Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 20 March 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Territories This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Territories of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject United States TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject United States TerritoriesUnited States Territories ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

Is this "meme" section really notable? It states it is "well-known" yet where is this meme? It obviously is no longer well know, as such things do not last forever. That is the nature of memes. The sources for this just link to a letter to an editor. In 100 years from now, is this little "meme" really worthy of being included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.150.255 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the meme well-known? I think the answer is yes. Do a Google search on the words dick act gun control, and you'll get 1,250,000 hits. Almost all of them are the false story that the Dick Act prevents implementation of firearms regulation. A few provide the facts to correct the false story. That's how prevalent the meme has become.

In addition, another reason I included the details about the meme and it being debunked is that other contributors cited the meme as true several times and included it in the article as though it's a fact. It seemed to me that the best way to prevent that was to include the truth about the meme and the fact that it's false.

Billmckern (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Connection to segregation The second claim is said to confirm the first, but as written it would indicate a contradiction. Kelley Ross appears to argue that the Dick Act was to reinforce Jim Crow efforts, but Cunningham says that the federal oversight led some states (Jim Crow, discriminatory ones is how I am reading it) to abolish their militias altogether to avoid federal pressure. While Ross' argument that the law may have had increased issues in those southern states is certainly not negated, Cunningham's statement appears to show that the Act was not intended to do so, and those segregationist states had to act to avoid provisions of the law which would had provided the strength Ross felt it took away. Just need to clarify the contradictory, rather than confirmatory, nature here. Hope that makes sense to some better editor than I. 71.185.227.80 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Militia Act of 1903. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415124412/http://www.ngef.org/index.asp?bid=49 to http://www.ngef.org/index.asp?bid=49

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) 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section.

The Militia Act of 1903 distinguishes between the organized (State) and UN-organized Militias (The People). BillMckern thinks an internet meme he can't even cite, refutes the LAW. The section should be removed for lack of reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7900:B20:29AF:40EB:9E0A:EB7C (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is factually accurate. The meme is false. Among other things, "unorganized militia" referred specifically to men between the ages of 17 and 45 who could be called up for military service if circumstances required it. Are any individuals who believe they have the right to unregulated gun ownership because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment willing to take say women can't own guns, nor can any men over age 45? Of course they're not. So the fact of the Dick Act run counter to the very reason the creators of the meme created it.

Do you really want to argue that the Dick Act can't be repealed, as the meme states? As I wrote, provisions of the 1903 law were changed in 1908, 1916, and 1933. If you're going to argue that the Dick Act's nine-month limit on National Guard mobilizations WASN'T changed, you'd better be able to cite a source. If you're going to argue that the National Guard Bureau DOESN'T exist, and that the Dick Act's Division of Militia Affairs does, you'll need to show some proof.

It appears that the facts of the Dick Act's history run counter to your political beliefs. But that doesn't make them less factual.

Billmckern (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the content as the sources provided do not state what the content in the article says. Moreover, snopes is not a reliable source, it is an internet blog.

Please see WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

I have integrated the sources from Government Publishing Office into the article, with quotes from the snippets.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

References used in the reversion by Billmckern (talk · contribs) are largely not reliable sources. This is not the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a case of WP:EXTRORDINARY. The claims made in the section added by Billmckern is largely sourced to non reliable source blogs.

Moreover, connecting the act to segregation, based specifically by only two individuals, and only giving one sentence at the end of the section to give a counterbalancing presentation that outside of the Southern United States that the act did not cause the end of African American service in the National Guard and militias, gives those views undue weight, thus violating WP:NEU.

Presently the consensus is against Billmckern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, dismissing the concerns of the individual who started this topic flies in the face of WP:IPHUMAN.

Just because Billmckern thinks internet blogs are reliable sources, does not make it so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Snopes isn't the only reference. Facts don't become less factual just because you don't agree with the.

Billmckern (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the tag where there is an active dispute, the above editor is not abiding with the consensus on the talk page, and I have clearly stated the issues with the article, should not have been done

Yes, snopes is not the only source, but the other sources utilized. "Of Arms & The Law" is a personal blog, "NewsWithViews.com" does not meet the requirements set forth in WP:IRS.

Presently there are two individuals who have edited other than Billmckern who have expressed that the section has issues. Therefore, to continue to ignore that fact is improper.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: It seems to me that David T. Hardy is about as authoritative a source as you're going to find on this topic. He's not some random guy with a blog. He's a graduate of the University of Arizona and its law school. He's a lawyer with over 40 years of experience who's also written books and law review articles about the history of the Second Amendment, and made a documentary film about the same topic. He's an opponent of gun control, so the fact that he has debunked the Dick Act meme is extremely relevant.

I'm willing to provide additional references, but there's no doubt that the passage on the false Dick Act meme is both accurate and relevant.

Billmckern (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• The meme section is poorly sourced and of questionable notability. I would suggest removing it. The segregation argument is less clear to me. The length seems inappropriate for the total article. I would drop the quotes and try to find additional sources but at this point I wouldn't be willing to say it should be removed. Springee (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Billmckern: there appears to be a consensus (presently 3 v 1) for removing the controversy section. Additionally there is a consensus (2 v 1) that undue weight has been given to the "Connection to segregation" section. Therefore, per the consensus present on this talk page, I am going to edit accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally please see WP:NOCRIT#"Controversy" section, if there is criticism or controversy of the article, better to integrate it into the article, such as implementation differences rather than alleged connections to segregation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: The conclusion I'm being drawn to is that you and one other contributor want to remove a relevant passage in the Dick Act article because you want to delete anything that seems to advocate for gun control. From my point of view, the facts are the facts. It's a fact that there's a well-known and false Internet meme which has also been circulated verbatim as a letter to the editor or blog post or social media post nationwide. It's a fact that this meme falsely claims that the Dick Act invalidates all gun control laws. It's a fact that the meme claims that the Dick Act cannot be repealed. It's a fact that those claims are factually false. The logical conclusion is that this false meme is so pervasive that debunking it is relevant to this article.

The facts are the facts. You can't wish them away, and you can't make them less factual.

You seem to be hung up on Snopes as a source. Fine. I'll be happy to remove it as a reference and add additional references to verify this passage in this article. But It shouldn't be removed merely because YOU disagree with it.

Billmckern (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:AVOIDYOU. Additionally, please do not make assumptions of my actions. While there maybe internet memes, IMHO the section is WP:UNDUE, and not significantly connected to the subject of the article. While there maybe verifiable content which misrepresents the act, such misrepresentations are not significant when it comes to the subject itself. If someone wants to look at snopes, which some may view as baised, or any other alleged fact check site, they can. However, there is not a need for Misplaced Pages to be used to advocate for one opinion of a subject or another.

My editing has nothing to do with advocating for one side of the gun debate or another, and the statement above shows bad faith.

Rather, this is an article about a government act which regulates and defines what a militia is in the United States. That is the scope of the article, not what an internet meme says the subject of the article is. Let that be where this article focuses on.

This is why myself and others see the quotes by two college professors as being given undue weight, or the for that matter this internet meme.

If the article focuses on the subject itself, and does so clearly with good reliable sources, it itself can be a source of actual facts on the subject of the article. Itself will disprove any false information, without ever needed to address the internet meme directly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: It seems to me that if your interest was only in the content of the article, that you'd be satisfied to see that the question of whether to include the paragraph on the false meme was brought up more than a year ago, and no one objected to it then.

Second, I believe the idea that something false that's incorrectly passed off as being true will simply be recognized as false without anyone noting that it's false is not borne out by the facts -- just look how many times the false Dick Act meme has been circulated in memes, social media posts, and letters to the editor. The way to kill a zombie lie is to kill it, not to simply assume that it will be recognized as a lie. For example, look how much space is devoted to debunking the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the John Kerry military service controversy article.

Billmckern (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a section on a related internet meme; moreover see WP:CRIT. I have merged relevant content into other sections of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: You and one other person is not a "consensus". The content is relevant. I've modified it to address your alleged concerns. I try not to argue most of the time, but on this one, I'm willing to continue.

Billmckern (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Billmckern: In response to this reversion. This has nothing to do with Snopes as a source or not. This is about editing against the consensus that the section doesn't belong.

Additionally there are three people who oppose the inclusion of the content which Billmckern (talk · contribs) is insistent on including. These include an IP editor and Springee (talk · contribs).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Billmckern is correct that 3:1 isn't much of a consensus. At the same time the material has been removed a number of times by a number of editors. In reviewing I found 2 named editors (outside recent edits) though one was a new account and a number of IP editors located across the US. This does suggest a number of editors are against this material and have been since almost the time it was added. That said, I think this could be addressed with a good rewrite rather than removal. The new references have enough weight that we could work with those references alone. Discussing it in terms of a meme isn't encyclopedic (was it used as an argument before internet memes were a thing?) when the real issue is people are using this act as a legal argument against federal gun control. I would change the section name to something more neutral ("Use as a legal argument against federal gun control"?) and rewrite the paragraph. Perhaps something like, "The Militia Act has been used as an argument against the legality of gun control based on the following argument... ... This legal argument has been discounted by experts for the following reasons..." The links to letters to the editor aren't needed since the RS'ed articles saying why the Act isn't a good legal argument do that. I think the general material can add to the article but not in its current form. This may be a good topic for WP:NPOVN for additional suggestions. Springee (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I'd be OK with that modification. Here's my suggestion:

A well-known narrative which has appeared in numerous Internet memes, letters to the editor and posts on social media cites the Dick Act as a legal argument against proposed federal gun control. This narrative's claims include: the Dick Act created three classes of militia (organized, unorganized, regular Army); repealing the Dick Act would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws; and the Dick Act "cannot be repealed." However, this narrative has been discounted by several legal and policy experts for a variety of reasons, including that parts of the Dick Act were effectively repealed or amended when it was modified by the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Acts of 1916 and 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933. In addition, the Dick Act created two classes of militia, organized and unorganized, not three; the regular Army is not part of the militia. Repealing the Dick Act also did not violate bills of attainder (a law unfairly targeted at a single individual or group) or ex post facto laws (making something retroactively illegal).

Billmckern (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that text would still need work. Again I would avoid any language that would suggest where people have made the claim (meme, letters to editor etc). "A well-known..." is a statement that would require more than one RS to support. This is something more like what I had in mind.

The MAof1903 has been cited as legal proof that federal gun control is invalid(pick a better word/phrase). This opinion is disputed by legal/policy experts .

The section doesn't have to be long to get the information across. The hows and whys can be left to the sources (I know I didn't say that the first time). I think just two sentences is sufficient because otherwise the article has a balance issue. We don't need to give what appears to be a fringe legal idea that much text in the article. This is my opinion and I would suggest not making changes until RightCowLeftCoast gets a chance to weigh in. Springee (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Concur.

Billmckern (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I would much rather see the internet meme thing removed all together.

I would like to see the content of this section integrated into the entirety of the article.

If there is to be a separate section, perhaps this content, neutrally worded, better belongs in the Gun politics in the United States article, where there is zero mention of the subject of this article. Let this section not be a WP:COATRACK, but rather stay focused on the subject of this article. If this is a question about adding content about use of the subject of this article in the gun control debate, that falls outside of the scope of this article. Rather it falls within the scope of the "gun politics" article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

RCLC, I understand your concerns. Many articles that are tangentially related to guns end up with a lot of anti-gun material. In this case I think their is weight for general inclusion because when I do a web search for the article subject most sources talk about it in terms of gun control. Thus I think weight is established. Concerns about coatracking are very valid. I looked at the article as is and I can't see how the material would fit in any of the existing sections but, like you, I don't like this being a stand alone section. Is there enough information to create a historical retrospective section? A section that talks about what happened to the act and it's impacts would be a good place for the information while avoiding a two sentence subsection. Springee (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: IMHO I believe the two sentences would be better off at the Gun politics in the United States where it can be given due weight, and expanded upon greater than two sentences. I believe that maybe what Billmckern (talk · contribs) is seeking, but I can not speak for that editor.

By keeping this article focused on the subject, rather than a tangential subject out of this article's scope, it will serve the purpose which Billmckern might be seeking, that is to emphasis the POV that the subject of this article is not something that should be utilized in defense of those in favor of gun ownership under the second amendment. Again I cannot speak for the purpose of the editing of the other editor.

That said this article should not be utilized to advocate one side of the gun debate in the United States or the other. While I see the summarized content proposed by Springee, and it is very neutrally worded, I can only see it being in the history section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: And now you've targeted my problem with the way this discussion has gone. Stating the fact that the Dick Act Meme is false is not "one side of the gun debate." It's absolutely false to say that the Dick Act prevents firearms regulation. it's absolutely true to say that the meme claiming the Dick Act prevents gun control is false. These are factually accurate statements and not opinions or beliefs that are subject to debate.

This is in fact my complaint about many attempts to appear "balanced" or "neutral" in news stories, and even sometimes on Misplaced Pages. It works like this: "Bob says the grass is green. Joe says there is no grass. This question shows no sign of being resolved as the partisan bickering continues."

What's missing? How about looking at the grass for yourself? How about asking a plant biologist or landscaper or other expert? How about looking into whether one "party" or the other has a motive to lie on purpose? Or whether one party is substituting belief and opinion for fact because of his ideological or political positions?

The Dick Act argument is false. That it continues to circulate despite its being false makes debunking it relevant to this article.

Billmckern (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

However, that is the problem Billmckern. It is not Misplaced Pages's place to say that a POV is false. Misplaced Pages is suppose to neutral, and present due weight representation of what is verifiable. What is verifiable is that there is contention/a dispute regarding interpretation of the subject; that said the contention in the interpretation is not so much about what this subject, but is wrapped around in the far larger (and with its own article) gun politics in the United States topic. Therefore, while the subject of this article is tangentially related, gun politics is outside of this article's scope, and thus why IMHO the content which was added by Billmckern (talk · contribs) should not be here, but should be in the article Gun politics in the United States, and thus my opinion why this section falls under WP:COATRACK. As Springee (talk · contribs) has pointed out, there is sufficient actions since Billmckern added the content in December 2015 has been attempted to be removed a multitude of times, by various editors (IP & confirmed); this shows a consensus that the content added in December 2015 shouldn't be in this article. I am not saying that it should not be in Misplaced Pages in some form, however, as I have stated before it should not be in this particular article, and at least not as it is written which appears to advocate for a certain POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: "Neutrality" doesn't mean facts don't count. The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. If your opinion is that it was signed in 1775, or was never signed at all, it would not be "neutral" to present "both sides". One side is clearly factual, and the other side isn't. One is correct and one is incorrect. That means they're not equally valid.

Billmckern (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think RCLC has a valid concern. I've grappled with this question before and I think it boils down to something like this: A is WP:Noteable. B is WP:Noteable. A is an important part of B. Does that make B an important part of A? Does that mean B should be mentioned on the article for A? I was involved in a large RfC on a subject somewhat like this ]. One of the questions was should the Oklahoma City bombing show up on the Ford F-600 truck page? The bombing is arguably more encyclopedic than the truck and many articles about the bombing mentioned the truck even by name. The result of the RfC was exclude the material from the truck page. Part for the reason was that the truck article was not really enhanced by the inclusion of material about the bombing even though it was all RS'ed. The consensus was the material wasn't in the scope of the article.

Relating back to this article, I can see why RCLC thinks the gun politics information is out of scope for this article. I agree that the primary place that such information should reside would be a gun politics type article. I also understand the concern regarding coatrack. Perhaps a better way to handle this would be put the primary information in what ever article it fits in best then include an also see link to the correct section of that article. Alternatively, include a short statement noting that this argument has been used then link to the article that discusses it in detail. It keeps the material accessible from this article but puts the primary content in the most appropriate location. Sorry, that isn't a tie breaking statement. Springee (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: that seems reasonable. Saying that the subject has been mentioned in discussions of Gun Politics in the United States, without saying how, wikilinking to the appropriate section in the Gun Politics in the United States section, seems like a reasonable compromise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: @Springee: It's NOT "POV" to say that something is true when it is, and that something's false when it is. I'm sorry that the facts don't agree with your argument, but that doesn't make them less factual. Not everything is a matter of opinion, as in "I believe" or "I think" or "I feel". Some things can be KNOWN. The Dick Act didn't and doesn't prevent the regulation of firearms. It can be repealed, as is demonstrated by the fact that IT ALREADY HAS BEEN. Those are facts. Not opinions. Not beliefs.

Mentioning the false Dick Act meme in the article on the Dick Act, and linking to it in the Gun Politics article seems reasonable. Failing to mention it, or deleting it altogether, or claiming that whether the meme is true is a matter of opinion is not.

Billmckern (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

♠Maybe I'm showing my age, but when somebody starts out saying, "We need to rebut an Internet meme", my first reaction is, "No. We don't."

♠That said, refutation of a broadly-circulated (I wouldn't say "well-known", not least because this is the first I'm hearing of it) myth is a good idea.

♠However, mere assertion "facts are facts" doesn't get it. The content of the Dick Act, & the truth of its repeal, & associated matters, still need citation from reliable sources--for which blogs, even by lawyers who published books, do not qualify.

♠I'd also agree, including this at a gun control page is more apt, since the issue being raised (or refuted) is gun control, not the Militia Act itself. TREKphiler 02:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to a clear consensus that the content being discussed I have removed the content, transferring some of the references to the appropriate sections, and included a mention that the subject has been mentioned in gun debates. Feel free to include the content about how the subject of this article is mentioned in gun debates, and opinions of the use of those mentions, in that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The opinions of two professors

In the section named "Implementation in the Southern United States" gives significant weight to the opinion of two professors. While the content is properly attributed to the two professors, do their opinions really matter that significantly to the subject that they should be highlighted in the article? Are there other individuals who share the professors point of view of the subject of this article, and are there others who hold different or opposing views?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed United States Territories articles
• Unknown-importance United States Territories articles
• WikiProject United States Territories articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles