Talk:State Guard Association of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New article for the State Guard Association of the United States. New content will be added as approved by committee.[edit]

New content regarding the objectives of the State Guard Association of the United States added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Additional links added to other relevant wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.102.20 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... here's how speedy deletion works... (read WP:CSD for details). Someone thinks an article qualifies for speedy deletion per one or more of the criteria in WP:CSD. If you want more time to improve the article, you add the {{hangon}} tag but you don't remove the speedy deletion tag. Explain the reason for the requested postponement on the Talk Page. An admin will consider the situation and make a decision. As it stands, this article fails CSD A7 because it does not explain why the organization is notable. See WP:ORG for an explanation of our criteria for companies and organizations. I'll wait a day or two but you need to get the article to meet the criteria laid out in WP:ORG or this article is subject to deletion by any admin. --Richard (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rump Militias[edit]

I have seen two people try to delete the info on the SGAUS's support of private militias. This is a vital characteristic of the SGAUS. It is even in their own By-Laws that they will support private militias that are "trying to become official" . . . Let's get real here. They even appointed a self-commissioned "colonel" from North Carolina to their Board of Directors as recently as 2008-2009. If the SGAUS supported advocacy groups who petitioned or lobbied for SDF's, that would be one thing. No; they instead support hillbilly, self-identified militias groups who parade in military uniforms, identify themselves as SDF's, and use military rank. This will be pointed out.

Should the SGAUS ever change, it can be cited as a past mistake. Unfortunately, it is a current issue. Todd Gallagher (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, have you got a reliable source for these claims? As you know, we don't take a dump around here without a reliable source. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the SGAUS's very own website, they have a member of their Board of Directors, a self-appointed colonel, who is a member of the North Carolina State Guard. This does not exist. It is not a Stte Defense Force. http://web.archive.org/web/20060528204455/www.sgaus.org/Leadership.htm
On their very own website, they cite their own by-laws ( "(b) In states where there is no active recognized state defense force or state militia, a private association or organization may apply to the Board of Directors for provisional status. Such organizations must adhere to the purpose and principles of this Association and should be seeking to organize and obtain official recognition. If accepted, such Provisional State Chapters will not have voting privileges in Association business. " ) stating that they not only support SDF's, but groups that wish to be SDF's! That is like saying you want to be a National Guard unit but are not one, so you form your own National Guard, give yourself your own rank, wear military uniforms, and call yourself the National Guard (Provisional)! Here is where they do that. http://web.archive.org/web/20060427072324/www.sgaus.org/States.htm Notice Colorado and North Carolina listed--both state without SDF's. They also mention at other times Florida and Washington, D.C. I cited these. All four of these groups have illegally worn military uniforms and are associated with the SGAUS by its own account.
If the SGAUS has changed, great. But its past is its past. They deleted their entire website when it was cited. Now they are reposting it. That is what archives.org is for.Todd Gallagher (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well then add the material, but with the reliable sources and present it in a neutral manner. And, don't delete existing sources. You can't have it both ways: keep the archived sourcing you want and discard that you don't want. It's pretty easy. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the SGAUS bylaws that say "rump" or "private militias" are organizational objectives. If you want to talk about the actions of independant organizations then create a separate article. It is clear that you are too close to this topic and have a conflict of interests on this topic. You are removing complete sections to insert your militia rants.22015va (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the states or entities add by the vandal are SGAUS chapters. Chapters do not have .gov websites. Make the distinction between government sites and SGAUS chapters and sites for organizations that claim to be part of SGAUS. Did someone not give you a ribbon or promotions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all try to keep the discussion here on improving the article and not on each other. It's Veteran's Day in the US, for crying out loud. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and don't wish to cause problems. My desire is to see the article accurately reflect the goals and mission of the organization - supporting legitimate state defense forces. SGAUS is not some crazy militia group and should not be portrayed as such.22015va (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am not sure all states that have state defense forces have SGAUS chapters. I think source should be cited.22015va (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Vandalism[edit]

The SGAUS article is being vandalized. The SGAUS organization, bylaws or website does not support "rump" or "private" militias. This organization advocates for the establishment and support of existing state defense forces regulated by state governments under the authority of 32 USC 109 [1] and National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4[2].—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.111.116 (talk • contribs) 11 November 2009

I disagree that the edits were vandalism. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism,

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). (emphasis added)

Additionally, vandalism is not grounds for deletion unless the article itself is vandalism. I closed this article's Articles for deletion discussion per the criteria at WP:Speedy keep and WP:Non-admin closure, specifically because it was an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. I see that the right thing is being done here, as the opposing parties have expressed their opinions on this talk page. Please continue to do so, and if necessary seek out dispute resolution such as a third opinion or request for comment. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance[edit]

QueenofBattle Thank you for your review and edits of this article. I have added some additional content related to regulations (NGB Regulation 10-4). 22015va (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Vandalism[edit]

Todd Gallagher: This is not censorship. You continue to use the words "private militia" and link to obsolete web pages that are not part of the organizations website. Additionally, your actions are malicious and pure vandalism. You undo all edits (even typo corrections) vice focusing the discussion on the content of the article. For example, the SGAUS state associations & state chapter relationships are clearly explained in ref [3] but you keep deleting the reference. Current site or archived, the ref is the same but you keep deleting it. You seem to have a clear bias against this organizations as an admitted member. Delete, undo, and cry censorship all you want - SGAUS does not support "private/rump militias" and you know it. SGAUS recognizes state associations - why do you keep deleting their mention and my current references? You would maintain/gain credibility if your were to review my edits (one at a time) and read each cite before deleting everything with the "undo" command. That is counter productive.22015va (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Requested by Editor[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia (about six weeks now) and started the SGAUS article (I have also tweaked some other state defense force related sites). For lack of experience, I tried to model the article after other non-profit lobby type group articles (i.e. ACLU & National_Rifle_Association. I believe that I have been objective and made every effort to cite current and accurate information. I have two issues with edits made by user: Todd Gallagher; 1. state-level associations and chapters are two different entities are not part of the SGAUS organization. While SGAUS does and has in the past recognized independent groups seeking to establish 32 USC 109 state defense forces; I can find no source that SGAUS supports them (implying financial support). 2. I believe it is counter productive to undo a block of edits over one area of objection, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I welcome oversight of senior Wikipedia members as this article develops. If users Todd Gallagher has an issue with the SGAUS "history" I would suggest these edits be placed on the history section of the article and not throughout the article. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the state tables. I have also sent an emailed SGAUS requesting a list of all current recognized state associations for the table. In the mean time, I have been added links to each state law for their applicable SDF.22015va (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gallagher I would like to make the effort to reach a consensus with you on the SGAUS article. I have added a column to the states table to list the independent state associations with a link to that state government's list of state corporations. For example, above you list the North Carolina State Guard Association as a SGAUS association - it is not. The North Carolina State Guard Association is incorporated in the state of North Carolina [4] and the SGAUS organization is incorporated in the State of Maryland. A previous link on an archive page of the SGUAS website to an obsolete website of the North Carolina State Guard Association does not constitute financial support or corporate merger. I will make ever effort to ensure that any changes I make to the article are small and incremental w/third-party sources. I look forward to developing a consensus with you (and all wiki members) on a fair and balanced article on the SGAUS organization. Respectfully,22015va (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_Guard_Association_of_the_United_States&oldid=1210545637"