Militia movement (United States) and that Saltyboatr withdraw his request to delete Constitutional militia movement. I think Roland has a much stronger case but perhaps it is better to just separate them and the articles they favor. Bracton 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. Are you suggesting a POV fork? I have no authority to compromise WP:POL. SaltyBoatr 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment.. According to Content forking, I don't see that this would necessarily be a POV fork if the "Consititutional militia movement" represents an independent, reliably documented POV from what is meant by the general term "militia movement". The POV fork prohibition is intended to keep an editor's own POV from becoming an article, but it is not intended to keep Wikipedia from documenting various already-published points-of-view. Each article should contain a link to the other, though, to bolster the neutrality of both articles. DHowell 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. Except, your 'if' is a pretty big 'if'. Objectively, I don't see this as being 'already published'.  This topic appears very much to be a non-notable vanity topic, mirroring the self published self coined term 'Texas Constitutional Militia' which was founded by Jon Roland.  SaltyBoatr 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. False statement by Saltyboatr. I was not the "founder" of the "Texas Constitutional Militia". I did issue a nationwide call-up for militia to muster at 6:00 AM, April 19, 1994, and a call-up for San Antonio, Texas, as part of that. After attending that first muster, I left the state on a computer contract, and others went on to hold more musters. The idea to add "constitutional" to the name "Texas Militia" originated with activist Bill Utterback shortly after the second muster in May, 1994, according to him and to other activists. This was done as a way to distinguish the movement from other kinds of activities that some people might call "militia" (mistakenly in our view) that had goals and agendas we rejected, such as bigotry or initiation of violence. There was never an organization by that name. We all agreed that the Texas Militia was the totality of all Texans, whether they were aware of it or not, especially when in an active militia state. By the time I adopted the use of the qualifier "constitutional" to "militia" on the http://www.constitution.org website, for the same reason, the practice was already widespread, and came to be commonly used everywhere among those responsible groups who espoused constitutional compliance, the resurrection of the militia system envisioned by the Founders, and, if nonviolent means were not available, defense of rights of any person threatened by tyranny. I have provided plenty of evidence by doing internet searches that the term has been in common use, and mainly not by me, although used in the same way, when distinguishing the movement from others with which it might be confused. Jon Roland 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment.. A Google News Archive search turns up 4 more reliable source hits for the phrase, one of which specifically does cite Jon Roland, and at least two which specifically document the idea that this movement is distinguishable from other movements commonly referred to as "militia movements". This might raise conflict of interest concerns with Roland editing the article, but it does give credence to the movement being notable. DHowell 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. I remember that interview and article by Barry Shlachter very well. During the interview I emphasized that I was not the "spokesman" for the movement, that no one was, only the administrator of the Texas Militia Correspondence Committee, which served as a clearinghouse for information exchange among units. However, Shlachter insisted that he had to have a "spokesman" for an article, so he designated me as it. The WP:COI policy only addresses edits about oneself or an organization in which one plays a leading role, or by which he might be paid to do things like make wikipedia edits. We can't, however, reasonably exclude those who are merely involved in a movement, party, faction, sect, or whatever, especially one that does not have a single, formal organization. Otherwise we would only have edits by outsiders and opponents. I don't think we only want a article about Democrats being edited by Republicans, articles on Methodists to be edited only by Catholics and other rival Protestants, or an article about Christians edited only by Muslims or other rival religions. The policy could reasonably be applied to the Pope or College of Cardinals about the Catholic church, but would we want to exclude an edit by a Catholic priest on a topic that affects a different diocese than his own? There are probably not enough agnostic scholars who have sufficient expertise on theology to edit theological subjects, and we have a similar problem for movements, parties, factions, sects, etc. Jon Roland 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should be noted, however, that in his book, Jonathan Karl, The Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of America's New Militias, HarperCollins, New York (1995) ISBN 0061010154, Karl does describe me as the "founder" of the entire movement. I objected to that characterization during the interviews of me, as a gross exaggeration, but he said almost all the other leaders of the movement were calling me a founder (if not the founder), and calling me "Jonny Militiaseed" for my organizing efforts in many states. He seemed to want to have a "founder". Thus do legends grow. But I haven't organized any units for many years now. Jon Roland 14:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the Karl book is just barely a reliable source, if at all. I just received my copy, which I recently purchased online for $1, and discovered that it is a small format pulp mass market paperback.  Additionally, it is impossible to verify the reliability of this book because it lacks referencing or footnotes.  Indeed, Jon Roland with personal knowledge of the quality of research for the book (being an interviewee) describes errors in the book.  SaltyBoatr 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. The next time I talk to Jonathan I will be sure to mention that I helped sell a copy of his book. And, yes, I did correct some errors in my review of the book, but most of it is correct, and a good job for a journalist. (His first question was "What were you wearing?" To which I responded, "You've been in New York too long!") I find that journalists seldom get everything right, but that in fields outside the hard sciences, neither do most scholars. The quality of much scholarship in the legal field is getting atrocious. And have you read Justice Rehnquist's book, All the Laws but One? A Supreme Court chief justice, and no footnotes, or a clear indication in the text of years of events, or case cites. He obviously didn't get the help of his clerks in writing that one, and he needed to. But the book is presumably citable. The big problem is the way special interests are funding slanted books and papers. Mostly books, because journals still tend to peer-review articles, but too many publishers now just check books for libels and if they don't find any, accept it, provided the author or his funding source can promise the sale of enough copies, as by making them required reading in a course. There are several well-known, and some not-so-well-known, interest groups that are active in the funding of polemics that support their causes, at the expense of academic integrity. Jon Roland 23:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins of this article
It is interesting to examine the diff from 6:24, 24 May 2007 SaltyBoatr, in which it was he that first introduced the phrase "constitutional militia movements" into the Militia article, modifying the previous version of the user with the IP 71.194.196.149 (not me -- I've had the same static IP 75.44.30.166 for about 3 years). I did later notice the broken link, staring at me in red, and thought it needed an article, so I created one. But the fact that Saltyboatr himself would introduce that broken link (albeit the plural of it), suggests he had some previous history with the usage. I am curious about that. Jon Roland 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not introduce the phrase "Constitutional Militia Movement" into the Militia article. The phrase was actually first introduced by Jon Roland (see  [diff]) on December 26, 2006.  SaltyBoatr 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I did add the move "movement" then but "constitutional militia" was already there, and I don't recall adding "constitutional". I should have been more precise and said that SaltyBoatr put double brackets around the phrase, creating a dead internal link, and inviting someone to create an artcle (which I did). Jon Roland 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Request for disclosure. I call upon all editors of this and related articles to disclose, in the talk pages and on their user pages, any support or encouragement they may have received from any organization known to use an (exaggerated) description of threats from groups, into which they include any kind of "militia", in their fundraising appeals. This would include the ADL, the SPLC, or allied organizations. I feel that I am debating agents of those organizations, based on the style of their arguments and their tendency to cite to those organizations and their agents, or books written with their support, to the exclusion of those with differing views. Jon Roland 14:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)