Talk:Michigan Defense Force

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michigan Volunteer Defense Force. 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/20131203025952/http://mivdf.org/site/ to http://mivdf.org/site/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 02:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Hello Der Puppenspieler hat gesprochen, twice you have replaced the majority of this article without substantial change. This is edit warring, and is unproductive. Continue this and steps will be taken to limit your WP:SPA account's ability to edit. If you want to propose big changes to the article, please do so on this page. Rhadow (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. An edit war is not my intent, only showing accurate information about this organization. What options would your recommend if others continue to revert my changes or post inaccurate information? Der Puppenspieler hat gesprochen (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If others make edits contrary to truth, first mark with {{cn}}, then start a discussion here. When you have more experience, you may edit WP:BOLDLY, including deletion of not-so-useful material. As to reversion of changes, the other editor had a reason. Talk about it. An edit war is the WP version of "Did so ... Did not ..Did so." Rhadow (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in all things is relative. Here it means what you can verify with reliable secondary sources. Please do not use terms like "untrue", "false", "lies", etc. Instead, provide sources verifying the truth of your version. John from Idegon (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

Hello Der Puppenspieler hat gesprochen, it is the policy of Wikipedia to rely on reliable, independent sources. Part of that requirement is that most of the sources are secondary or tertiary sources. Pointing to the subject's website or Michigan statute doesn't count.

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

The subject is free to format its website as it sees fit. The current construction of the article is not encyclopedic. There is no press to support the majority of the text. It sounds like advertising for the organization. Rhadow (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice is most appreciated. There is not much third party material on this organization. Would newspaper articles and references from the occasional book be acceptable? Der Puppenspieler hat gesprochen (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to disseminate information about the subject of the article. It is, instead, to summarize what has been written about the subject in reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the last external link could possibly be used as a source for something. John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is not much third party material on this organization." If that is the case, then the subject is not WP:NOTABLE and doesn't need an article. Rhadow (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal protection[edit]

The legal protection has been removed because "contract terms are not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. They belong on the subject's website." However, nothing in the section discusses contracts whatsoever. This is about state law. I believe because of this error made by the editor who most recently removed the section that the material should be reintroduced, but because of the apparent edit-warring that's been going on, I'd like to explain my reasoning here and invite comment before doing so. Et0048 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Et0048,

First off -- and it does not answer your question -- there is a voice, tone, and attitude appropriate to an encyclopedia article. It is a crisp, cogent style that introduces one to the topic. In Wikipedia, it is a precis of other secondary sources. It is not bloated bureaucratese, dropping names and citing regulation in every para. Length is not prized. Making articles look and sound alike is. That's why the WP:MOS describes how to capitalize section headings.

Second -- and state law is a form of contract -- the uniform standards, billeting, and Michigan's interpretation of the UCMJ are simply not of general interest. That's my opinion as a fellow editor.

Third -- and this is the WP policy -- you are free to add whatever trivia you want to the article, as long as you can find it in the Detroit Free Press, or Stars and Stripes. Otherwise, it goes. Rhadow (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I doubt the assertion in the lede that the MIVDF is equal to the MI Guard and MI ANG, starting with PT standards and individual compulsion to serve if called up.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Rmesic (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Rmesic (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed correction[edit]

The page currently states: The MIVDF is one of the three components of the military establishment of Michigan; the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force.[1]. The MIVDF is equal in legal status, per Michigan law, to the Army and Air National Guard.

This is only true when activated by the Governor through the TAG. To make the statement more correct, it should be revised to "Upon activation by the Governor, the MIVDF is equal in legal status..." but I cannot comment on if the "equal in legal status" is correct. Army and National Guard are federalized, reporting to the President through the Department of Defense. MIVDF will only ever report to the Governor of the State. I propose to strike the sentence "The MIVDF is equal in legal status..." in its entirety.

Full disclosure - I am the Brigade Staff Operations and Training Officer for the organization (unpaid volunteer.) Rmesic (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Et0048 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]