Talk:Militia Act of 1903

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)

Speaking of contradiction, there are some issues with this sentence: "one aspect of the Militia Act of 1903 was a continuation of Jim Crow-era politics, designed primarily to strengthen racist segregation laws by disarming black U.S. citizens,[47] thus making it easier to oppress and subjugate them". Overall it goes against the rest of the article, which claims the primary reason for the act is the formation of a national volunteer force, since the state militias could not be relied upon. What is this "one aspect of the Militia Act", anyways? How does it disarm black citizens? I went to the source material and it wasn't explained there either. Unless this claim can put forth a reliable basis, I suggest it be removed.Thinktank33 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The entire section is sourced from just some guy's website. Why is this even on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:343:8101:6F0:3098:F1D7:8859:D2B0 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yea ideally more than some guys website claiming this would be ideal. Especially, since the militia act of 1795 which this repealed claimed the militia were only "free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45". This act replaced it with "every able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45" is part of the militia. Now if it was used to crack down on the 2A rights of African Americans who were not part of an organized militia that would interesting.

Meme

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 [citations].

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's place to say that a POV is false. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [[1]]. 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 ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 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)

I don't see that their point of view is explained and it doesn't seem to make sense. How can you claim the formation of a National Guard was "designed primarily to strengthen racist segregation laws by disarming black U.S. citizens"? The National Guard was clearly about strengthening federal forces and protecting the country.Thinktank33 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this section. I can't tell whether Cunningham actually talks about the motivations for the Militia Act of 1903, so the section hangs on Ross's argument. A recent discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391#Friesian.com, has concluded that Ross is not a reliable source, so without some other support, the section doesn't hold up. I have copied the section below, in case somebody does find better sourcing for this argument. 67.170.60.136 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Implementation in the Southern United States

According to Professor Kelley L. Ross of the Los Angeles Valley College, one aspect of the Militia Act of 1903 was a continuation of Jim Crow-era politics, designed primarily to strengthen racist segregation laws by disarming black U.S. citizens, thus making it easier to oppress and subjugate them.

This view is supported by author Roger D. Cunningham in his essay "They are as Proud of their Uniform as any who Serve Virginia: African American Participation in the Virginia Volunteers, 1872–1899", part of the book Brothers to the Buffalo Soldiers: Perspectives on the African American Militia and Volunteers, 1865-1917. According to Cunningham, southern white militia units of the 1890s and early 1900s refused to interact with black units from the north, and the governor refused to allow black militia units from Washington, D.C. to take part in commemorations and ceremonies which were held in Virginia.

African American units continued to serve where permitted, including the District of Columbia, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, and New York.

This is ridiculous

@RightCowLeftCoast: "The act has been mentioned in gun debates."

What the hell is that? There's no explanation. No context. No sources. Just a sentence hanging out there without meaning.

This alteration does not represent a reasonable change from the original.

Billmckern (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dick Act has been amended. This is an incontrovertible fact. It's not an opinion or a belief. As a result, a claim that the Dick Act "can't be amended" is false on its face.

Example - "Will Seek To Amend Dick Military Law". Atlanta Constitution, October 2, 1913. Page 3. Quote: "Chief of these is the proposed amendment of the Dick Act."

Example - "Regiment Cannot Be Held Together". Fort Gibson New Era, December 14, 1916. Page 2. Quote: "Company M of Oklahoma City was mustered in under the old Dick act, which was replaced by the Hays-Chamberlain Bill, a law that became effective before the order for mobilization came."

Example - "National Guard", Pittsburgh Press, October 26, 1933. Page 2. Quote: "Originally, the Militia was subject to the call of only the President and Congress, but a reorganization effected in 1903 (the Dick Act, which was amended in 1910)..."

Billmckern (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is already an entire section about the amendments of the subject of this article. There is no need to state it again when there is already a section already dedicated to that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Your personal agenda is clear. You won't be reasonable because you insist on promoting a cause. That's bias, plain and simple. Compromise and consensus on this topic are clearly impossible. I'm going to find a suitable place in a suitable article to restore the information you deleted, whether you like it or not. Facts being inconvenient to your argument doesn't make them less factual.

Billmckern (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL.

Accusing myself of pushing a cause when I have not made any significant edits in other articles related to the gun debate is humorous on its face. As was stated above, and which there is a consensus of myself and other editors, the content that was removed in this article falls within the scope of the article Gun politics in the United States. Please help by improving the content of that article with neutrally worded and balanced content relating to the different interpretations of the subject of this article, and keep with consensus by leaving it out of this article.

The previous version was significantly unbalanced, giving weight only to a POV which views the subject of this article as not being supportive of private firearm ownership.

Good'day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: it's not "POV" to provide accurate, fact-based information. It IS "POV" to act as though a belief or a perception that's at variance with the facts is equally as credible as the facts in order to refuse acknowledging that a ideological or political position is wrong. The fact that you don't like the facts doesn't turn them into non-facts.

Billmckern (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA & WP:WEIGHT. While the content which consensus had removed does contain reliable sources, it lacked balance, and was not presented in a neutral manner. But the reason for the removal was more that it fell outside of this article's scope. This article is about the Militia Act of 1903 not about an alleged meme which falls within the scope of gun politics in the United States. Again, please look to improve the content of that article rather than maintain tangential unbalanced content here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Billmckern: I have reverted an edit per WP:BRD which attempts to advance one narrative. Please stop editing against the consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by User:RightCowLeftCoast who's operating in bad faith, and trying to substitute his opinion for fact because the facts are inconvenient to his political point of view. And I will keep making the point that beliefs and opinions don't trump facts. And the point that pretending there's a question of neutrality when it's really a question of facts inconveniently contradicting your opinion is a bad faith argument.

Billmckern (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler and Springee: By Billmckern (talk · contribs) reverting the removal and failing to reach a consensus for the new language he is editing outside of WP:BRD. Moreover the addition of that content is against the consensus formed above in the section named "Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section." I will notify the admin board rather than get involved in a contentious edit war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I'm not the problem, User:RightCowLeftCoast. Look at the article edits. Look at the comment threads.

Billmckern (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Billmckern: I am not inserting any POVs in my edits, if anything I am removing POVs to neutralize the content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In the most recent edit by Billmckern a POV has been inserted that is not verified by the reliable source. Therefore Billmckern can continue to cast dispersions on myself, but I know that those accusations are false.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll reserve particular comment on any POV-pushing, beyond saying including OT material on this page might be construed as such, & the add I'm seeing in ref any gun control debate is OT for this page. If the issue of the Act being a gun control measure is to be debated somewhere, that debate belongs at a gun control page. Anywhere else is POV, possibly COATRACK, possibly both. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

False narrative

Recent edits introduced the following text In recent years, the Dick Act act has been referenced in a false narrative which has circulated as part of the debate over gun control in the United States, sourced to American Political Culture: An Encyclopedia.[2] Reviewing that page of the source, I am unable to find anything to support the article text. The sole mention of the Militia Act is in a parenthetical (Since the federal Militia Act of 1903, individual state militias have been organized into the National Guard and have been tasked with supplementing army units overseas and providing domestic support in relief of natural disasters.). Editors have removed this as unsourced, but it has been re-added. I do not believe that the article text as added is supported by the source, and suggest that it be removed. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Not recent edits. The actual text about the Dick Act meme being false was four years old when User:RightCowLeftCoast decided to make an issue of it.

The text as I added it to Gun politics in the United States in an effort to satisfy User:RightCowLeftCoast after he raised this issue is:

In recent years a narrative that references the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act) has appeared in a well-known internet meme, letters to the editor and posts on social media, and cites it as an argument against proposed gun control laws and regulations. The narrative is inaccurate in several respects, and is not reliable as an argument against the regulation of firearms. To cite an example, the narrative claims the Dick Act "cannot be repealed." In fact parts of the Dick Act were effectively repealed or amended when it was modified by the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933.

References

As I think is clear to see, the narrative that the Dick Act somehow prevents firearms regulation and can't be amended is obviously false. Among other things, it has actually been amended several times, therefore, it CAN be amended. So it's not debatable - "On the one hand, maybe it can't be amended, on the other hand, maybe it can." It can be amended. Because it has been. Therefore any claim that this is a question of opinion is simply wrong.

Is the false narrative relevant to the Dick Act article, or to the article on Gun politics? I think so, for the reasons I stated when the question was posed in January 2017 - these falsehoods have been circulated and repeated verbatim in a variety of media, including social media and letters to the editor.

So we're dealing with a false narrative that has current relevance. I think it needs to be mentioned somewhere and refuted, simply because it's so pervasive.

Billmckern (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Part of the issue is that none of those sources were referenced in the text which was added and removed (and added and removed and added) today. Uninvolved editors, independently assessing whether article text is verified should not have to either read through previous versions or go searching externally to find sources which verify the content. If any of these sources directly verified the article text and had been included, then I, for one, would not have removed that text.

As for the sources: The first three are "letters to the editor" of various publications. These are not reliable sources. (Concern about reliability is twofold: verifiability and weight). The fourth, "knowthelies.com" appears to be a conspiracy website, also not a reliable source. The fifth, "armsandthelaw.com", shows somewhat more promise - it is a self-published blog, but potentially the author is a subject expert[3]. The sixth, "newswithviews.com" (Publius Huldah), and the seventh, Volokh Conspiracy (David Kopel), are group blogs; again potentially written by experts. These two sources might support the inclusion of attributed opinion, but not necessarily support the inclusion of text stated as fact. The next three sources only verify that the Dick Act was amended. The last 3 require subscription, and are also only used to verify that the Act was amended.

The key text (the first sentence as written above) is only referenced to primary sources, which we WP:SYNTHesize to obtain that text.

What independent, reliable (for fact, not opinion) sources clearly & directly support the text: In recent years a narrative that references the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act) has appeared in a well-known internet meme, letters to the editor and posts on social media, and cites it as an argument against proposed gun control laws and regulations. or similar. Of the sources above, the closest to that text is from Kopel on Volokh Conspiracy: These days, however, a ridiculous email is being circulated, which claims that the Dick Act absolutely prohibits any form of gun control for men 17-44. Further, the email asserts, preposterously, that the Dick Act is unrepealable, because repeal would violate the Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto clauses. Cleave closely to that, attribute the source, and find other sources which say essentially the same, and there may be a case for inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Just weighing in on the reliability of The Volokh Conspiracy - I would generally consider it reliable for the opinion of subject matter experts, particularly in legal matters. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I agree with your suggestions. Here's mine for what yours would look like with the sources added:

In recent years, a narrative repeated in letters to the editor, social media posts, and an Internet meme claims that the Dick Act prohibits regulation of firearms. This narrative also asserts that the Dick Act cannot be repealed because repeal would violate the Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In fact parts of the Dick Act were effectively repealed or amended when it was modified by the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933.

References

Additional references that might help include:

United States Congress (1952). Federal Supplement [First Series], Volume 100. Eagan, MN: West Publishing. p. 316. In 1908 the Dick Act was amended to empower the President to require a further constitutional service of the Guard...

United States Congress (1916). United States Compiled Statutes, Annotated, 1916. Eagan, MN: West Publishing. p. 4284. The provisions of said Militia Act of 1903, as amended by the Militia Act of May 27, 1908, c. 204, 35 Stat. 399, relating to the organized militia, were probably superseded by corresponding provisions, set forth in this title, of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916...

U.S. House Committee on Armed Services (1965). Merger of the Army Reserve Components: Hearings Before Subcommittee No.2, Eighty-ninth Congress, First Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 4311. The Dick Act prescribed the organization that was In effect until the enactment of the National Defense Act of 1916, which as amended in 1933, remained in effect until the enactment of the Armed Forces Reserve Act in 1952.

(The Dick Act clearly CAN be amended, because it WAS amended in 1908, 1916, and 1933. Therefore the recent Dick Act narrative about gun control is false, and a "both sides" debate in the guise of neutrality claiming that it's a matter of opinion whether the Dick Act prevents regulation of firearms is misleading, to put it mildly.)

Billmckern (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus that context about the subject of this article, while mentioned within the topic of Gun politics in the United States, falls outside of the scope of this article. This consensus was formed in these edits.

The problem I have with the content added in December 2015, and that Billmckern continues to advocate for is that it was clearly not weighted neutrally, only including a single POV, and that even that wording is outside of this article's scope. There is a place for the content which Billmckern wants to add to maintain on Wikipedia, just not in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the The Volokh Conspiracy is only reliable for the opinion of its author not as an authoritative statement of fact. While there are those who claim that the subject of this article says one thing about gun politics, or another individual claims the subject of this article says another thing about gun politics, are both easily verifiable. That said, that falls within the scope of gun politics, let us please move that content there, rather than create a WP:COATRACK which only writes positively about one side of the debate here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: As far as I'm concerned, you keep using "balance" and "neutrality" as a way to dodge a factual statement with which you disagree.

"Some say water is wet. On the other hand, some say water is dry." That's not really a "balanced" or "neutral" argument because one "side" is clearly, obviously, blatantly, WRONG.

You can't make an argument that the Dick Act can't be amended, or that "some say" it can't be amended, and there's no way to know for sure if they're right. We do know for sure. It has been amended. Therefore it can be amended. Therefore anyone who argues that the Dick Act can't be amended, or claims that that the question is unresolved is WRONG.

Billmckern (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing with the facts you're presenting. Obviously those conspiracy theories about the Dick Act are false. But just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Does this article claim that the Dick Act can't be amended? Does this article claim that the Dick Act invalidates all gun control laws? No, it's doesn't say either of those things. There's no need to add a section describing and debunking a conspiracy theory about the subject of this article. We could simply not mention the conspiracy theory, since it's unimportant. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion WP:ONUS.

In support of that, the only sources provided that mention it are 4 primary sources (3 crazy rants that are letters to the editor of various newspapers, and one crazy rant on a blog), and three sources describing and debunking the conspiracy theory, all of which are self-published blogs. Sure, maybe one of the authors of those blogs might be a recognized expert and thus suitable as a source, but that's not the point. If this conspiracy theory is so obscure that no reliable second source even bothers to debunk it, then wikipedia doesn't need to mention it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone IS arguing that the facts aren't factual. That's been the whole point of this discussion. He's arguing that calling the Dict Act meme false violates Wikipedia's neutrality provisions. I'm arguing that if it's true, it's true. That it disagrees with his point of view doesn't turn it into a non-fact. And it's not reasonable to claim that it's "neutral" to present "both sides" of a debate when one "side" is factually correct and the other isn't. One "side" is right and one is wrong, so it's unfair to present them both as if they are equally credible, and either could be right, but there's no way to know which one.

I intended presenting sources like letters to the editor to serve only as verification that the Dick Act meme does get presented in letters to the editor. As you can see on the Talk page for this article, I've also researched and provided even more sources that debunk the central claim of the meme -- that the Dick Act can't be amended.

Is the Dick Act Meme relevant? I think so. As I mentioned at the top of the discussion page, if you do something as simple as a Google search on the terms Dick Act and gun control, you get 1.3 million hits, almost all of which are repetitions of the claim that the Dick Act prevents regulation of firearms. It seems to me that if the gun control debate is the main modern frame of reference for the Dick Act, then the fact that this reference is wrong needs to be recorded.

Billmckern (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Cobbling together primary sources such as letters to the editor and century-old laws to build a narrative, even an accurate one, is WP:SYN. The only secondary sources are self-published blogs. Although it is clear that the myth is circulating and has been debunked, I don't see enough RS coverage to justify inclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I totally dispute the notion that I "cobbled together" sources. I provided the following facts:

a) There is a pervasive narrative that references the Dick Act.

b) The narrative has appeared repeatedly in Internet memes, letters to the editor, social media posts, and the like.

c) The narrative is false.

I also provided references to verify these facts. That's not "cobbling together" anything. And those sources are authoritative - if a Congressional report on a newly-enacted piece of legislation says "this law amends the Dick Act", I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the source isn't reliable, or that there's a legitimate debate about whether the Dick Act can be amended.

Is discussing the Dick Act meme relevant? As I've indicated, it crops up so often and is almost always repeated uncritically. It seems to me that the fact that the meme is false ought to be included somewhere. If not the Dick Act article, then certainly in the gun politics one.

Billmckern (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Cropping up often" does not mean that something is appropriate for inclusion here. We need coverage in reliable sources. We can't use primary sources such as letters to the editor or pieces of legislation as support. –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

So we can't use a letter to the editor as proof of a letter to the editor, but we can create a phony "both sides" argument to claim the Dick Act can't be repealed when the sources clearly prove it can be? When did facts stop mattering?

Billmckern (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It's spelled out in WP:NOR. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You are analyzing the primary source to arrive at a conclusion that is not directly supported by the source. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't synthesize or interpret anything. The sky isn't green. Water isn't dry. There's no "on the one hand maybe yes, on the other hand maybe no" debate to be had when one "hand" is factually incorrect.

Billmckern (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus that the meme, and the debunking don't fall within the scope of this article, nor is there an onus to debunk a meme in this article. Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE again. I ask Oshwah (talk · contribs) to return the article to the state it was here when Ryk72 (talk · contribs) last edited the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't debunk falsehoods? How about this from the article on the Parkland shooting?

Right-wing conspiracy theories circulated in the wake of the shooting. The speculation included false claims that the shooting did not happen or was staged by "crisis actors".

Seems like we DO debunk falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Well, some of them, anyway.

So the argument has gone from "there's a question of whether the Dick Act meme is false" to "the fact that the Dick Act meme is false is irrelevant". What do we call that? CalvinBall, maybe?

Billmckern (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Debunking falsehoods would fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If the myth and debunking have been covered in reliable sources, then we can cover them here, but we should not be doing the debunking ourselves. –dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Just because some other article is not following a policy or guideline, doesn't mean that this article should not as well. I have said it before, perhaps the content relating to this meme should be on Wikipedia, however, it falls outside of the scope of this article. There is no onus to cover it in this article, and it clearly falls under the scope, and there is a consensus confirming such, of Gun politics of the United States. Including such content here would make the section which was previous included be a WP:COATRACK to push a POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't help that you keep changing your arguments and I keep refuting them. It's pretty clear that you're determined to have your way on this point, and you're not going to let the facts get in the way.

Billmckern (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)00:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines have not changed, nor has the editor above changed consensus; in fact there are additional editors who have become involved who have strengthened the consensus that the content which the above editor wants to add should not be within this article. The above editor claims to refute arguments, but has not persuaded any of the individuals active in this discussion to change their minds that the content is out of the scope of this article and there is no onus to refute a meme within this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It may appear the people arguing against including this content keep changing arguments, but that's because there are a lot of major reasons not to include this content, starting from the fact that it makes no sense to even mention something given so little prominence by reliable sources, and also including the fact that the line about this conspiracy theory that you want to include is sourced merely to some newspaper letters to the editor and self-published blogs.

Also, please understand. This is not about the truth of that conspiracy theory, which obvious bullshit. It's not about providing a false "he said she said" balance in the article. Balance on wikipedia means that the article should represent all major views on the subject proportionate to their weight given by reliable sources. So that means that something that no reliable source mentions (this conspiracy theory) shouldn't be covered in this article. It's not our job to dig up conspiracy theories to debunk, unless reliable sources do the same. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view, it's VERY clear what's going on here, and from my point of view, it has NOTHING to do with reliability or balance. My perception is that a few dedicated, determined individuals are determined to force their personal point of view in the guise of "fairness". In addition, I have reason to believe that some other contributors aren't willing to engage here because they don't want to get dragged into a dispute where there's no consensus or compromise to be had - because you're determined to get your way.

You also seem determined to have the last word. So fine -- you've gotten your way. Reply to this message so you can satisfy that urge, and then let's be done with this.

Billmckern (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)