User talk:JP419

Christian Patriot

I have proposed to move the article. Please comment at its talk page. Gazpacho 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Militia Corps

Hi,

As much as I'd like to help, I'm afraid I'm out of touch with current policies to properly moderate the discussion. If the article is nominated for deletion, you should make your arguments there, and let the current administrators who are involved in the page clean up to judge the discussion. 4 years ago, consensus was reached to keep the article because it was changed to make it notable. If, notability has changed since 4 years ago, or consensus differs, then I'm sorry, the article should be deleted. I understand you being an inclusionist, but the things I'm finding about it doesn't warrant it necessarily being that notable to have a page on its own. Maybe a footnote in another article, but that's all I can tell. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Actually, the article hasn't been properly nominated yet.. Fortunately, the individual in question (in this instance) was kind enough to use the talk page first before making radical edits. I'd hate to see hours of work flushed, because I'm not about to engage in an edit war, though certainly this subject (militias in the USA) has attracted precisely that sort of activity. Could/should edit protection be considered?

This user's concept of notability, and his desire to delete the article, centers around a narrow interpretation of what he considers acceptable sources. He seems to think that ONLY mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and corporate printed journalism such as Newsweek or USA Today) can be cited. Isn't it true that membership organizations with an online presence such as Constitution.org, or publishing affiliates of an org like TheNewAmerican.com (magazine of the John Birch Society) can be sited a third party sources? (Especially if the material in question is accessible online?)

Oh, one last question: How do I determine who the administrator of a page is? If the page has no administrator, what can I do? How does one go about doing that? There are a number of other pages I am interested in taking a more active role in, assuming that I don't get edit warred / reverted to death for making good improvements.

Thanks again.

--JP419 via email

Membership organizations with an online presence is not a way to establish notability. I'll explain my reasoning why. Suppose you have 10 friends, living within your region (50 miles, let's say) and have them start 10 independent local food review magazines. They all decide to publish their magazines online. You open a restaurant, and have them review it. Does this mean your restaurant is notable enough to merit an article in the Wikipedia?

I'm not saying though, that your references are not notable, but I'm only trying to highlight how the argument could be made for a little cafe out of in the middle of nowhere, who decided on a whim, to put themselves in the Wikipedia for advertisement purposes.

As quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability: The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.

There is no set "administrator" for page. If you like help from an administrator, you can flag one down either in IRC (#wikipedia-en on irc.freenode.net) or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). From WP:ADMIN: Used for matters needing attention from "any passing administrator/s". Although threads here can become long, this board is primarily for incidents and other matters needing advice or attention.

--AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you made my argument in stating: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas". The problem with trying to make the page meet Wikipedia quality standards in the first place is the fact that there is little material about militia groups that is accurate. All too often I have seen information posted on articles relating to citizen militias that repeatedly make use of unsourced material, or unverifiable statements made by a secondary source. For example, the Indiana Militia article included an alleged quote from an ADL publication that was attributed to the commander of the militia, and that it was derived from an online source. I scoured the internet, also using the Internet Archive ("wayback machine"), and found not a single trace of the alleged quote. What I did find is that the ADL and SPLC, as its critics claim, actually fabricate quotes.

Now maybe I'm still a noob at this whole Wikipedia thing, but isn't it true that material derived from a source that turns out to be erroneous (or an outright fabrication) cannot be used in a Wikipedia article? And what then of a tertiary source that cites the original fabrication without attempting to fact-check, in essence repeating the original falsity?? I hope you see my point. It is in essence the reverse of the example you gave. Most of what is published about militias, aside from being wrong, all comes from the same tainted root. As such, it undermines the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia and lends credence to the critics of Wikipedia.

Or should I also adopt a deletionist position, and argue that all articles relating to militia groups be deleted, on these grounds? Excuse me for perhaps repeating the obvious, but I just do not see how anything constructive is served by deleting a page for reasons that apply equally to other pages within the category.

And again, thanks a million for letting me sound this out with you. It's been helpful.

- JP419 via email

"reliable non-academic sources" -- I believe, the intent for something like that means like organizations such as Association for Computing Machinery. Also, can you please avoid emailing me and post here? Thanks. --AllyUnion (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have questions on policy like this, ask at the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) page. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Indiana Militia Corps

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Indiana Militia Corps. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana Militia Corps (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]