Talk:Hutaree

Were the Hutaree a racial hate group?

The paragraph Doctrine states the following: “The recent federal indictment against the Hutaree members in federal custody did not list any ‘hate crimes against minority groups’ as amongst the charges made against the Hutaree, neither is there any clear evidence of any ‘minority group hate materials’ to be found on their website.” Well, we couldn't possibly list everything they were not charged with, such as forgery, bank robbery, child molestation, rape, invading a foreign country, assassinating the pope etc. etc. The claim that their website contains no ‘minority hate materials’ is just not true (Evil Jew Forum). Therefore, I will remove the sentence.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Before inserting this information, I noted their "evil Jew" forum too. Still, rather than taking the name of this forum at face value, I went into it and reviewed its material. Turned out that it was a ploy to draw recent recruits from other militias into toning down, or eliminating their racial hate rhetoric. In so far as I can see, the Hutaree were not racists, but merely revolutionaries plotting mass murder (oh so much better, no?). Still, I have not reinserted the info about them NOT being racists, since I think you have a point that we need not highlight this NOT stuff too much in the article. I did however remove information from the SPLC quote about racial hate groups, as I think this may be a bit misleading in this case. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Murderous revolutionaries" - like our Founding Fathers? Like who? and where is the proof that they actually espoused or actually murdered somebody...anybody?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They planned on killing a cop and then bombing his funeral with other cops and family there. One of them shot his pet cat to prepare for battle. It's unknown if the cat was black, or if the targeted officers were of color. All I know is that these rednecks are typical trailer trash. PartyJoe (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How ignorant do you have to be to compare these guys to the Founding Fathers?!?!? Stonemason89 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read history? The legal power declared the revolutionaries, ie our FFs, to be brigands and cutthroats, etal. Hence the war and arrests etc. "Murderous revolutionaries" - Like who? and where is the proof that they actually espoused or actually murdered somebody...anybody?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes someone a founding father, vs: a loony-tune? First of all, in so far as I know, pretty much all of our founding fathers started with much to lose, and little to gain. They were all from the upper class, and already in the upper reaches of society with power. Had the British caught any of them, surely they would have been hung, and not given life sentences as the Stones will probably receive. Mr. Stone lived in a run-down trailer. Our founding fathers, for the most part had tried unsuccessfully for years to politically lobby the British to give colonials equal government, but without success. Mr. Stone, in so far as I can tell, has never once tried to formally lobby anyone in government. The British did not give equal representation for the taxes that they levied, did not treat the colonials as equals, not giving them rights that were equal to what the people back in Britain received. Legally speaking, Mr. Stone has (had) an equal vote, and an equal right to speak his mind as any other American (so long as he did not try to foment violence with his words). I really don't think that any kook with a gun who yells out "revolution!" deserves an automatic promotion to the rank of "founding father", do you? Scott P. (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you are correct, and I think that we all would agree that they are not believed to have murdered anyone (yet). But as far as espousing or planning murder, Mr. Stone had been watched closely for a year or two, and had been recorded on tape as saying that he planned to kill various police officers. He had also been heard ordering that any "civilians" who might accidentally get in his way (might accidentally come upon us) should be killed as well. After planning this for years, then after buying the materials needed to carry it out, then after assembling these materials and the people needed to carry it out, then after giving explicit orders about killing folks, for me this seems to be espousing murder. The trial will be riveting, I'm sure. We'll see.

Scott P. (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While the descriptions you use are similar to the prosecutors' descriptions, the judge appears to think they are exaggerations of the actual recordings. Warren Dew (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone following the Hutaree treason case can access their web archives and forums. Anti-Antisemitism and a hatred for "liberal" or "progressive" political ideologies in the United States are just some of the hateful rhetoric that may be found authored by Hutaree militia members. To question the validity of applying a Hate tag to an organization like Hutaree is comparable to saying the McVeighs of the world should not be tagged with a "Hate" label or perhaps we should no refer to White Power movements as Hate, rather we should refer to them as social clubs like the Tea Party phenomena since the inception of the Obama administration. It is ironic how quick we are to validate the Hutaree's Christian label despite their advocacy for murder and terrorism; simply because the Hutaree claim to be defending "moral values". Actions speak louder than words, and we know that the actions taken by the Hutaree and the actions that were planned by the Hutaree were based on ideologies that advocate Hate and Violence, if not full bore Terrorism.

User:NativeFaith (talk) 24:21, 15 April 2010

Last Sentence of Lead

The last sentence of the lead states that "From March 28 to March 30, 2010, nine people thought to be Hutaree members were arrested for allegedly selling pipe bombs in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana (in Hammond).[5]". Ref 5, CNN piece, "At least 7 arrested after raids in 3 states", mentions nothing about the members of the group being arrested for allegedly selling pipe bombs. It does state that they were arrested on "charges that were under seal over the weekend". The charges were unsealed(?) earlier this week (Monday?). I think the lead should possibly be changed to reflect the actual charges, unless there is a reliable ref for the Pipebomb claim. Malbolge (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malbolge, good find. Fixed as suggested. Scott P. (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

why the hell does it say hidden at the top of the article to not call this terrorism yet there are terrorist categories placed in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.202 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that out of respect for the US justice system, it's probably best to await a final court verdict before unequivocably stating that they are terrorists, but because until then, the evidence so far does seem to be quite overwhelming that they were planning on terrorizing the police and others, that simply indirectly implying that they may be terrorists by placing them in the Wikipedia category of terrorists does not seem to me to be premature.Scott P. (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott P. You said:"They are not believed to have murdered anyone (yet). But as far as espousing or planning murder, Mr. Stone had been watched closely for a year or two, and had been recorded on tape as saying that he planned to kill various police officers. He had also been heard ordering that any "civilians" who might accidentally get in his way (might accidentally come upon us) should be killed as well. (PROOF?) After planning this for years, then after buying the materials needed to carry it out, then after assembling these materials and the people needed to carry it out, then after giving explicit orders about killing folks." Where is the proof? The above are all Accusations...you know "allegations". I espouse use of the Death Penalty for those who are found guilty of committing Capital Murder, does that make me a murderer?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I may be missing something, but where do we get the idea that they are terrorists at all? If they are planning to wage open warfare, that's not terrorism. People conflate the two too often. These people seemed to think that they might actually start a revolution that would sweep to power, they didn't intend to "crush the will of their enemies" or anything of that sort. I know the press likes to conflate terrorists with guerrilla fighters, but there is a difference, and I'm not seeing how these people constitute terrorists. There's a lot of *other* pejorative terms that could be used, but that's not one of them. Of course, the details on their plans seem fairly scant; if someone can provide evidence for terrorism as a goal, that would be helpful. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the terrorism categories as they are only alleged to be not proven to be terrorists. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to Leave it, i think it is appropriately put considering it is within the realm of it to justifiably leave it Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The realm, as in the Realm of Possibility? Are we talking about allegations? Not possibilities? "Anything is possible however improbable." Albert Einstein --Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

- no the realm of Terrorism, We slapped the category on much Flaikier Cases, In addtion the Terrorism WikiProject is overseeing this article Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, they are only accused and the indictment [1] doesn't even use the word "terrorism".--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

take it up at the terrorism Wikiproject i'm restoring it for now, but that project is who you need to take it up with.Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the references uses the headline "terror plot" and includes, "other violent acts which amount to the commission of terrorism on American soil."[2] If they are sufficiently in a minority you might say that "Catholic Online denounced the acts as terrorism on American soil", but I doubt they will be.

My personal opinion is that if a group makes a massive violent attack against civilians (even policemen at a funeral), and uses the threat of future attacks (i.e. "terror") as a means to change policy or the behavior of individuals, then it is planning terrorism. However, for example, if they simply intended to fight all out until victory or defeat or death (like Andrew Joseph Stack), then that would be war or rebellion but not terrorism. Wnt (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Regular voters?

"Most of the members were regular voters with unidentified political party affiliation." Is this useful information? Does it convey something substantial? I'm not an American, but all I can gather from it is that most of them weren't office-holders. Looks like a duh! to me. __meco (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does indicate something. From the source article, they weren't merely citizens; several of them actively participated in the political process, including voting in primaries, even for off year congressional seats in at least one case (which is fairly unusual in the U.S.). Typically (or at least stereotypically), these groups are formed by people that don't trust and don't participate in the political process, so the fact that they do is worthy of note. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That said, "regular" is pointless. I've replaced it with active while reworking the phrasing in that section. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pastor Chuck Baldwin's support of the Hutaree cause

It's Chuck Baldwin. See [3]. Is he notable enough to add to the article? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Baldwin is apparently notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. I looked up his bio and apparently he has held some notable positions in the far right. I'm going to put a reference to him into the article, much as I hate to open this new "can of worms". Scott P. (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also looked at the Chuck Baldwin article and notice that it is built almost entirely from sources written by Mr. Baldwin and from references to far right wing publications and blogs, not from "significant coverage in third party reliable sources". That said, Mr. Baldwin being a minor political candidate might pass WP:NOTABLE, while his article needs serious sourcing improvement. It is also worth disclosing that User:Stonemason89 has a several year history of watchlisting the Chuck Baldwin article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read my recent article revision regarding Mr. Baldwin, and let me know what you think of it. I Googled Mr. Baldwin's name and came up with I think 51,000 articles, most of which were not sponsored by him or his church. I think that the movement which Baldwin represents, while it may be rather "kooky", is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia reference. I've noted that the Stone's own personal baptist pastor has quietly refused any press interviews. I wouldn't be surprised if he were of the Baldwin ilk. If the Stones were parishioners in a church like Baldwin's, it would take no leap of reason to see how they opted to walk the path they did. I once attended an evangelical church here in Michigan where the day's message was essentially that Obama was the anti-Christ! The line between Muslim madrasas inciting jihad and 'Christian' revolutionaries begins to fade! That was the last time I or my wife have regularly attended any church. I think that this right-wing "Christian" kookiness is of notable proportions and could stand being recognized in Wikipedia as a notable topic.Scott P. (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Instead I am noting that essentially all the sourcing of that article is not "third party". I don't think it fair to count advocacy blogs etc. that pop up in Google searches as "third party". I did find one "third party reliable source" that mentioned Mr. Baldwin here[4], so he probably would meet notablity policy guidelines at Wikipedia. And, beyond our policy, AfD debates here don't generally stick to policy, but rather degenerate into popularity votes. That said, I don't have a problem with your addition to this article, but rather I have a problem with the other article's sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that the majority of the sources for the Wikipedia Chuck Baldwin article are from Baldwin's own sources. I would think that using neutral third party sources (if available) would be preferable in that article. Still, so long as such sources are not used for making any questionable or controversial assertions in the Wikipedia article regarding Mr. Baldwin, I can't see how they would be so inappropriate as to be unusable in Wikipedia. BTW, thanks for reviewing my recent edit to the Hutaree article. Scott P. (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will also check out the Baldwin article. And Scott, I hope you don't totally reject Christianity. Jesus himself was quite liberal. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Baldwin's article seemed a bit over-long. There was lots of information on him, but it is hard to understand why he is considered important beyond being a guy with lots of opinions. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 10 (UTC)

Pastor Baldwin's obvious "opinion" that Jesus would condone an armed revolution against the US government tells me that this man has probably chosen to "cling-to" the Jesus he sees in a "literal interpretation" of the Book of the Revelations of John, and that as a result of this, he has had to reject and eject the pacifist Jesus as found in the Gospels. The Jesus of the book of Revelations is seen wielding a sword, dripping in blood, riding a battle stallion, and flanked by his armies. This somewhat terrifying image of Jesus seems to me to require some "major interpretative work" in order reconcile it with the image of Jesus that we see in the Gospels. The Gospels-Jesus is a man who is gentle, meek, and not wealthy. He tells his followers to put down their swords and that if slapped on the one cheek, that they should turn the other cheek towards their would be oppressor.

The Gospels-Jesus is the Jesus that I would say I choose to "cling-to" in my Christian walk of faith, and the one that I feel proud to say makes me a Christian. In my own mind, I choose to make an "allegorical interpretation" of the book of Revelations. I choose to only see it as a sort of a parable about how I am called to inwardly defeat my own inner dark-angels of fear and despair. By interpreting this difficult book only in this way, I feel that I'm able to resolve the apparent inconsistencies. But if I had chosen to walk the way of Pastor Baldwin, interpreting Revelations literally, imagining that one day Jesus will actually come to us trotting down Main Street on his battle steed, wielding his mighty sword and covered in blood, I cannot see how I could have possibly interpreted the pacifist teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels, except to imagine that the "supposed" Jesus of the Gospels must have only been trying to flatter himself when he taught his disciples that they must "turn the other cheek". I may wish Pastor Baldwin luck in the coming "holy bloody struggle" that he seems to foresee himself in sometime soon, but I certainly will not join him. I wish luck also to those whom Baldwin might happen to perceive as his enemies, as they may need it. And I pray that Baldwin doesn't count me as amongst them! Scott P. (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, lots of other people do too. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank God I think you are right that most people probably do!! Scott P. (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I've removed the current version of Chuck Baldwin's comments for several reasons:

1. Chuck Baldwin isn't an expert on the subject. As he states in his article, "Until this story broke in the national media, I had never heard of this group."
2. They are a self-published source from a person who isn't an expert. So they might be reasonably used in an article on Chuck Baldwin, but cannot be used to describe a unrelated group.
3. They severely misrepresent Chuck Baldwin's statements in the reference. Chuck never said anything about "random" or "first shot" or "armed conflict appearantly already under way".

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Not a reliable source

The Southern Poverty Law Center do not have the goal of lessening extremism. They have the goal of destroying all right-wing political activity by smearing it with the broad-brush of extremism. Their favorite tactic is the "sandwich-board smear". Here is a link to an article that explains why we should not accept assertions of the SPLC. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3238-media-jump-to-smear-right-with-extremist-label John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, it appears that WP:RSN has decided they constitute a reliable source. You're free to raise the subject again, but this is not the place to fight it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not the right place to fight it? Here is another article, exposing SPLC's xenophobic anti-slavism. http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/SouthernAvenger/archives/2007/12/13/the-never-ending-fraud-of-the-southern-poverty-law-center This is a serious issue, since such anti-slavism lead to calls in a Sacramento Paper for people to run over slavs with their cars and chants of "slavs go home". Why is anti-slavism an acceptable racial hatred, and why do we treat a group that has its hands dripping with the blood of this hateful activity as a reliable source?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason why this is not the right to fight it should be obvious. If you want to "fight it", why don't you contribute to the discussion on WP: RSN, rather than here? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing the SPLC of "Anti-slavism"? That's a new one. Also, don't you think Jack Hunter (who has appeared as a guest on the white supremacist Political Cesspool radio show) might have his own conflict of interest when it comes to why he attacks the SPLC? Same with John Tanton (contrary to what the article claims, the SPLC doesn't attack him because he opposes illegal immigration, they attack him because he is an anti-Semite). Also, the article you linked to holds up Alexander Cockburn (also a non-mainstream anti-Semite) as representative of what "liberals" believe. Also, since you seem to think "anti-slavism" is such a huge problem, do you also think Ronald Reagan and other Cold Warriors were guilty of it because they opposed Soviet Russia? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

since such anti-slavism lead to calls in a Sacramento Paper for people to run over slavs with their cars and chants of "slavs go home"

Where is your evidence for this odd claim? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It was radical leftists in Sacremento who were calling for the murder of Slavs in 2008. Anyway, I did not come up with the accusations of anti-slavism by the SPLC, it is fron the linked article. Your claim that anti-semintes are "non-Mainstream" is questionable. What about Noam Chomsky?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is Jewish. Also, his political views are hardly mainstream, though he is also quite renowned (and deservedly so) as a linguist, if I remember correctly. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Which radical leftists? Also, the linked article itself didn't mention anti-slavism. Simply acknowledging that parts of Eastern Europe and Russia have major problems with neo-Nazism and bigotry, as the SPLC does (see the article on Podblanc, for example) does not constitute "anti-slavism", it is merely stating a fact. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

StoneMason, are you also going to call Silverstein an antisemite? Unless you disagree that Cockburn is a liberal, the quote from him is not discredicted by your attack on it.

He doesn't seem like either a liberal or a conservative to me. For one, he denies that global warming exists, which seems more like a conservative position. However, his views on the other issues are a mix of both. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Silverstein? Shel Silverstein? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your belief that "deneying global warming exists" is the mark of a conservative politician only shows you have no understanding of the debate. The most influential book denouncing anthropogenic global warming in Australia was written by an author who had previously written denouncing creationsism. He is accurately described as a "skeptic". Noam Chomsky is only ethnically Jewish, he is widely described as a "self-hating" Jew, and his defence of Holocuast Deniers, as well as his unending attacks on Israel rightly get him the moniker of being an antisemite. His "deserved" reputation as a linguist is highly questioned by many. I believe the paper where the anti-slav atacks occured was in the Sacramento Bee. A few of them were suppressed from the discussion section shortly after being postd, but if you do a search for references to the American River College in that paper you will at least find the article that spark the hateful rants. You have also failed to deal with Wilcox Laird's claims that the SPLC puts many people indanger of police violence. His credentials as a member of Amnesty International and the ACLU are not exactly the background description of a "conservative", although they probably indicate that like Nat Hentoff he is one of the few true believers in civil liberties, as opposed to most people who invoke such provisions, on both the right and the left, who merely use them as a club to attack their political enemies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that Chomsky's political views are fringe. Also, I live in the US, not Australia. In other countries, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" have different definitions than they do in the US. In the US, denial of anthropogenic global warming is considered the mark of a political conservative. Whether this is also true in Australia (it may not be) is irrelevant to this discussion since the SPLC is an American organization, Hutaree is an American militia, and Alexander Cockburn is an American author. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So you take some guy's anonymous rants in the "discussion section" of a minor newspaper's website as evidence of a larger trend of "anti-slavism"? Earlier you claimed that the calls had appeared "in a Sacramento paper", which is not the same thing.Stonemason89 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about Silverstein merely goes to show you have not read either of the articles I provided links to. In both of them Ken Silverstein's article in Harper Magazine criticising SPLC is mentioned. Such a failing on your part brings into serious question the claim you are trying to do anything other than smeer those who dare to disagree with the right of SPLC to accuse anyone they want of racism and have us all roll over and accept it as the gospel truth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like you are trying to smear the Sacramento Bee by claiming that some guy's anonymous rants in the comment section of one of their articles somehow means that the newspaper itself (as well as the SPLC) is guilty of "anti-slavism". That's a really, really big stretch. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

John, I did a little background search on the veracity of the article you linked to: Don Feder Bashes the SPLC. Turned out that the first two supposed "facts" that Don Feder listed that I checked, were entirely inaccurate. I was able to find several quotes where the head of the FAIR organization did indeed compare immigrants to the word "bacteria" in a speech, and the article about the anti-gay group that met in Riga made no mention of Mr. Feder being there. Apparently Feder is not always entirely accurate himself in his claims. It seems to me that it's inaccuracies like these, amplified over time with even more inaccuracies, that can eventually convince folks like the Hutaree to come to believe that the Feds are paying the Palestinians to bomb us all, that Obama may be the Anti-Christ, and Obama was actually born on Mars and plans on abducting us all soon (I hope!). Scott P. (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I ever say the Sacramento Bee was anti-slavic? NO. I just said that it was my source for the threats against slavs. My accusation that SPLC is anti-slavic comes from their attacks as reported by Feder. Scott wants us to accept his word that the FAIR founder used a specific word. Yet he does not site his alleged sources, and does not explain how he knows these souces are actually quotes, and not just reapeating allegations by others as Feder alleges occurs. Beyound that, the issue of SPLC mudding the discussion by trying to argue that opposing state-recognition of genderless marriage is the same as trying to deney specific racial groups the right to vote has the implication of classifying the majority of American voters as "extremist", which is not a workable use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What does "genderless marriage" (?) have to do with Hutaree, this article, or this discussion? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Posts through April 1 now archived

Since this page had exceeded the recommended maximum length of a talk page, discussions started on or before April 1st have now been moved to Archive 1, which can be accessed from the new "Archive Box" at the top of this page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to consider automating the process using MiszaBot. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. I'll have to try that the next time the page gets too long. Sure looks a lot easier than the old fashioned way. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the word 'Hutaree'

A post on the 'Hutaree Survivalist Forum', posted by an associate of the Hutaree states that the word is pronounced as "who-tar-e". I assume the accent would naturally fall on the second syllable. If the accent were on the first syllable, it makes the term sound a bit ridiculous, I believe it would come out more like "whootery", which I doubt is a pronunciation they would have opted for. For this reason, I moved the accent back to the second syllable. Scott P. (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe indication of stress should be left out for now. Second-syllable stress sounds plausible, but it could just as well be stressed on the third syllable (like "jubilee" rather than "Atari"). PubliusFL (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevancy of Sickles' criminal background

It seems to me that an article about the alleged criminal behavior of a small group of individuals, such as this article about the Hutaree, should count a note about the criminal background of one of the members of the group as relevant to the main article topic, even though Sickeles' criminal behavior was a different sort of criminal behavior from that of the Hutaree. Being informed about the more unusual aspects of the various individual members of this group would seem to me to contribute to a better understanding of the nature of the group as a whole. Scott P. (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to balance providing information with the privacy rights of living individuals and the fact that false information about living people could be considered liable. I am not sure on the outcome of this question, but we need to keep in mind there are multiple ethical issues involved, and consider all sides before acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Teachings of Jesus regarding violence references need to be kept in article

Recently references or summaries regarding the Biblical teachings of Jesus on violence were deleted from the article, and replaced with general citations from the Bible. Since the Hutaree claimed to be Christian, or more specifically 'followers of Jesus', I think that references and summaries specifically about Jesus' teachings on violence are relevant to this article, and I have reinserted these summaries. Still, I have attempted to incorporate some of the information about the Biblical justifications apparently used by the Hutaree to justify their actions. For now I have removed the "constitutional justifications" given by an anonymous editor as this editor did not provide any supporting references for his line of thought. If you want to insert this line of reasoning into the article, please properly reference it. Scott P. (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence supported by footnote 23 "The biblical views of self defense" are in violation of WP:NOR because there is no indication that it is relevant to Hutaree, and the inference that it is relevant amounts to conjecture. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This reference was initially added by the same person who deleted the references to the teachings of Jesus. I later formatted it to conform to Wikipedia reference standards. I don't know if the Hutaree themselves used these types of arguments to justify their plans, however I think that these types of arguments might be the types of rationales that were originally used in the early Church to support what is called the "Just War" theory. If this is the type of reasoning that Pastor Baldwin uses to justify his 'Christian' support of the Hutaree, I think that it would be a good reference. Otherwise, I would have to agree with you that it may not be a good reference. Still I think that whatever rationale Baldwin uses to endorse the actions of the Hutaree as 'Christian', should be included in the article.Scott P. (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am asking to see linkage of Hutaree to these Christian arguments. If their supporters, like Pastor Baldwin, make this linkage I would tend to agree it is WP:Verified, but I don't see it yet. Is there documentation of Pastor Baldwin making this linkage? Otherwise, making the linkage to The biblical views of self defense. sourcing is to much conjecture. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking at that section more closely, I just trimmed out three sentence which were making theological conclusions by pointing to sources that have no explicit connection to Hutaree. We should be very careful with this article to stick to secondary sourcing that explicitly is giving coverage of Hutaree and we should avoid making original conclusions about their theology. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just inserted two brief statements of fact, directly quoting sources, regarding Jesus' teachings on the use of violence. The references for these two statements are what I would consider to be of a higher quality than the first two references I used, and the summaries of these references briefer. Again, since the Hutaree proclaimed their movement to be Christian, and by clear implication to follow the teachings of Jesus, I think a discussion of Jesus' teachings on violence becomes relevant to this article's coverage of the Hutaree decision to employ violence. Thanks though for pointing out that I may have been digressing a bit into excessive theology.

Regarding Baldwin's assumed logic, he is acting in the capacity of a professional Christian pastor, speaking about another avowedly Christian group. Thus, the Christian nature of Baldwin's position makes it a fair assumption that Baldwin is speaking in the role of his pastoral authority as one who is trained in Christian doctrine and practice, and speaking for what he believes to be the views of the supposed head of his organization, Jesus (unless he specifically qualifies his views as not necessarily Christian). Therefore, making the assumption that he is representing his views as 'Christian' seems to me to be only fair. Scott P. (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I still have problems with "statements of fact" that are divorced from sourcing discussing Hutaree. Per WP:NOR policy, ...facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources. We have no business describing Jesus' teachings in this article divorced from reliable secondary sourcing discussing Hutaree. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to find a transcript of some church sermon discussing Jesus' teachings relative to Hutaree. There had to be hundreds of sermons in the USA during the last two weeks that discussed Hutaree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

::::I have been watching this several days now, the Pig that is high in sodium is quite right Scotty. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

i really need to read better before creating wordplays Salty boatr, but he is still right scottyWeaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

please dont go against consensus or i revert changes Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the vast majority of Christians would not consider what these people are charged with planning, or their attitudes, at all Christian. Also the far right often uses the word "Christian" to mean "not Jewish" or maybe nowdays "not Muslim" or even "not communist", but having noting to do with Christianity itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir i couldnt agree more, how ever WP:OR tends to trump its inclusion in the article. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree that a top priority here is to not put things in the article that violate WP:NOR, even if we all agree they are "truth". Can't someone find a source that describes Jesus' teachings being discussed in context of Hutaree? SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the NOR issues with this, we need to consider a NPOV issue... specifically WP:UNDUE. If Chuck Baldwin is the only Christian pastor to discuss Jesus in connection to Hutaree, then there is an argument to be made that mentioning his views in the first place gives them undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, thanks for checking out this article. I put Baldwin down to slot #2 after failing to find any other pastors supporting the Hutaree. Saltyboater and Weapon, after closely reviewing current WP:NOR, I realized you were correct to delete the earlier refs I made. Admittedly, the new ref I made is probably somewhat better. I'm considering reinserting the old two refs after the new one, as I still think they are relevant, and it can no longer be argued that they are in any way supporting an unpublished position. Since last night, I entered into a detailed discussion with Blueboar and others from over at WP:NOR. I'm advocating that refs like the old ones you deleted, ought to be permitted, under two circumstances. 1.) that a good faith effort has first been made to find refs directly pertinent to the article, and none were found. 2.) that the position that they may appear to advance, (but which is not in any way advanced in the text of the ref) does not appear to employ any type of arguably fallacious or illogical reasoning. Thanks to all for bearing with all of this. Scott P. (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You can advocate to change the policy... but don't please do not edit according to your advocacy. If you are successful in changing the policy (which I think is very unlikely), then you can restore the refs in question. Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. Your argument sounds like "we should be allowed to do original research on Wikipedia, as long as the research IS original." This kind of synthesis of ideas must be attributable to other sources. PubliusFL (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise here is to find some source that describes Jesus' teachings as being contrary to the Huckabee doctrine. The Toledo Blade article actually does this to a certain extent, and it could be used as a start. In absence of secondary sourcing, I have a problem with editors putting in interpretations of Christianity to make some personal point about Hutaree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the proper forum to engage in theological attacks on Hutaree or anyone else. There are many ways people can start blogs to do this. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic, which is why we have the Neutral Point of View and No Original Research rules. The fact that there are literally thousands of Christian organizations shows that there is no consensus on the meaning of the teachings of Jesus, so bald statements on what his teachings mean based on quoting Bible passages seems unwarrented in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More sources combining Hutaree & Jesus

Perhaps material from the following two excerpts from the indicated source could be used for the Hutaree article without violating WP:NOR.

1) "The news of the dramatic raid came the morning after ... the beginning of the Holiest Week in the Christian year. In the account from St. Luke's Gospel read at the Catholic Liturgy for Passion/Palm Sunday (Luke 22:14 – 23: 56) we heard of the encounter between Jesus and His captors in that Garden called Gethsemane. There, one of his disciples sought to wield a sword of violence to repel the authorities. It is absolutely clear in this account where Jesus - and thus His Church - stand on the improper use of the sword - outside of legitimate self defense."

2) "Links on this bizarre website lead to anti-Semitic sites; sites containing other apocalyptic nonsense and sites where anyone can learn how to build an underground shelter and purchase survivalist products. The rhetoric is bizarre and in no way can be called 'Christian'. "

Fournier, Deacon Keith (2010-03-29). "Members of Extremist Group´ the Hutaree´ Arrested. Terror Plot Foiled". Catholic Online. Retrieved 2010-04-16.

It was found by googling: Hutaree Jesus peace . There may be similar articles found by googling. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of quote re: local religious leaders statements

According to area religious leaders, the Hutaree have completely misconstrued the teachings of Jesus, which have "nothing to do with violence or using weapons or anything and could hardly justify what they were trying to do."

I can't Really support this on the page, Non-notables criticizing the misinterpretations by a group, I suspect more will like the Catholic journal above will be attacking them once they are given time to hit the presses. Is it really necessary to say they are not following the Christian mainstream, and What makes Toledo so special? My local pastors were in complete agreeance but again why single teledoans out? I am trying to play devil advocate here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes an otherwise non-notable person becomes notable because of their proximity to an event. The pastor of the Stone's church said he was incessantly approached for news interviews, but he turned them down. I think it is fair to say that the press must have decided that the new notoriety of the Stones also made their pastor noteworthy. Obviously the Stone's were non-notable until after their arrest. I think that a typical reader would find the position of the Toledo area ministers as stated here as notable and pertinent to the article. This is all we have at this early stage. I don't see why Wikipedia should have to wait for 6 months to a year to point out the mainstream Christian position here. Are you saying you deleted this citation because it is OR? Are you saying that Wikipedia has no place stating the mainstream Christian viewpoint in this matter? The reason I chose Toledo, was because this was the second article I could find quoting clergy on this specific issue. The first was the one by Baldwin. Are you saying Baldwin deserves coverage, while Toledo clergy do not? Scott P. (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down you invited me here remember? ok, If you can get a quote on his pastor he is notable like you said his proximity. However I can not support just adding in "Christians find this group theologically Deviant" and that's what we have here. The Pastors in Toledo are non-notable as they are not recognized experts and have no special knowledge on this group. I am not accusing you of OR. But it does seem like going out on limb here to say they are not Following proper christian beliefs. Baldwin is a notable public figure within the Evangelical Community who expressed his support for the group which is abnormal view thus inclusion seems warranted.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your coming here and reviewing this with me. I do appreciate it. Now, I'm trying to understand your logic here, so please bear with me.... You're saying that you do personally recognize that the Hutaree are non-mainstream within the Christian movement in general, but you think that for Wikipedia to publish a reference that might actually support a belief that you already believe to be true regarding this question, is too 'risky' because doing so is both A) preachy, and B) using a source that is not notable enough, and by using this citation in this way, it may appear that I am really trying to advance my own personal position, rather than the actual mainstream position. Am I right in these assumptions? Again, I do appreciate your helping me to understand your logic here. I am not really trying to challenge it, I am honestly trying to get a better understanding of current Wikipedia editorial policy. BTW, I take it by your edit that you are comfortable now with the rewording I did to the citation about the teachings of the early church? Your helping me to better understand these policies is extremely helpful for me. Thanks again. Scott P. (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

this Early Christian Church Stuff is Pure OR, as the source has nothing to do with Hutaree thus connecting unrelated statements into one statement is Original Research. Secondly back to the original thread topic, Non-main stream groups typically do get a bad rap so thus we limit what we put on here in criticisms to only by Notable individuals. I am sure i can find every local new source chatting with local pastors reactions thus we limit what we put here for criticism. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Improved sourcing for early church policies, thanks

Hi SaltyBoatr,
As per your suggestion, I upgraded the source reference for the citation, and reverted it back. Thanks for pointing that out. Scott P. (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Is a cite about 3rd century church policies appropriate in an article about a 21st century Christian militia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Great

Resolved

User Scottperry has listed a cite in article Hutaree about the policies of the early Christian church. Users SaltyBoatr and Weaponbb7 feel this quote amounts to OR and have deleted it as such. User Scottperry is contesting their claim that this is OR and should be deleted as such. Scott P. (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

the removed text is

During the first three centuries of the Christian Era, the known policies of the early Christian church seem to have consistently ruled out violence as an option, even in self-defense. Source

No perfect example of WP:OR as the third century beliefs source says nothing related to Hutaree beliefs thus combing the two is unacceptable OR. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This belongs in an article on the history of Christian pacifism. In an article on 21st Century happenings background info on 21st Century Christian mainstream views are what's needed. It shouldn't be hard to find people who make this point (murdering police officers to start a civil war is not in line with the mainstream Christian view of proper behavior) in reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

References 23 to the SPLC implies the 'unstated conclusion' that the 'Hutaree are an extremist group'. This SPLC cite does not specifically mentions the Hutaree, so obviously this SPLC cite is leading to the 'Original Thought' that the 'Hutaree is an extremist group', without supporting this thought in the actual cite.

Both of the reference that you want to delete are implying the 'unstated conclusion' that the 'Hutaree are going against the teachings of Jesus'. Neither of these citations specifically mentions the Hutaree either, so obviously, these cites that you want to delete are leading to the the 'Original Thought' that the 'Hutaree are going agaist the teachings of Jesus', yet neither of these cites specifically supports this thought either. It appears that you are calling these cites OR and deleting them because they do not support the 'Original Thought' that 'the Hutaree are going against the teachings of Jesus'.

You cannot use WP:NOR policy as a cherry picker, you must use it as a lawn mower. Either you would have to delete all SPLC cites and all Church teachings cites, or none of them. For this reason, I have reverted all of the refs you have deleted back to the article.

Please give me your rationale for saving one ref and deleting the others before you revert this again. BTW, by leaving the Baldwin reference in and not these refs, might you be unintentionally implying the 'Original Thought' in the minds of some reader's that, 'Mainstream Christianity must actually encourage such militancy'? Wouldn't that make the Baldwin cite OR too?

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that the avowedly Christian Hutaree no longer have any connection to the original policies of the Christian church, is like saying that the American legal system no longer has any connection to the American Constitution. Of course there is a historical connection between them. Could you still be deleting the citation because the cite itself does not say specifically that there is a connection, and therefore you feel that the cite is OR because it is implying something not stated in the cite?

If this is your reasoning could you please help me better understand Wikipedia OR policy here? Is the cite OR because the implied conclusion is not in the cite? If you just tell me that this is the reason you are calling this OR, then I will not revert the cite back into the article again. But please do not revert the cite out again yourself without first replying to my question here. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly we dont deal with implied stuff we say what the sources say and not what we think they might mean. Regardless you are only furthering my concern elier that this is POV push to say this is not christian behavior based on the above statement. It is not your place to observe the discrepancies between Early Christian though and the Hutaree Your analogy is right except the source needs to be contextualized where it has no context to include it. And i went ahead and Deleted the SPLC as you are completly right.Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly for your patience through all of these reversions, WeaponBB7. That was what I needed to know, and your sticking with this tedious discussion has been very helpful for me. No more reversions on this by me again. Scott P. (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that there could be a good discussion as to whether that material is useful / relevant to include in the article and if so, how to do so. However, even under the broad WP definition OR (which about 1/2 of Wikipedia violates) IMHO this isn't OR, and such a claim should not be used to implement one side's view of the discussion via deletion.

Regarding the inclusion itself, there isn't much in there giving it's context for inclusion in the article and so it seems a bit "orphaned". Ironically, efforts to provide more context would probably be OR under the current policy.

BTW describing such a group as "Christian" (without any qualifier like "self-described as Christian") to me seems POV and might be the underlying issue to this debate. The prevalent use of the term "Christian" is of religions diametrically opposed to such behavior, and the association would be a swipe to them. I suspect that this may be the underlying issue of this debate, and that ScottP may have been seeking to introduce material relevant to this. In my view, you folks should get to and discuss the underling issue and try to consensus a result. An OR claim should not be usable by one side to further their preference via deletion. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's discuss categories

Here are the categories given to the article as of 4/18/2010:Steve Dufour (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Irregular military

They certainy are irregular enough, but are they really military?

• Militia in the United States

OK with me.

• Organizations established in 2008

Good

• Far right politics in the United States

Maybe

• Law enforcement operations in the United States

Certainly

• Apocalypticists

100%

• Christian fundamentalism

Please read the article on this. It properly refers to a person's view of the Bible and has little to do with politics. Many voted for Obama.

• Christianity-related controversies

Is there really a controversy? I'm sure almost everyone thinks they are bad.

• Terrorism in the United States

OK

• Terrorist incidents in the United States

Maybe. Was it really an incident if nothing happened?

• Christian terrorism

OK

• Crime in the United States

Yes

• Would anyone like to defend "Irregular military", "Christian fundamentalism", and "Christianity-related controversies"? If not I will take them off. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should remove the "Christian Terrorism" tag in order for the Wikipedia article to become more consistent with the findings of the federal district courts in Michigan rather than allegations of prosecutors and speculation by the various self appointed "experts" and "spokesmen". Given that the Hutaree had defined themselves as "a part of GOD's army" and that they do share similarities with some of the Christian Militias in Lebanon prior to the Lebanese civil war, I think that the irregular military tag is much more appropriate than the Christian terrorism tag in light of the fact there are no terrorist acts claimed by or attributable to the Hutaree, but Hutaree activities are paramilitary in nature.

Another aspect of the comparison to the Christian militias in early 1980s Lebanon is the situation in Michigan from 2001 onward. Apparently Michigan has several Islamic enclaves, some of which have their own paramilitary organizations. A part of the Hutaree investigation surrounded questions of whether or not any of those groups had been in conflict with the Hutaree or anticipated conflict with the Hutaree, partly in relation to several confrontations between Christians and Muslims in Dearborn Michigan at public events. I have been offered indirect access to some discovery files among those released from the FBI and federal prosecutors to the Hutaree legal defense team, however much of that information is still restricted access. Mark Koernke and discussed it openly with me on his radio show, but apparently they are being told that the reports themselves will not be released until after some civil suits go to trial. Several of the Hutaree members are suing a number of criminal informants who appeared to have been attempting to instigate conflicts between Christian and Islamic groups in Michigan. Several persons giving local commentary about the Hutaree in local news media were of Lebanese descent, and it is my personal opinion that information will eventually surface which points toward the Hutaree being targeted due to locally perceived similarities between them and Lebanese Christian militias, not groups like the KKK.

The most likely high profile law enforcement target of any Christian militant group in Michigan in the 2009 to 2010 period would most likely be Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad, based on his being named in numerous confrontations with Christians activists, some apparently mainstream, others apparently controversial, however, there is no evident connection or history of contact, conflict or confrontation between Haddad and any known Hutaree members. There is also no history of contact between some of Haddad's more outspoken critics like Terry Jones and the Hutaree. News articles of the 2010-2011 period do mention Haddad's appointment to the National Security board in an article linking his appointment to the publicity of the arrest of the Hutaree http://pressandguide.com/articles/2010/05/03/news/doc4bdb1b93d3af8405340360.txt Haddad also made several public comments implying that his involvement with the National Security Board and the arrest of the Hutaree were related, but there is no indication of whether or not either him or the Hutaree were even aware of each other prior to their arrest. Haddad's political constituency, police force, and auxiliaries are documented to have had numerous violent confrontations with Christian groups in Dearborn Michigan and have frequently expressed concerns over possible retaliation and been granted federal counterterrorism resources to prevent it. That political dispute and conflicts over various incidents are extensively documented on the Internet, but none appear directly related to the Hutaree except when mentioned by third party journalists or an occasional answer to an interview question presented to Chief Haddad.

Koernke and the Hutaree members I have tried to discuss the case with were extremely hesitant to give documentation and cited that it was related to "several ongoing issues" along with the fact that they are in possession of "A terabyte of data from the discovery which is still being sorted". I think that much of this original Wikipedia article will require updating when that documentation is eventually released and that it is safer to assume that information to be more likely to be factual at this point than speculation previously made in mainstream news articles. Based on my knowledge of the relationship between Koernke and the Hutaree, that relationship between them being very public, along with common practice in federal legal procedure, along with the fact that the Hutaree are for the most part, no longer in any sort of federal custody and had copies of the discovery documentation, I find the claims that the discovery documentation provided to the Hutaree defense before the trial was extensive, probably unsorted and in electronic form, and most likely eventually came into the possession of Mark Koernke. I think that it is less likely to be misrepresented by Koernke at this point due to the fact that it will eventually be released to the public and can eventually be obtained from other sources. While Koernke and the Hutaree members who answer emails on their Youtube channel have told me they feel the case as an "FBI setup" they all demonstrate a distinct reluctance to give details due to "issues with ongoing investigations of other groups we have no interest in protecting". It is my opinion that is why the more amateur edits give no citations at all and merely repeat "it was a setup". There is apparently some sort of agreement in place between the FBI, Koernke, the Hutaree lawyers and the Hutaree members themselves not to release specific information regarding those other investigations. What is apparent is that the Hutaree have been cleared of the seditious conspiracy charges, have been authorized to file lawsuits against criminal informants, and appear particularly smug in public. Anyone even remotely aware of Mark Koernke's personality and reputation would note that it would be extremely unusual for him to have come to an agreement even by extension, with FBI on much of any matter at all, let alone willfully withholding disclosure of documentation he claims access to at the request of the FBI which would otherwise discredit the FBI in a high profile federal case which ended in the defeat of a carefully prepared prosecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

This source was mentioned before: Members of Extremist Group´ the Hutaree´ Arrested. Terror Plot Foiled, published in a site called "Catholic Online." It seems to give a good presentation of the mainstream Christian view on this. But is the site official or notable enough so that their opinion can be quoted here? If not how about an external link?Steve Dufour (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of them, but checking the links to them in Google, it looks like a reliable source to me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a short quote from it in the criticism section? Steve Dufour (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am adding a quote.Steve Dufour (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Major Uncovered angle?

These sound like the folks / situation that I just heard an NPR story on. The core of the story was that another militia group was the ones who got them arrested. Heard what they were going to do, called and helped the authorities. If so, this would seem like a significant "missing piece" of the article. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NPR should put it online. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I took five seconds (Googled Hutaree NPR) and found it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125856761. I don't plan to edit this article.North8000 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to this, I have had personal contact with several of the people involved and yes, it was other militia groups that had directed the FBI to begin their investigation of the Hutaree. This has been discussed in several internet forums and repeatedly on Mark Koernke's radio shows. I am not the best at wiki-editing, but added some clarification to the end of the article. If someone can fix those citations I would appreciate it. I put the links in there but could not get the numbers to show up right. Much of this information can also be corroborated in the various Youtube videos put out by the different groups. What should be noted is that the anti-Hutaree factions were two pronged, one faction more or less led by Lackomar, Savino and the Michigan Militia portrayed the Hutaree as "A crazy religious sect" and "American Christian Taliban". Another anti-Hutaree faction were closely associated with the Neo Nazis (I put in the Stormfront forum citation due to it's relevancy of coming from a senior Stormfront member, although the general Stormfront membership were somewhat divided). It appeared that the actual producer of the anti-Hutaree viewpoint among the neo-Nazis and accusations of the Hutaree being "Zionists" came from Rick Dobson, a self proclaimed militia leader out of Nebraska.

Militia movement infighting is a very significant "missing piece" of this entire case and another one that was going on at about the same time. Several militia groups have in fact aligned themselves with various factions in some government agencies, including the FBI. Within Michigan, there are now several rival militia groups who gladly infiltrate and inform on each other to various authorities. One leader within one of the groups was a retired police officer and elected district attorney named Gary Theunick, who had been in federal prison on weapons charges while this case was taking place. Several allegations had been made by various individuals attempting to incriminate ousted Militia of Michigan leader Mark Koernke in the Hutaree case since Koernke was regarded as a close associate of the Hutaree.

Informants within the FBI had also told Alex Jones in the months leading up to the Hutaree arrests that the FBI were "out to get the Hutaree" and Alex Jones publicly "warned" Christopher Sickles about information he had gotten about an upcoming arrest of "a dozen or so" Hutaree members. Up to that point, the Hutaree had begun expanding into Texas, territory considered to be "turf" by rival several militia groups. The warning was interpreted by rival conspiracy theorists as a threat actually originating from Alex Jones however the timing of it indicates that an FBI "insider" had actually warned Jones and asked to "pass on the warning to tell people to stay away from the Hutaree". Speculation has been split on whether it was a move by the FBI to isolate the Hutaree from support since their popularity had been growing and the upcoming arrests could spark a conflict the government would be unable to contain, or if sympathizers within the FBI were attempting to prevent the arrest and sabotage the investigation against the Hutaree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"BearBack"?

It seems very strange to read that one of these men was nicknamed "BearBack", since, especially as spoken, it tends to make one think of Bareback (sex). If true, I wonder whether this means that people in the group hadn't heard of the term, or if they didn't actually mind the similarity? Wnt (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please Remember Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUMWeaponbb7 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not mean you can't ask questions about the topic of the article ... especially when something doesn't make sense. Using Wikipedia as a forum would be saying something like, "I bet he's going to regret that nickname when he's in jail..." Wnt (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be unwise to place too much interpetive significance on "nicknames" used by Hutaree members online since in several instances, they had claimed to have chosen screen names and nicknames that were meant to confuse or misdirect someone attempting to derive some sort of meaning from the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we crack the secret Hutaree audio?

There's a videotape up on Yahoo News, guarded by a 30-second "15-second" pre-loading ad, which contains in Flash format the audio of David Stone Sr. explaining his motives:[5]

In this nation, we think we are free, but you need a certificate to be born, a license to drive, a permit to build, a number to get a job and even a paper after you die," says David Bryan Stone Sr., 45, the alleged head of the Hutaree militia, accused of conspiring to overthrow the government and plotting to kill police officers.

These are permission slips from the terrorists organization called the new world order... [cut]

People in this nation as well as some around this world are waiting for those individuals like you see sitting in this room to actually make the decision to go to war against this evil, greedy new world order.

They need leaders who are not afraid to stand up and actually mean, 'No more.'

We are free and we should not be afraid or ashamed to admit that we are the American militia. We outnumber them. As long as we let them terrorize any American through fear and intimidation, then they are winning this battle and we should step up to the fight that they have started and finish it.[cut]

Every day, we watch ever so close for those evil blue helmets to appear on our streets -- but as long as through Interpol, law enforcement mercenaries called the brotherhood working for the new world order are doing such a great job, then we don't need to watch for these foreign armies to come to our shores. They are already here

Now I know people are reluctant to violate Yahoo/CNN's exclusive copyright over Stone's words as read into the legal record, but I think that the audio of this short speech, if re-recorded or otherwise "cracked" from the Flash format, or obtained separately from the legal record, would actually be useful to have - because like any good war hawk, Stone gives a remarkably persuasive speech while trying to convince people to do something absolutely nutbar. So including the actual audio here would help readers to understand how groups like this are possible. I think this is an argument for "fair use". Would you agree? Wnt (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There would be no fair use issues regarding using audio recordings or transcripts of that particular conversation due to the fact that it was made by an undercover FBI agent and is therefore evidence being used in a criminal investigation and a matter of public record (baring things like judicial gag orders or laws preventing the publication of materials/evidence relating to an ongoing criminal investigation). CNN/Yahoo would be unable to claim any copyright due to the fact that they did not create the recordings but rather reported them. Getting a copy of the original from the state or creating your own transcript of the original would fall under the same category (which is pretty much what CNN has done in this instance). The main reason you can't just use the audio that CNN/Yahoo already posted is due to the fact that the technology/program/format that they used to disseminate the information may be copyrighted by the respective parties. Additionally, the commentary/report made by the CNN employee during the video would be copyrighted by CNN, but not the parts where David Stone is speaking. Regarding CNN's use of the word "exclusive," that simply means that they where the first to report that particular detail of the story, and says nothing regarding any copyright they may be claiming. 74.131.104.227 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how CNN or Yahoo could possibly own any copyright on Stone's unfinished speech, obtained in a secret (non permitted) recording of Stone. Aknowledging CNN ownership of Stone's speech obtained in a secret recording of stone would be like acknowledging an unpaid and unauthorized recording of a practice session of the Beatles because a secret recording was done in the course of an FBI COINTELPRO investigation but obtained by CBS through the freedom of information act. Stone's speech is the property of Stone and the Hutaree, and the real question that played largely in this case was the question of whether or not a prepared but unreleased speech should be used to define the political position of the group when in fact, they have openly published and promoted several other political positions that are not cited here as examples of their beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist or anarchist?

The first paragraph of the quote above sounds like anarchism, but I don't understand how it fits into the ideology of this militia group. Specifically, several apparent allies of the group (I can't find anything about the Hutaree themselves) are harsh critics of illegal immigration; but the number required to find a job is part of an anti-illegal immigration tactic. For actual anarchists borders don't matter, and declining wages are avoided (in many variants) by employee or communal ownership. But how would the Hutaree reconcile this? Wnt (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly an argument for libertarianism, not anarchism. Libertarianism doesn't preclude being anti-illegal immigration; citizens get their freedoms while the government maintains a walled, but unmanaged garden. That said, the man is clearly paranoid beyond the point at which rational argument would phase him. Pointing out that his beliefs contain some contradictory elements is like pointing out that bears occasionally shit in the woods. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A good source to understand the context of this militia within the modern militia movement is the paper by Mark Pitcavage, Camouflage and Conspiracy: The Militia Movement From Ruby Ridge to Y2K. The American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 44, Number 6 (February 1, 2001), pp. 957-981. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the abstract link: [6] Unfortunately, because the paper doesn't mention Hutaree (which wasn't formed yet), it can't be used in the article unless some source about the Hutaree mentions it. (A hapless editor was just on this same merry-go-round regarding third-century Christianity) Hopefully as the trial comes near there should be some good in-depth reports to start from. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, just about everything published by Pitcavage predates the Hutaree. What confuses the matter is that not only are many of their beliefs inconsistent, but many beliefs attributed to them by official sources are even less consistent. It appeared that many beliefs attributed to them were in fact attributed to them by informants and undercover operatives who were attempting to add value and relevancy to the case against them as a means of justifying the costs and scope of the ongoing investigation. One of the reasons the prosecution failed in the eyes of the court was that even government prosecutors had extreme difficulty clearly indicating where their attributions of Hutaree beliefs came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to classify the Hutaree beliefs without an analysis of the context of their traffic at Youtube and interactions in various internet forums but it is also important to consider that some statements made by the Hutaree were specifically made to misdirect and confuse any analysis of them. The investigation against the Hutaree was also connected with the Christopher Monfort case not because Monfort had any direct connections with the Hutaree, but a large number of indirect connections which are not entirely difficult to trace through an examination of news articles, youtube videos and government action at the time. Monfort's beliefs and writings also closely reflected those of the Hutaree, although the Hutaree have denied any association with Monfort and other militia movement figures have frequently repeated the claim (falsely) that Monfort was a member of the New Black Panther Party. Analysis of the forum traffic on that subject would also note that many of the same people claiming that Monfort was a Black Panther also claim the Hutaree are a Zionist organization.

The common thread with figures like Monfort, McVeigh, Erich Rudolf and some lesser known figures is that they were self defined moralists willing to exercise extreme personal violence in the furtherance of their judgement against various aspects of society. The Hutaree, while not linked to any particular terrorist act, did make numerous public statements and displays of weapons while "talking the same talk" as people like Monfort and McVeigh, in fact Stone's unpublished speeches and released surveillance audio of Stone's views of the government are stunningly similar to Monfort's "outbursts" in court during his trial. Christopher Sickles in particular appeared in several videos that he posted on Youtube wearing a mask, brandishing a rifle and criticizing the government. While this is not largely known to the general public, it is very well known and hotly discussed in several federal law enforcement circles. That is why prosecutors justified the pursuit of the Hutaree case even though there were no specific plans of any attacks against police, they had drawn conclusions based on an analysis of Hutaree beliefs, communications traffic, intelligence information on weapons and capabilities, and what the FBI profilers feel is a pattern of action with such individuals. That is also why, even though the case resulted in acquittals of most Hutaree members, several Justice Department officials continue to feel justified in their actions against the Hutaree and make no secret of their sentiments on the matter.

Another case going on at the same time involved leaders of a group, again with a large following on Youtube, called the "American Resistance Movement" which had attracted attention from a lot of the same people. One of the more Charismatic leaders was discovered to be an active duty Marine and was prosecuted for Sedition shortly after his release of a video which became popular with many "hangers on" of the Hutaree, and many supporters of the Hutaree also supported ARM spokesman Charles Dyer when Dyer was prosecuted in military court for sedition. After the aquittal in military court, Dyer was prosecuted on federal weapons charges, and again, aquitted due to disputes over the nature of the evidence and whether or not the weapon in question was authentic since nobody had tested the weapon (a grenade launcher) which was claimed to have been a realistic airsoft replica by the defense amid allegations of evidence tampering by the government. Dyer was then prosecuted on the basis of accusations from his estranged wife that he had molested his daughter during a visit. Dyer was convicted after two mistrials and is now serving a 30 year sentence in Oklahoma state prison, although the FBI had openly been involved in the case as an extension of their investigation of Dyer's political activities which had originally resulted in recommendations that he be tried by military authorities for Sedition. Again, this is extensively documented in Youtube videos published by both supporters and critics of Dyer.

Survivalism

From: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=436976 Dr. Jack Kay, provost of Eastern Michigan University and militia expert, says "Most of the militia groups are truly folks who have a strong belief in survivalism, who believe they need to be prepared to live off the land. They need to be able to defend their property."

This does not say that the Hutaree "practice survivalism". In fact it does not even state that they are an actual militia of any sort, instead merely: "The Hutaree group calls itself a Christian organization that defends the Constitution with a militia-mentality"

The Hutaree are not self-proclaimed survivalists according to this article and I could not find this anywhere on their website. If this article is used, the wording should be changed to reflect a more accurate version of what the article describes OR find a good article that states and defines this clearly.

Actually the title of the article "Mentality of the Hutaree militia group" does connect the group to the discussion of group mentality presented in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that the writer of the headline is not the same person as the writer of the article, in most cases. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is a bad thing. The concept behind the WP:V policy is that more people being involved in the publication process implies "a greater degree of scrutiny". Having copy editors and headline editors separated from the article author implies a better publication process. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that it would be kind of hard to cite the headline by itself as a reliable source. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And we are not doing that. The article source is about "the mentality of the Hutaree militia group" and the article discusses, among other things, the Hutaree survivalist mentality. Neither does that article stand out as a red flag, because other aspects of the Hutaree modern militia practices (apocalypse preparedness) conform with survivalism in general. This context within the modern militia/survivalist movement is significant, and sourced. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr is right %100Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine?

The article Doctrine defines this as: Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions". I know the Hutaree's website calls the postings there "doctrine" but when I hear the word I usually think of a body of beliefs that have been established by a major institution (especially a church) over years of study and discussion by experts, not postings on a website. Could the title of the section be changed to something like "stated beliefs"? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Switched it to beliefs more in line with other Religious Movements Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is much better. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

primary source tags, why?

I am curious why there is a need for tags concerning the use of the Hutaree website for making descriptions of the Hutaree beliefs. When I look at the WP:PSTS policy I see that use of primary sources "to make descriptive statements" about a topic is expressly allowed. Analytical claims are not allowed, but that isn't happening here in my opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am typically extremely careful with primary sources and Religious groups. Primary sources can be used to cherry pick quotes to make the group seem more out there than they are. to mean me its just good practice. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You tagged three sentences. Do you think we have a problem with cherry picking in this three sentences? These sentences pass a "red flag" check. For instance, they conform with known beliefs of Christian Patriot groups, and the Hutaree has been described in context with the Christian Patriot belief system[7] in reliable secondary sourcing. Similar there is plenty of reliable sourcing that describes Hutaree as preparing to battle the Antichrist, which is essentially the same thing as preparing for the apocalypse. I appreciate wanting to be careful to avoid cherry picking, but I don't see that these three sentences as being a real problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

not really, but secondary sources are better and the sooner they are replaced the better Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the generally accepted way of co-editing this encyclopedia is that we all agree to follow the policies, subjugating our personal opinions. Considering that there is no dispute that the article meets policy, I don't agree that the tags are warranted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is we follow wikipolicy and avoid Primary sources like the plague. I am more confident in leaving them as be and hopefully Secondary sources will become available. While i dont think these are primary sources that are being misused.... i don't want some idiot complaing of double standard when we complain about his cherry-picked quote. as the fact we dont disagree they are primary we should focus on finding a secondary source as i plan to do as soon as finals are over and i have time to wade through this the mess of secondary sources. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, but, roughly speaking, the policies say not to RELY on primary sources (except is a few special cases), they don't say "avoid them like the plague" or any similar categorical statement. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy is here, WP:PSTS, we all can see what it says. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes (despite it's probable misplacement under wp:nor vs. wp:ver) and that is what I was using as a basis for what I said. Of course, any paraphrasing or condensing is inherently inaccurate. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

anti-ATF email

This recent piece of reporting from The Detroit News[8], and Newsweek[9], has some new solid secondary sourced information which I will try to work into the article. Though is someone else wants to give it a start, that would be appreciated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Context Section

Maybe it's just me, but the belief section and the context section have nothing to do with each other. From the looks of it, the Hutaree have more in common with Jonestown and Heavens Gate than the militia movement in general. Are there any links that show that the Huterians where concerned about the debt, angered over the changing demographics or call Obama a socialist? If there aren't any reliable sources for that statement, lets remove the context section. 162.115.236.104 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources that call the Hutaree a militia group[10]. This Reuters article from today says: Until their arrest, the Hutaree were considered brothers-in-arms by other Michigan militia groups. So, it is sourced that Hutaree is viewed as belonging in context of the militia movement in general, at least in Michigan. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that some militia movement spokesmen attempted to disown the Hutaree as being "not true militia" the qualification and authority of those individuals to make such claims remain in dispute from several perspectives. I think it would be fair to say it gets into the semantic hair splitting that happens between groups labeled as "motorcycle clubs" vs "biker gangs", "private military contractor" vs "mercenary" or "exotic dancer" vs "stripper".

It should be noted that the implied similarities made between the Jim Jone's mixed Christian-Marxist "People's Temple" or the Pseudo Scientology oriented "Heavens Gate" cults were only made by people other than the Hutaree. Unlike more easily defined "end of the world cults" the Hutaree have not placed their own predictions of when any such events might take place, and that lack of specifics was also central to the case being dismissed by the federal courts. Any apocalyptic plans or beliefs held by the Hutaree were not specific enough to be considered motivating factors in any particular criminal act, for example, there was no planned attack of mass suicide date, no leader or member claiming to have gotten a message from Heaven directing the group to take action. If anything, they were actually organized loosely but with more similarity to the Knight's Templar, but on the basis of a mix of American Evangelical beliefs rather than Catholic beliefs. Like the Knight's Templar, they declared a willingness to "fight for Christ" but had no specific plans on how that "fight" would take place.

My research in fact, places their belief system much closer to that of the Knight's Templar of the crusades, just on a much smaller and less formally educated scale. Realize that although the Hutaree members appear to have frequented American evangelical and protestant church activities, none were reported to hold university degrees or to have obtained any degrees or titles from accredited religious organizations. They never claimed tax-free religious organization status and the leadership never even got the cracker jack "doctor of divinity" certification from any one of several mail order diploma mills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Size

I just kind of skimmed over the article, so maybe this was a addressed and I just missed it, but what is the approximate size of this group? I think that needs to be made note of in the article. Is is significantly larger than the core that was arrested or not? I think it's important to know whether they are a highly-localized population, or if they are something with an organization beyond their small community. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has come up with solid numbers on the size of the group since apparently a lot of people drifted in and out of association with the group. Even the core "leadership" of the group had little idea who their real friends and followers were. Even Justice Department officials never were very clear about how many people were actually in the group. Other militia group representatives had estimated Hutaree membership to be as low as a dozen people to as high as 200 people but even those numbers turned out to include several people who were paid government operatives, usually private investigators who join such groups sometimes to recruit and utilize the groups in conducting other investigations other times to gain reward money for investigations which lead to the prosecution of groups they join. Realize one of the functional leaders of the Hutaree was the private investigator who was central to the investigation against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

It appears that someone cut + pasted an earlier edit that is definitely not neutral (paints the group as being framed by the FBI) into the middle of this article. It doesn't flow, and it shows definite signs of being a cut and paste (the footnote marks are plaintext instead of hyperlinks).

Look for the footnotes after about #17 to restart at 1 and go on until the normal hyperlinks restart are #18 Chapmand (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not vandalism just edits against policy. Much of the additions are sourced to Stormfront, which is not an acceptable source. I have reversed the edit. TFD (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You reversed the entire edit and then retained several elements of the "original" article which are not factual.

1. The "other militia groups" should be defined more specifically as the Michigan Militia groups led by Matt Savino and Mike Lackomar, who were elected leaders within the Michigan Militia and their position on the Hutaree did cause further divisions within other militia groups. Other groups and movement leaders such as Mark Koernke supported the Hutaree. Rick Dobson of the shadowy group "True Sons of Liberty" was vehemently against the Hutaree but also not aligned with the Michigan Militia.

2. There was not a "standoff" with the Hutaree. Most of the members were arrested in a series of raids that were carried out simultaneously in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. A few members had escaped or not been present when the FBI had set up a funeral as a ruse to lure them into a vulnerable position where they could be arrested. Those Hutaree members who were on the run for a short time sought help from Matt Savino, and were then encouraged to turn themselves in. The dispute is whether or not Savino then later led the FBI to where the remaining Hutaree members were hiding or whether the FBI already had the information due to prior survelliance and knowledge of hideouts the Hutaree had planned on using in the case of a mass arrest. Savino had been denied membership in the Hutaree, but had remained an off and on associate of them and liason of sorts between the Hutaree and the Michigan Militia. Savino openly detailed this relationship in news interviews.

The Stormfront citation is highly relevant because several Neo-Nazi aligned groups had previously denounced the Hutaree as "Zionists" (openly detailed in several forum postings and videos produced by themselves, but largely not cited in the mainstream media) and were suspected by other militia sympathizers to have initiated the investigation of the Hutaree although it later came out that Matt Savino (a Muslim and self proclaimed anti-facist) had assisted in placing undercover operatives with the Hutaree. Dobson's videos appeared linked and cross linked throughout circles of people associated with Stormfront, under the encouragement of Stormfront moderators while Stormfront moderators and Dobson would not normally align themselves with the Michigan Militia or openly align themselves with the FBI.

The Michigan militia members who had given several news interviews on the subject of the Hutaree had also denied that the Hutaree were aligned with the neo-nazi groups which the Michigan Militia has also distanced themselves from. It should also be noted that the Michigan Militia had a split with Mark Koernke and Norm Olsen, with the Olsen faction having mostly left Michigan and the Koernke faction supporting the Hutaree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of policies related to content that need to be followed and your edited violated most of them. While I appreciate that the sources used may sometimes be wrong, especially news reports, they can only be corrected by later reliable sources. Statements by militiamen and neo-nazis are not reliable sources for facts. I suggest you read through these policies before editing. TFD (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD: Your assertions are patently untrue and inconsistent with numerous news reports made at the time. So "appreciating that they are sometimes wrong" is an irrational misdirection from the fact that YOU are wrong, according to the news reports, FBI press conference and press releases, and public testimony of several people involved with the case. Lackomar's statements to the media on several occasions are in fact, public testimony and he was acting in his position as a spokesman for the Michigan Militia, whether or not you or some other group of Wikipedians wish to determine that anything coming out of his mouth, including his opinion, is somehow untrue. Lackomar had been the spokesman for his particular group in Michigan, has been openly acknowledged as such, and that matter is under no dispute at all. What has been disputed by other groups is how widely anyone would acknowledge whether or not he is a spokesman for the sentiments of others in the movement. Any claim made by anyone with even the dimmest awareness of the blogosphere and talk radio chatter on this case would readily conclude that opinions on the Hutaree case were anything but united. On what authority someone would claim to be a spokesman or expert on all militias in North America, or determining the authenticity of statements made by any people claiming to be would require a considerably higher level of verification than "citation needed" posted by an anonymous Wikipedia editor. The utter lack of logic in deciding that anything uttered from a Neo-Nazi must be untrue is as absurd as reading a Falal menu in a market in Afghanistan, overhearing a Taliban sympathizer state that he prefers the lamb kabob with mustard sauce while his leader nods with approval and then writing a report that both the menu is irrelevant and Radical Muslims cannot possibly prefer lamb kabob with mustard sauce.

Coming to any conclusions whatsoever about any group, whether it is a baseball team or terrorist cell, without an honest examination of their self published literature at face value first and analyzed second is both stupid and absurd. Rick Dobson's statements made, accepted, and repeated in obviously openly Neo-Nazi forums being disregarded as consistent with the viewpoints of his followers is an unacceptable application of twisted logic. Dobson and other Neo-Nazis stated their opinions openly, in language consistent with their worldview, and highly critical of the Hutaree. In fact, prior to the arrest of the Hutaree, some of those groups were making enough threatening statements directed at the Hutaree and their sympathizers that more than one of Dobson's youtube channels was taken down by Google. I don't think he has denied his views on the matter and I think can relatively easily be contacted for clarification regarding assertions he made in his videos and who his target audience was (fellow Neo Nazis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia content policy, then you should persuade them to change it. You can find them by following the links on the welcome message I posted to your talkpage. The "blogosphere and talk radio chatter" are not reliable sources for this article. TFD (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I found most of the same information in a New York Times article related to Matt Savino and am using that as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Agent Provocateur?

In the section regarding the arrests of several members, it is noted that the FBI informant was an "agent provacateur," which I would regard as both original research and a negatively-biased characterisation.

I will leave it up to others to edit this, as I do not edit Wikipedia articles. 76.0.8.190 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hutaree. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100331041759/http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22978954/detail.html to http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22978954/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929071407/http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/BREAKING-Final-Hutaree-Suspect-Arrested/eE6ZljBWa0uFOMUdtOLzvw.cspx to http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/BREAKING-Final-Hutaree-Suspect-Arrested/eE6ZljBWa0uFOMUdtOLzvw.cspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lenconnect.com/extras/hutaree/x787562195/FBI-returns-wedding-ring-gear-to-militia-leader
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607212125/http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/fbi-returns-guns-to-ex-hutaree-member-tina-stone-says-jobs-scarce-despite-acquittal to http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/fbi-returns-guns-to-ex-hutaree-member-tina-stone-says-jobs-scarce-despite-acquittal

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) 02:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)