Talk:Hutaree/archive-2010-04-01

Archive 1

Untitled

Mar. 29, 2010 - Apr. 1, 2010

Deletion

This topic is extremely noteworthy and likely to be one of the major news items in 2010. There will probably be tons of crackdowns on cults and stuff.

The page needs to be cleaned up and organized and then will be able to be assessed properly. Right now it is jumbled. I say it needs modification, but not deletion yet Logan brennan (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy is this page violating?--98.114.134.238 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that an alleged hate group/Christian Militia active in a liberal northern state is not noteworthy? Evidently you would be wrong because the raid/raids have been plastered all over the networks news programs. Someone thinks that they are a "Clear and present danger to the national security of the United States." Yes, I do realize that "national security" could be twisted into any meaning.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Try here [1] for 47,000 hits.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See Christian Patriot movement--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving past the humour of anywhere in America being called liberal, actually read WP:NOT#NEWS. Google hits after a news story strikes? Irrelevant. Lots of news sources over a short period? Irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You would be wrong of course, the Google hits merely prove how wrong you are. 47.000 to you.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Liberalness" of Michigan is highly debatable. It clearly misses the reality of Michigan and its actual political culture. The Michigan State Senate is Republican controlled, we have a Republican Attorney General who is among those sueing over federal health care, and Stupak is not easily described simply as "liberal". I would advise avoiding such simplistic descriptions of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While I scarcely think it matters much (or at all), within the context of this article, I think its clear that Michigan is a sort "swing state," that leans somewhat to the Democrats in Presidential elections, but where the Republican Party, and conservatives & rightists generally, retain substantial power. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Point 1 against deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS relates to news events, but the subject of this article is an organization. Borrowing words from WP:ORG here, this organization is now noteworthy because it has become the subject of international coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources. Point 2 against deletion. Even if you disagree with point 1 and want this to be a news event, then per WP:EVENT, it was nominated for deletion much too soon. Articles about breaking news events should not be nominated for several days, to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge. This article was created less than a day ago. MetaEd (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tentative keep: since the article is here and growing slowly but surely, let's see how things unfold over the coming days. There's plenty of time to delete or merge it if it proves not to warrant a separate article.--Witan (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tentative keep: The Hutarees are presently getting broad-ranging nation-wide news coverage. According to the notability guidelines, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." I think it's too soon to talk about persistence, but it certainly is not beyond the pale of possibility. Bwilreker (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This is a big deal and may be a starting point for the war on right-wing extremism. There is a trend and with the growth of militias like these, we should see more news coverage and future stories that cite this group. PartyJoe (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: It is ridiculous to propose this isn't relevant encyclopedic material. These arrests are rather significant in the history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. in the early 21st Century, and somebody over with Wikiproject Terrorism should come by and clean it up a bit. This is certainly as relevant as the page on the Nigerian Christmas 2009 bomber, an FA and another failed terrorist plot. The deletion of this article would be a disservice to the Wikipedia community and would indicate a flaw in Wikipedia's deletion process.Neumannk (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This article is as important and relevant as the Heaven's Gate one would have been on this date 13 years ago. Stroller (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: 1. The Hutarees are presently getting broad-ranging nation-wide news coverage. According to the notability guidelines, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." 2.These arrests are rather significant in the history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. 3. the subject of this article is an organization which is now noteworthy because it has become the subject of international coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this article had been nominated for deletion with a deletion page, discussion of the deletion issue should be placed there. This section exists because originally the article on this para-military organization was put up for deletion through speedy deletion. At times I wonder if speedy deletion is worthwhile, or at least wish there were more controls on its use and more limited criteria on what could be nominated for it. If you have ideas on improving or updating or expanding this article, or plans you wish to discuss, put them with the appropriate sub-heading below or create a new section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree may be significant

The recent action by law enforcement against the militia Hutaree is likely to make this group historically significant. This could be the opening of a major anti-militia effort by the FBI; it may not be just a flash-in-the-pan news topic. Downtown dan seattle (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)downtown_dan_seattle 03:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's no way to tell that. If there is evidence of actual significance, show some. If there isn't, we're not a newspaper. Ironholds (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing like the crystal ball rule. It's not conjecture about things that will exist in the future. The group is already significant--it's part of a headline article on the New York Times. It shouldn't be deleted.131.96.91.96 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I linked this to the Michigan Militia page; whether or not this particular group has any longevity, an encyclopedic treatment of these events belongs in that page. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is no clear evidence that this is linked to the Michigan Militia. Mr. Vielmetti, if you actually went and read that page you would see it is about a specific organization, and until you provide evidence linking Hutaree to it, you are making false conclusions. Just because a militia organizations is headquartered in Michigan does not mean it is at all affiliated with the Michigan Militia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably actually more important to note that in response to this incident, the Michigan Militia has stated that they are not associated with this group in any way and has condemned the use of violence against elected officials and LEOs [2][3].Dysperdis (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The group is being targeted by the FBI and several news reports have been about them. I think that this does qualify as notable. And yes they are terrorists. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they aspired to be terrorists (that is all allegation, of course; they remain innocent until proven guilty - the government has of yet provided no real evidence of any substantive illegality on their part - it merely claims they intended to kill police officers, which may or may not be an accurate claim), but genuine terrorists would seem to be people who have committed acts of terrorism, not merely people who (perhaps) desired to commit acts of terrorism, but who were prevented from ever doing so (assuming they ever actually so intended). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keven, while your definition of what group is or is not a terrorist group does make sense, is it the one that is actually used in wikipedia and news reports? Is Jihad Jane described as a terrorist? What about other alleged Islamic groups that were broken up in the US? Back to the Michigan Militia issue, the article on that group suggests that it broke up into several groups in the late 1990s. It does seem that there is a lot of unknown factors. However, as with groups like Bash Back on the left, these right-wing, Christian groups have Anarchist tendencies, and at heart anarchists dis-like organization, so they often are not so they tend towards very small cells which often have little or no connection with any larger organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do know, from past experience with working to create (and then watching it get deleted) a Template on American Domestic Terrorism, that Wikipedia is extremely reluctant to describe any living individual as "a terrorist." There is apparently genuine concern as per civil liability. Nowhere in the article about the woman referred to as "Jihad Jane" is it ever clearly stated that she is a terrorist (although it could be interpreted as having been implied in a couple of instances). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

conlicting information

The people arrested March 28 considered police to be their enemies and were going to attack police and then attack the funerals according to the first two links below. That's completely different from an anti-Islamic organization. http://www.fox11az.com/news/national/89370147.html http://www.startribune.com/nation/89383482.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs 4.249.15.192 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The above are all allegations until proven. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The allegations are notable and verifiable. Press release from the US Attorneys Office is a reliable source I would reckon. http://www.scribd.com/doc/29094479/Press-release-on-Hutaree-indictment . 86.164.76.148 (talk)

The allegations are notable and verifiable, yes, but they are still merely allegations, not statements of fact. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Malbolge (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but since this group consists entirely of living people, the accusations and inclusions should follow the rules for living biographies of living people and we should make sure to not include information that is not verifiable. We should also seek to make sure the use of words and terms is consistent with other wikipedia uses, even when they may differ from street jargon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lede states that "Hutaree is a right-wing Christian militant terrorist organization." This sentence reads as a statement of fact when in truth this is an allegation at this point (one which, from my limited knowledge, I believe to be true - but my beliefs, and those of others, are not necessarily correct or verifiable.) This is an ongoing news event, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and will most probably result in a future trial to determine whether these allegations are true, false or a bit of both. Until then, I think that we here at Wikipedia need to be very careful about not stating as "fact" things that even the prosecutors would say are allegations. Franklin Moore (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I had added it with sources (see bottom section here). What happens at the jury trials isn't our concern. sparkie 18:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point. I am saying that we need to be careful to state that this an "alleged" terrorist organization. The article is stating this as a fact not an allegation. The US attorneys office Press release on this group concludes with the following statement: "An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt." [[4]] While what happens in the jury trials may not, as you say, be "our concern," being accurate should be, especially when this article list the names and shows photos of those arrested and essentially states as a fact that they are "terrorist." This is a serious charge and against living persons and the wikipedia article should not go beyond what the US Attorneys office and reputable news sources say. All reputable sources always add "alleged" to claims of serious crimes until the persons are convicted. Our article does this for the individuals, but not the organization. We should add it. Franklin Moore (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not terrorists?

How are these maniacs not terrorists? Because they claim to be Christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.200.24 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

They are not terrorists, by simple virtue of the fact they have committed no acts of terrorism. It is alleged they intended to do so in the near future, but the veracity of that claim has yet to be determined. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There does not need to be an act of violence, a threat of violence is enough. But if the claim of their intent remains unproven, so be it for now. 212.246.213.38 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping this article, at least for the present. There was significant news today, and it appears likely that it will be a current event for some days to come. I would like to see it stay, if only for the sake of persons who will hear about it on the news and want to look up something more about it. The article will undoubtedly grow as coverage becomes more in-depth. it would be nice to know (if it is in fact available) the origin of the term "Hutaree," beyond the group's simple derivation of it as Christian soldier. (From what language, or what origin?)Opaanderson (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. The individuals in question have not been tried or convicted of anything at this point. The weblinks which were added near the beginning [5][6][7][8] need to come out until someone cares to add them as inline references, properly formatted. An article is not improved by sprinkling a lot of raw links to web content into the text. The references are not sufficient for the Wikipedia article to baldly assert that they are in fact terrorists, since the web links in some cases say that the mainstream media is NOT calling them terrorists, or they are the opinion of a member of some other militia. Per WP:BLP more is needed than a few pieces stating that someone thinks they are terrorists, or original research opinions of Wikipedia editors that the activities they are accused of are sufficient to concluded they are terrorists. Wait for Newsweek, the New York Times, the Attorney General, or some other source to state that they are terrorists, then attribute the label to that source, not as an absolute incontrovertible fact. Edison (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if you have multiple sources calling them terrorists, it doesn't necessarily make the statement true. Calling them terrorists is the same as calling somebody a murderer before they've been convicted of murder in court. I would hold off until after their trial. 'Suspected terrorists' is more accurate at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RagePrime (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also a BLP violation at this point to add the category "Christian terrorists" at the bottom of the page, since they have not been convicted of terrorism, and the mainstream media have not so far jumped on board with labelling the group as such. "Alleged" or "accused" might be appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm going to remove the vandalism within the article. 69.110.72.128 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

In exactly what language does "Hutaree" mean "Christian Warrior?" Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? One would assume one of these three, given that this is a purported "Christian" fundamentalist terrorist militia group. However, it is not clear from any of the news articles which one is the alleged source of their name. Calibanu (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

I read an article online somewhere which indicated that Hutaree was said to mean "warrior" in "a secret language." It would appear to be a form of mumbo jumbo. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hate group?

The article is categorically tagged as a "hate group," and yet there doesn't seem to be any obvious basis for such a categorization. Advocating the violent overthrow of various other governments does not automatically make an organization a "hate group," ergo I see no reason to assume that advocating the violent overthrow of the government of the USA should be grounds for automatic branding as a "hate croup." I believe there is a well-meaning but misguided tendency on the part of some people to assume that any group that is violent (or apparently inclined towards violence), and which is part of the extreme right-wing, is somehow, by necessity, a "hate group." That seems nonsensical, however, and without some substantiation to the effect of how this group promotes (or promoted) a doctrinal hatred of some demographically definable segment of the population (presumably based on religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, colour, sex, or sexual orientation), then I'm going to remove the classification from this article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Some would argue that as it targeted a specifically defined occupational group (law enforcement officers), then it could be defined as a hate group on that basis. Is that argument valid here? Calibanu (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

Such an argument would seem silly to me. They weren't perhaps planning to attack police officers due to an ideological hatred of those persons who choose to work in the enforcement of the laws, but rather because police officers are, much like soldiers, the armed protectors of the government which they apparently intended to overthrow. If one were to blow up a bridge, in order to prevent enemy soldiers from crossing said bridge, that would not mean that one belonged to a "hate group" which was motivated by a hatred of bridges. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They have a forum titled "Evil Jew Forum" http://www.hutaree.com/forum/ How are they not a hate group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.67.54 (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case (and apparently it sort of is; they have a forum site where one of the sub-forums is entitled "Evil Jew Forum"), then the article must reflect that fact. If a group is going to be designated a "hate group," there must be evidence of that fact in the article, and at present, there is no such evidence. Now that you have posted some here on the Talk page, I will include it in the text of the article (where it sort of belonged all along). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The title of the private forum in question appears to be an inside joke. Elsewhere in the forum, they express strong support for Israel, which seems unlikely if they were overtly anti-semitic. I don't think we can take the title of a private forum as proof without knowing anything about its contents. Hoveringdog (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem we're back to square one ie., that the article presents no evidence they are a "hate group," ergo I have made the necessary adjustment by deleting the "Hate Groups" categorization link. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, opposition to a specific occupation does not make a group a hate group. If someone goes around saying "down with bankers" or even "kill the overpaid chief executives" they will not get labled as part of a hate group. In fact I am not sure radical left-wing groups in the 1960s that advocated killing police would get labeled "hate groups". The general consensus is that attacking people based on occupation is not a guide to being a hate group. Otherwise we would have to add all the groups that actively denounce chief-executives and "over paid executives" to the hate group category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This group and ones with defensive philosophies have a common Laconophilia. Cited from a google cached myspace forum username:"Hutaree Michigan" "Μολὼν λαβέ" was used, and several friend links lead to areas that use "Μολὼν λαβέ" of king Leonidas. Comments start at "Flags @ halfmast in memory of a fallen brother,, John Gerrand (Alphie Omega)" offsite, a supporter screennamed:"nomad woodright":Jamie Vanecek posted on: wellregulatedamericanmilitias.com "John Gerrard aka Alphie Omega took his life this morning, a firearm was used" meanwhile the myspace forum lights up with: "FEDS having local PD detained man in Kentucky after trying to detain Hutaree commander RD Merzonik" then "HUTAREE on RED ALERT members contact HQ" that response was posted jan 17, 2010 98.250.3.65 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

I removed the Citation needed for the WMD claims. This is covered in the press release about the indictments from the US Attorneys office... Quoting "According to the plan, the Hutaree would attack law enforcement vehicles during the funeral procession with Improvised Explosive Devices with Explosively Formed Projectiles, which, according to the indictment, constitute weapons of mass destruction." Just wanted to mention it on the talk page, instead of fitting it all into the edit summary. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

The U.S. Attorney's Office is not the arbiter of objective reality. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has actual meaning, and these shaped projectile charges either meet that definition, or they do not. It has yet to be demonstrated they they do meet such a definition. WMDs are almost universally regarded as being limited to nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons. These are none of those. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The US Attorney's Office Press Release is a reliable source. They state the explosive devices constitute WMD's. The sentence involving WMD's is about the statements from the US Attorney's Office. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

The U.S. Attorney's Office has an obligation to use terms properly, just like everyone else. If they don't, then their press release only proves they have made a bizarre claim the group had WMDs, by employing an unorthodox definition of the term "WMD," not that the group possessed anything generally understood to actually constitute WMDs. If the U.S. Attorney's Office were to define shoelaces as a WMD, would that claim also be taken at face value? Or is it possible that the definition of WMDs is not something determined by the arbitrary perfidy of the U.S. Attorney's Office? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, "For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism, weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

"any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;" With section 921 stating a destructive device is "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 grams], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 grams], mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses...." The devices to be used could meet these criteria, and so the WMD indictments. Malbolge (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

However, since a link was provided to the Weapons of mass destruction article in wikipedia, the weapons at question must meet the definition of the term as used in wikipedia, not the one used in US Criminal law. Interestingly enough, by the apparent US law definition of WMD, we found such in Iraq without question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be hard to fight a war without weapons that could kill more than one person at a time, such would be illegal for civilian use -- in general.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on WMDs also contained the claim that by U.S. civil defense standards, these so-called "shaped projectile charges," or whatever the operative term precisely was, constituted WMDs, but contained a Citation Needed tag, so this very much appears to remain a fact in contention, by any reasonable standard. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the above changes the verifiable, notable fact that the members of Hutaree have been indicted on charges of attempted use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as detailed in the US Attorney's Office Press Release. 86.164.76.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC).

Also, I don't see any Citation Needed tag at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction#Legal_definitions . There may be a citation tag for Civil Defense, but I don't see how Civil Defense is relevant to the Criminal charges being brought against the Hutaree. Malbolge (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Need for re-write

There is a need for someone to re-write and realighn the article. It is unclear why the statement of the person connected with the Michigan Militia has any relevance. What is needed is a search of Southern Poverty Law Center and other such group documents to see if any pre-March 27th references can be found. The Hutaree existed before that date, but the fact that they did is not fully recognized in the article. Also, due to various editors not considering how their edits effected the context of the whole article there are now sentances that imply things that are not what they originally were meant to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Term "Hutaree"

I would like to see an explanation of the origin of the term "Hutaree" -- is this from the Bible or is it an Indian term, or --??? If anyone knows the explanation, I think it would be good to include it in the article. --Skb8721 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google news search for anything before 2010 turns up nothing. So maybe they made it up. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an article in the Detroit News about possible origins of the name. Hoveringdog (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that article! "Tree house names" ... "Pokemon names." Yes, indeedy! 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing a link between the general vicinity where most of the events took place in Michigan and the meaning of the "word". HUTAREE could be an acronym like TEOTWAWNI or if i can find any evidence a reference mutation of "Lake Hudson State Recreational Area" near Pittsford. Military style training needs land. The Detroit News can make historical/academic speculations I am entitled to a common sense observation of Michigan and it's 3 way intersection of Indiana and Ohio, the states the suspects were from. This proximity of state collision is within 45 miles from Lake Hudson State Recreational Area. 98.250.3.65 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis is this group "right-wing"

I have yet to see very convincing evidence this group is right wing. They were Christian, so is Jesse Jackson and the Jesuits. They hated the government, so does Bash Back. They may be right-wing in some sense, but there specific inspiration is hardly chronicled, so any attempt to link them with a brader movement, as Eric Holder seems to be attempting, is highly questionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, our opinions don't matter. The mainstream media and government reporting is what matters. You and I have no say. sparkie 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkiest (talk • contribs)

The only known party affiliation is of Jacob J. Ward, who voted as a Democrat in the 2004 and 2008 primary elections. (according to the toledoblade.) The paragraph from NPOV Daily Kos source focusing on Ron Paul is undue weight and nees to balanced by this detail. I included it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.146.165 (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There you go, massive bi-partisan support on "right wing" from numerous non-government sources across the political spectrum. Even the Catholics are calling them right wing: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkiest (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See Also needs to be kept small

I removed the Tea Party listings from the "see also" links. This group is clearly a Christian militia movement. It is unclear that it has any links to the Tea Party movement, which is also less organized than some allege. Until we have a good study of the origin of this group, it remains unclear when it was formed, and even less clear that it cares who the president of the US is. The wife of the man arrested in Sandusky, Ohio claims they were just a group of Christians who practiced survivalist methods involving gun use, and even disputes the bomb making claims. Even the Indictments do not suggest that this group had a political agenda beyound destroying the current government. There is no evidence they even believe in the acceptability of elections, let alone have ever supported or opposed specific candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions and interpretation make no difference and have no weight on the article. Only sources matter. sparkie 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I referenced sttements made in the March 30th, 2010 article on this issue in the Macomb Daily. My main point is that there are no sources presented showing that this group has any involvement in political campaign. Their alleged plot to murder police is not the stuff of political protest, it is a violent inserection seeking to destroy the current government, totally not a democratic movement, and thus having no relation to political protest movements. Put more succintly, they are a militant group, and a Christian group, but not a political protest group. Thus, see also should reflect articles that cover militant and Christian groups in a more general setting. Violent attacks on police might also be a possible see also. It has been stated that one member complained he was being over taxed in asking for representation by the Federal defenders office, but there do not yet seem to be any claims that this group was acting to reduce taxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of one article of many. Time, sources, and the trials will tell what we say and nothing else will. If they end up being indeed Tea Party patriots and that's important, we'll say it, no matter who it offends. sparkie 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sparkie, you ignore the fact I do not have to show why there should not be a link to the Tea Party pages, someone has to show why there should be a link. Currently there is no reason I can detect to have such a link, nothing documented about this group suggests they had any interest in elections or trying to sway the actions of legislators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I could care less what you say or anyone else says. I just edit to be honest based on what outside good news sites say. My opinion is irrelevant. Yours too, the next guy's as well. sparkie 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking for a thought out article that reflects reasonable use of things like "see also". See also is a wikipedia internal format issue, not the result of news sources of any kind. Since the see also link goes to other wikipedia articles, the content of those articles is important. The fact, that I think I missed in my last glance over of the article, that this group dates back to early 2008 goes with my assertion that it is a militant group that seems to have no desire to participate in the current US political system, and so it makes no sense to have "see also" leads to groups that are built around trying to influence the current political system, even if they may do so in confrontational and sensationalistic ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's your opinion so you should reference this again to see what my opinion or yours is worth in the value scale. We regurgitate what others report. If that bothers some of some political ilk that doesn't matter to us. We report the sewage as well as the fluffy kittens. sparkie 18:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkiest (talk • contribs)

The tea party references were put in by PartyJoe. PartyJoe is an admitted Marxist, Obama supporter, hater of Fox News, hater of Ronald Reagan, and several other such positions. He has a clear political agenda to try and discredit those on the right by connecting them as much as possible with the extreme right. The fact that he quoted from Daily Kos shows that he is willing to implement this plan. I am not saying that any of the things he stands for are bad, but they do show he has a clear agenda, which makes his ability to be a neutral editor highly suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude that is a personal attack since you imply he is editing Wikipedia to push an agenda. sparkie 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since he quoted from Daily Kos, one of the most liberal sites in existence, since he stated things like "the Tea Party owns Hutaree" and since he openly admits all these facts on his user page, I think it is totally justifiable. He has in no way demonstrated any attempt to create a page that is even remotely balanced. I forgot to mention he specifically states he supports the doctrine of achieving goals "by any menas neccesary", which I feel is a fact that is relevant to considering whether anything he does is actually in anyway neutral and in compliance with wikipedia. Authorship matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sparkiest, it is interesting but true, the edits you have done have been against the over-the-top claims put forth by PartyJoe. In some ways they are highly questionable, because they leave seemingly moderate statements that are actually part of a larger, totally opinion position. If an article is built around such an unbalanced agenda as the Tea Party reference from Daily Kos was, trying to claim the Tea Party "owns" Hutaree, why should we use it as any kind of source for anything?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me if Kos is reliable or what my politics are?? sparkie 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is Kos a reliable source, although I did not even ask that, I asserted that it is not. I should add a caveat though, Kos is not a reliable source for information on this issue. Its being a reliable source for other issues is a different story, but the fact they have tried to turn a group of less than ten people who were allegedly plotting a revolution into a way to attack a loose assembly of thousands if not millions of people is inherently unreliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is your interpretative opinion. One person cannot decide. You and I are cogs in the machine to be used. One cog is not going to decide. We just turn the whole. sparkie 19:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sparkie, maybe you should add: "nanny nanny boo boo, so there" to your lack of argument. An automatic gainsaying to someone else's argument is not argument. Yours is tantamount to "because I said so." Sparkie, why don't set up a user account? --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Degen, you need to lose the attitude, and read WP:Civil. Consider this a warning. The Scythian 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Degen attacked when it is Sparkie who is being uncivil. The whole point of a talk page is to express your opinion on how the article should be covered. Also, I did not say that references to the Tea Party should not be included, I said they should not be included if they are not adequately sourced. Whatever else Daily Kos is, it is not a published news source, as the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Deseret News, Detroit Free Press and Los Angeles Times are. Also, why does civility include not repeating statements incuded on people's own user pages, like the fact that they support the notion of "by any means neccesary". They choose to post that, I just repeated it. If the authorship of a passage has no validity on its accuarcy, than we do we track authorship at all? The obvious answer, at least in my mind, is because authorship matters, and intent and bias can be best balanced when we know it. That said, while my previous statment could mean questioning the ability of one to be a neutral editor anywhere, and I may have felt that at the moment, I am willing to back down and clarify, and argue that it must be considered in context. The "neutral editor" statement was clearly in the context of content trying to link Hutaree to the Tea Party coming from a supporter of the phylosphy of "by any means neccesary". A look at past discussion will reveal that there have been attempts to block users based on their percieved outside connections, which may not even be openly stated on user pages, and there is a constant assumption that people should not edit pages on themself. The assumption that those who have a positive interest in things are more biased than those who have a negative interest in things is not logical. If someone was a stock holder in coke and was editing the Pepsi article to reflect negatively on Pepsi, we would take issue with that. In the same way, attempts to link radical-right wing groups to more extreme groups by staunch leftists should be suspect. I would be equally opposed to an avowed Bush fan creating links trying to claim Jihad Jane was an employee of the Democratic National Committee with Fox News as the source, and comparing Fox News to Daily Kos is a rip on Fox News.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sparkie

The Scythian Why haven't you berated Sparkie/Sparkiest for his obvious lack of civility? Did you actually read this topic before you tried throwing your weight around? And John Pack Lambert is correct in that the whole point of a talk page is to express your opinion on how the article should be covered. Maybe you should see his correct user page User talk:Sparkiest to see his history of incivility on Wikipedia. So again I ask you, why have you targeted me?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree.com reliable?

Is there a possibility that Hutaree.com is a parody of the actual group? Taking a look at their "Beast Watch" page, it mentions that 666 F is the oven temperature for roast beast, the address 668 signifies the next door neighbour of the beast, and that DSM-666 Revised is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast. These obviously absurd claims, coupled with some of their forum titles ("Evil Jew Forum: Talk about being an evil Jew and how we are taking over the world in our own private forum where no one else can see. Shalomi or something) leads me to believe that it may not be a real representation of their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VRejt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Beast Watch" page specifically says - The beast's number (humor) - before the section youre quoting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.2.126 (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is their actual site[10] "The group runs a website, Hutaree.com, where they espoused their beliefs..." They really believe that stuff. sparkie 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the above comment so it would all be in the normal page by moving its start back one space. I made no textual changes, and have not yet even read all of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A whois reveals the following potentially useful information about HUTAREE.COM - there is also a .net with intense opinions, and apocalyptic overtones. The .net claims to be unrelated:
whois search from Domaintools lists the name with caps separation "HuTaree.com". I am starting to suspect against the coincidental Hebrew parts of the word for a more "TEOTWAWKI" like explanation, since a hutaree blog on survivalism uses that "made up word" term: "The End Of The World As We Know It" what Hutaree might mean as an acronym is up to speculation.
Meta Keywords: christian, christian warriors, hutaree, christian warrior, united nations, european union, anti-christ, revived roman empire, israel, end times, revelation, rapture, mid-trib, pre-trib, post-trib, lenawee, self-defense, self defense.
Administrator:
Duvall, Jt jvplayer_74@yahoo.com
8005 Elliott Hwy
Morenci, Michigan 49256
United States
(517) 436-3729
Date of Establishment:
Created on: 16-Jul-06
98.250.3.65 (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding References

Could editors adding references please at least attempt to add information such as author, date written, date accessed/retrieved, publisher ets. There are far too many 'bare' URLS in the reference list (10 of 14). But as of now none of the references are 'properly' formatted. Please? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutterites

I've added a hatnote to defuse confusion — when I first heard of the incident on TV, I thought that the talking heads were discussing some militant Anabaptists. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

glad i am not crazy i thought the same thing Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Having attended a Mennonite Church ten years ago that was my first thought too. Armed Mennonites would be very big news. The picture that showed all the members is copyrighted by Detroit News, so I removed it. Kilowattradio (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Though they are totally unrelated in every way, shape, and form, they are phonetically similar and it might lead to some confusion. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives defending Hutaree

Apparently there are some commentators on the right who are now defending Hutaree and saying the arrests were a bad thing. I added a brief mention of one such commentator to the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who and sources please?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ABC news March 30, 2010 Proposed a headline "Family Defends Christian Militia Group, Says Hutaree Did Nothing Wrong" This allowed the article to make use of comments by Brittany Bryant (fiancée) defending the family. ABC news then released an article describing the "Stone Family Wedding Was Held in Full Hutaree Military Garb". In this report made use of some supportive quotes that are all personal opinion and speculation: "the stones are nice people" ... "I don't think they're dangerous" ... "the Stones are harmless" ... "very polite, very respectful, and very kind." ..."seemed nice". One quote ABC used from Karen Belcher "I think shannon was pretty much brainwashed...She's pretty innocent, naive." The fact that these quotes where hand picked applies a very strong judgemental quality of the news agencies. CNN shocks with the headline "Group arrested, not Christian or militia, insider says" but then goes on to use quotes that allow them to print some extremely dramatic lines from Michael Lackomar: "This is a group that I would classify as neither a militia or a Christian group...They're really a fringe group outside anything we do (Michigan militia) They're more of a private army or a terrorist organization or really just a criminal organization." Michael Lackomar provided NECN/ABC with more terminology to pass around: spokesman for the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia describes the Hutaree as a cult." NPR on Tuesday applied the word "cult" to their 4pm report when earlier in the day that word had not yet been used. 98.250.3.65 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is the word pronounced? Is it pronounced "HOOT-er-ee", "HUT-er-ee", or "hoot-ARR-ee"? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Baker and Glenn Beck

Please be careful how you phrase references to these two. Baker and Beck are generally quite careful to phrase things so that they may imply support of various movements, yet they do not specifically state their support, so that they cannot be easily directly quoted as such, later on. They are smoother than they let on to be! I listened to Baker's blurb about the Hutaree and as usual, he sounded to me like he did a good job of speaking what I call "Beck-speak" where he does everything but come out and say directly that he supported the Hutaree. Scott P. (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim helper

This is problematic. Here's what the source says:

One of the Hutaree members called a Michigan militia leader for assistance Saturday after federal agents had already began their raid, Lackomar said, but the militia member -- who is of Islamic decent and had heard about the threats -- declined to offer help. That Michigan militia leader is now working with federal officials to provide information on the Hutaree member for the investigation, Lackomar said Sunday.

This is a very minor factoid about this story--someone who spoke to a Hutaree member is cooperating with the FBI investigation. For Wikipedia to mention this at all is really to give it more attention than it deserves. For us to play up the religious angle by relaying this information as "Interestingly, an individual of Islamic descent has been listed as amongst those who are working with the FBI in assisting them to defuse the terrorist plot of the self proclaimed 'Christian' Hutaree," raises original research and neutrality concerns. If there were noteworthy sources that were talking about how interesting it is that a Muslim is assisting in this investigation if would be appropriate for Wikipedia to report that, but I don't think that's the case. It isn't an encyclopedia's role to provide commentary on the news or draw attention to under-noticed aspects of a story. I hope I'm explaining myself adequately.Prezbo (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center SPLC Citation

I'm not sure the SPLC is a reliable source of information. The "reports" they generate are pretty controversial, with at least some groups claiming the SPLC just makes stuff up entirely. I don't think we can cite them as authoritative or neutral. It'd be like linking, without comment, to a study by Alex Jones.

Also, the paragraph does not link the SPLC "report" to the Hutaree. As far as I can tell, it is general background. Because I also believe it's factually misleading, I have removed the paragraph. I suggest that anyone wanting to include it provide some links to the controversial status of the report, or offer a neutral report in its place. Anjin\\^talk 23:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

...with at least some groups claiming the SPLC just makes stuff up entirely. You mean groups like the KKK or Stormfront? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean like National Review. Granted, it is a right-leaning organization, but it's not a fringe one. The SPLC is not a neutral source. My position is that the bias of the organization, coupled with the fact that the paragraph adds nothing to the article, indicates it should be removed. See: http://www.splcreport.com/ for example. I got there after 30 seconds on Google. Anjin\\^talk 01:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored the text. Unless you can provide some evidence for your assertions, the fact that the SPLC is one of the most prominent organizations documenting hate groups in the U.S. makes them a legitimate source. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and have re-removed the text. Unless you can provide some evidence that the cited report refers to the Hutaree or is in any way relevant to the text, it should be removed. The report has been contested by legitimate groups, adds nothing to the article itself, and detracts from the neutrality of the article. Since it adds nothing to the article (which is about the Huttee, not the status of hate groups in the US), it is not relevant and shouldn't be in here. Why include controversial information when it doesn't add to the article?

Also, just because the SPLC is a prominent organization, does not make it a reliable or neutral one. The AFL-CIO is a prominent organization, but you couldn't cite one of it's reports uncritically, can you? Anjin\\^talk 01:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept an argument on relevance. But you're going to need to provide more than just innuendo to render them "unreliable". You still haven't named a single organization that contests their credentials. Given this is not a BLP, sourced information is acceptable if it enhances the article, controversial doesn't really enter into the equation. And context for the rise of fringe militias isn't unreasonable in the article in my opinion, particularly given that the whole section is titled "Criticisms and Context". I'll allow others to evaluate this, but I think in this case erring on the side of inclusion is a good idea. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think relevance is the strongest argument. The report itself does not mention the Huttee and a statement that "hate groups are on the rise in the US" does not seem relevant to this particular article. It might fit better in an article on "hate groups" in the US, generally.Anjin\\^talk 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On the SPLC article, the most prominent criticism I can see is that the Council of Conservative Citizens contests their characterization as a white supremacist group. From the info I can find on that group (outside of SPLC), there seem to be a number of other groups that characterize them as such, and their known associations with other xenophobic and/or anti-immigrant groups (e.g. National Front) don't exactly argue the other way. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a cite that documents at least one assertion (that SPLC is unreliable): http://cis.org/immigration-splc . That is cited in a post I found here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWVmNGIzZGNjNGQ2ZTVjNjA1MzljOWNkZDU4Yzg1ZDc= , which also mentions a summary here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/immigration--the-splc-new-report-finds-stopping-hate-is-really-about-stopping-debate-88327097.html .

There is also another site (definitely a conservative site) with more general contention: http://www.conservapedia.com/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center . I can find more, but that should suffice as an indication that the SPLC is not benignly neutral. Anjin\\^talk 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Conservapedia as a source for anything, given its stated agenda. Looking at the rest of your sources though. There seems to be a certain amount of political bickering over specific policies, but my initial impression is that it fails to harm their credentials when it comes to trends. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Examining your links, they all seem to relate to be discussing a single questionable designation of FAIR as a hate group. Problematic yes, but one possibly politically driven decision doesn't mean they can't be trusted on anything. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

True. They relate to a single incident because that was the most recent thing I could find on a quick search. It did not seem necessary to present a pattern of abuse. My point is that there is at least some controversy, and when coupled with marginal relevance, on balance tilts in favor of removal. I do remember some serious analysis about the flaws in the particular report cited, though. I just haven't been able to track down those links, yet. Even if the SPLC could be considered generally reliable (something I obviously don't agree with), there was enough controversy about that particular report that I don't think it should be cited here. Anjin\\^talk 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)BTW, I'd be inclined to consider the AFL-CIO a good source for articles on union related topics where their self-interest isn't involved. The SPLC is a legal advocacy group; if they push hate crime legislation you'd want some second opinions, but for information on the trends in hate groups as a whole, I'm not seeing a major conflict of interest. If they reported nothing but increases, I'd be suspicious of some self-dealing, but they've been tracking this for decades and don't seem to be making stuff up. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I still agree with you that relevance is the best argument for removing the paragraph. There was considerable discussion of the "hate group" status (see above). My problem is that the paragraph does not speak to the particular subject at hand, i.e., the Huttee. The SPLC cite makes it sound like the Huttee were racially motivated, and there isn't anything in the rest of the article to support that. Further, I did not see where the SPLC claimed that this particular group was a "hate group". What does this paragraph add to the article? These aren't news stories, they are encyclopedia articles.Anjin\\^talk 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally have my doubts about the SPLC, but I still think they are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be better if they were not, but we still use the New York Times as a reliable source, despite the fact one of their leading journalists at the time (I forget her name) was shown to be concealing information which called into question the administration's rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Morris Dees and his organization may well be questionable, but they are treated as if they are reliable sources in this society, albeit perhaps regrettably, but no source is perfect. The Stephen Glass (reporter) case dosn't invalidate The New Republic as a source. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC has come up many times on the WP:RSN board, and consensus has always been that they are reliable in reporting what they claim. Woogee (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper mention of chronology

If Hutaree was formed in early 2008, which is several months before Mr. Obama was elected president, then why mention in this article that the formation of such groups has occured at a greater rate since the election of President Obama. Such information does not seem to have any relation to Hutaree and would seem to be better placed in a generalized article on Christian militia movements or Christian terrorists. I will be bold and remove the passage, since it does not seem to belong in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Christian Patriot Movement would be the most relevant place to put that information, to which this article already has a link. Since this group pre-dates the election of Mr. Obama, making post-election formation part of its context is misleading. Also, some of the SPLCs views on these issues would be questioned by others, which is why such notions should be included in the CPM article, where a more balanced treatment is possible. We should limit statements in this article to information that actually applies to Hutaree and not generalized statments about the CPM as a whole, especially considering the fact that other militia movements vocally and openly disasociate themselves from Hutaree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should avoid placing Christian with the Patriot Movement. The investigators tried to separate their beliefs from their upholding of the constitution. Christian values and bible quotations are the supports and communications for a select few, a pattern maybe but, many Patriot groups do not so heavily use religion as a basis for their fight for constitutional values. Christianity as a whole or singling out a certain sect of any religion should not be combined with this movement as a category, but the Patriot Movement as a broader section should mention the varieties of belief systems connected with it.

Also the whois places HUTAREE.COM's conception in 2006 so their motivation for starting the website must have already been well established before then.98.250.3.65 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On the mention on Pokemon names

Source #15 is used here: "I don't see basis in biblical or military history for Radok, Boramander, Zulif, Arkon, and Lukore. They sound kind of like Pokémon names (e.g. Arbok, Charmander, Zubat, Rokon), but there's no precedent there, either." I deleted the last word Pokemon name because it is not a Pokemon name (perhaps the professor meant Rotom). The article sourced has it wrong, not the Wikipedia article, so I was wrong to remove it. But what should be done about "Rokon"? 72.93.241.60 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In a newspaper they might use [sic] to indicate reliably reproducing an error. Wikipedia policy is somewhat different, but I can't recall what it is. Of course, a quote containing and error in the original source isn't really important; if you're learning about Pokémon on this article, it's probably not in your field of interest. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)