Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Ottaway News Service?

The very first footnote in the article points to an opinion editorial found on the Ottaway News Service? For such a high profile topic as this article, with at least a dozen well respected scholarly books written on this topic, I suggest that we lead with solid mainstream published sources, not obscure news and opinion aggregation websites. It is possible for us to be using very high quality and well respected published sources. When we don't we create the strong appearance that the article is cobbled together from editor selected Google searches using improper synthesis. This improper appearance of violation of WP:NOR can be fixed by using more solid mainstream sourcing. When we don't, the reputation of the encyclopedia suffers. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Both Ottaway News Service, and the Pocono Record in which the article appeared, are perfectly reputable sources. Moreover, the organization quoted in the article is not obscure either (i.e. the American Bar Association is well-known). There is not the slightest hint of WP:OR here.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have dodged my question of why we should not try to avoid an appearance of improper synthesis, violation of WP:NOR. It is not enough to deny improper synthesis, like you did. We also need to avoid the appearance of improper synthesis if we can, and in this case we can use higher quality sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not dodge anything, and you might have more success here if you would stop using an accusatory tone. WP:Synth involves using more than one source. In contrast, the quote from the ABA is cited to a single source, and therefore nothing is synthesized.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"avoid an appearance of improper synthesis". can you please point to the WP policy that describes this requirement? or is this your own synthesis from published WP policies? i'm only aware that we must avoid actual Synthesis and actual OR. is there a policy that suggests there's some subjective measure (yours?) that we are supposed to use? all that said - shockingly, i agree with SB. we should try to use scholarly references where-ever possible. this does not preclude, however, use of other sources that are perfectly within the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, that happen to be purely online. furthermore, i would strongly recommend that scholarly works that are not available online be avoided, where-ever possible. this is an online encyclopedia; readers can far more easily verify for themselves the reliability of sources if those sources are online. the whole purpose of citations is to allow the reader to determine the veracity/accuracy of claims in this online article. therefore, scholarly works that are republished online are preferrable to those only available by a trip to the library or purchase on amazon. that, however, is merely my opinion of best practice. i await SB's pointer to the policy that says we must avoid the (apparently subjective) "appearance of improper synthesis". Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anastrophe, point to evidence of the reputation of the Ottoway News Service please. Finding that difficult? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"avoid an appearance of improper synthesis". can you please point to the WP policy that describes this requirement? Anastrophe (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Here is the reference in question:

American Bar Association, quoted by Larrabee, Donald. “Ten Little Words Make for Big Gun Control Problem”, Ottaway News Service, via Pocono Record (1976-02-11): "'There is probably less agreement, more disinformation and less understanding of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms than on any other current controversial constitutional issue.' The foregoing comment by a committee of the American Bar Association may explain why Congress continues to move gingerly toward major changes in the federal gun control laws."

This seems okay to me. It's a single reference, so there is no synthesis.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Worse, the sentence in the article says "most contested" when the source instead says "misinformation, less understanding, and less agreement". "most contested" is a misrepresentation of the source too. Embarrassing for such a high profile article as this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's called putting the quote in our own words, and it's perfectly fine ("The meaning and scope of this right has been described as among the most contested of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights"). If you are going to select issues such as this to protest, perhaps it would be a better use of everyone's time to focus on important issues.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

I see that there is still a POV tag at the top of this article. Would someone who supports that tag please indicate what the BIGGEST particular POV problem is? It probably makes most sense to try and tackle the biggest problem first.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the POV problems, still unresolved, May 2009 section above. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I did read it, but it starts with a list of nine different items. Do you know if they're listed in order of importance? It's hard to tell what the main alleged problem is.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Only SaltyBoatr can answer you definitively. It appears to me that he considers each of the items of his list to be of equal importance. SMP0328. (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope SaltyBoatr will explain which problem is allegedly most severe, because our best use of time would be to first address the problem that SaltyBoatr thinks is most severe. Conversely, if there is consensus that the problem that SaltyBoatr thinks is most severe is not really a problem at all, then we can perhaps remove the tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The most severe policy problem is that per policy, the neutrality balance of the article should match the neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing. Instead, the article reflects the balance of the personal opinions and energy level of the editors. All nine of the itemized neutrality problems result from this systemic editor bias. To solve the problem, I suggest that we agree to a representative sampling of reliable sources, a bibliography of sorts. Then, we should look at these sources to set the 'neutrality balance' required by policy for use in the article. In short, researching by Google searches gives an improper biased slant compared to researching in reliable sources such as books published by well respected publishing houses. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Which section do you think is most out of balance?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you totally ignore my comment of 16:39. Are you acting in good faith? If not, lets try WP:DR. If yes, please address my concern about WP:UNDUE. In short, we need a reliable source yardstick to measure POV balance against. The emphasis on idealized aspects of Heller, one example prominent in the second paragraph of the introduction, may be undue. It needs to be measured against reliable sourcing to check for proper balance. Which reliable sourcing do you read? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is trying to improve the article and all SaltyBoatr can do is attack him. Hey SaltyBoatr, try to show respect to a fellow editor. Thank you Ferrylodge, for your efforts at improving this article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

SaltBoatr, I didn't ignore your comment of 16:39. It said: "the article reflects the balance of the personal opinions and energy level of the editors." So I asked which section seems to you to be most out of balance. See the word "balance" in your comment of 16:39, and the word "balance" in my question of 18:28?

Regarding the lead, I guess that you are questioning the propriety of the following sentence: "In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a ban on home possession of an operable firearm, such as a handgun, violates the Second Amendment.[3]" Is that not an accurate statement of the holding?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you with my question, and my questions were not an attack. I can see from your response that you have missed my point of 16:39 restated at 18:39. The core of POV policy issue here is that:the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. For that to happen we need to first observe the neutrality proportion of prominence in reliable sourcing. In order to do that, we need to discuss and come to a consensus as to what constitutes "the reliable sourcing"; a yardstick to measure against.

I see that this article shows bias from being sourced by ideas found with Google searches, (for instance the inappropriate emphasis on obscure state court cases and state laws important to 'concealed carry theorists' Bliss/Buzzard etc.), as opposes to ideas found in books and journals published by reliable publishing houses. The refusal to discuss and agree at what is representative of the reliable sourcing causes the POV to be measured by default against the balance of personal opinions of the editors and their energy levels. We cannot skip this important step of observing the prominence of POV in reliable sourcing and still comply with NPOV policy.

Regarding the second intro paragraph, it focuses on only one part of the Heller holding, the part that is trumpeted by vocal advocates of one of the POV's. It ignores the other, (and per reliable sourcing), more operative part of the Heller holding. Nine months after Heller, the present tangible effect is becoming now apparent[1]. Scores of federal court cases, unanimously, in the last nine months have been upholding existing federal gun laws under the "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions..." holding in the Heller ruling. Per reliable sourcing the tangible effect Heller today is the affirmation that essentially all existing federal gun law are constitutional, yet this POV is buried in favor of featuring the advocacy position of one of the POV's prominently in the introduction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wording has been added to the Introduction clarifying that Heller does not prohibit all firearm restrictions. SMP0328. (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As this apparently addressed the only outstanding POV issue remaining with SaltyBoatr, I have removed the now stale POV tagline. If there are still POV issues, please identify them here before reinserting the POV tagline to the article. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please read above, thanks. No, that is not the only issue remaining. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What then do you believe is the remaining POV issue? The issue cannot be fixed if it is unidentified. Yaf (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please read above, the POV problems have indeed been identified and ignored. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[←outdent] I have restored that tag. You know this article will not be considered to be in conformance with NPOV until SaltyBoatr either declares it to be so or he ceases to be an editor. Outside of those two scenarios, that tag will stay in perpetuity. SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Being you restored the tag, what is the POV issue you believe needs to be fixed? If you have no POV issues, then the tag needs to be removed. Tagging based on your presumption of what another editor might or might not do is not grounds for tagging this article with an unwarranted POV tag. Yaf (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SaltyBoatr that "obscure state court cases" should not be so prominent in this article, and so I'm going to move that section after the section on federal circuit court case. Others might want to review the section on state court cases to see if it is balanced or not in favor of one POV or another. In any event, the section should not come before the sections on federal cases, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Indeed, that passage is a redundant cut and paste of the same passage from another article[2] in Wikipedia. That passage, covering bearing arms under state law is off topic in this article about the federal jurisdiction.

It is primarily included here to advance the theory of concealed carry advocacy groups. When you check the major "Second Amendment" reliable sources published by reliable publishing houses, they give zero coverage to the Bliss/Buzzard topic. Even in the published reliable sourcing about "The Right to Bear Arms" Bliss and Buzzard get a very tiny amount of coverage. The large amount of coverage visible comes from the hypothesis advanced by the concealed carry weblogs[3] which are not considered reliable sources per policy here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The content is here because it is an important part of the early history of interpretations of the Second Amendment, prior to the involvement of the SCOTUS. There are no cited sources listed as blogs in the article content. It is entirely inappropriate to go off on a diatribe on blogs, as they are not germane to the topic at hand. Besides, blogs cannot be used as sources in Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Important to you personally. But I don't see that Bliss/Buzzard is important in the published reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really important to me personally, contrary to your claims. Rather, it is simply important in the published reliable sourcing. Kruschke and Cornell both dedicate significant sections, nearing a chapter in length in both cases, in both their books, both of which are cited in the article at present, on Bliss and Buzzard. There are numerous other books that likewise dedicate significant numbers of pages to Bliss and Buzzard. Or, are you now saying that Kruscke and Cornell are not reliable sources? Or, are you instead saying that only the sources you personally pick are "published reliable sourcing"? Or, is it that only sources personally selected by Paul Helmke and/or SaltyBoatr are reliable sources? What exactly are you saying? Yaf (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yaf asked why I restored the POV tag. I did so because (1) SaltyBoatr has many complaints regarding, as he sees it, this article's lack of neutrality; and (2) if he came to believe this article was neutral, it's highly likely in my opinion that Yaf would then see the article as not being neutral. At least until Yaf and SaltyBoatr either believe the article is neutral, or cease to be editors, the POV should stay. SMP0328. (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems conceivable that there could be a consensus to remove the tag, without unanimity to remove the tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What if a dissenter from such a consensus insisted on the POV tag remaining? SMP0328. (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Same thing that happens if a dissenter insists on going against any other consensus decision. They would get reverted, for starters. "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved….if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to this we should beware of "ideologues" claiming an NPOV violation. Do we have such a situation now? SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think we're there yet. I agree with some of SaltyBoatr's objections, and it would be nice if we could make some progress by discussing further.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks, this is a start. We now both agree that these books are two published reliable sources useful to measure 'proportion of prominence' neutrality balance:

_Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5
Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0-87436-695-X.

These two work for me, but limited only to the portions of these books which cover the Second Amendment. Both these books are actually books about "Gun Control" which is a quite different topic than this article. Can you suggest a few more published reliable sources, specializing in the Second Amendment, to use for our reliable source neutrality yardstick?

These books are off topic sources, especially with reference to your "Bliss v. Commonwealth" passage. They do not actually view the Bliss case as being under a federal Second Amendment jurisdiction. Your stretch of logic to extend state based rights to bear arms to the Federal is a POV push favored by concealed carry theorists, and has no place in this article because it is off topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not proper to link the phrase two published reliable sources useful to measure 'proportion of prominence' neutrality balance to WP:UNDUE and to then also claim they are off topic sources simply because you link them to WP:UNDUE and believe (erroneously) they do not discuss the Second Amendment at length, for they do. You need to re-read these references, if you now believe these references have little to do with the Second Amendment. I also fail to understand how these two books, that do seemingly both favor gun control at times while discussing the Second Amendment, somehow also are now viewed by you as being supportive of concealed carry rights. This all smells of rampant hoplophobic paranoia on the part of a certain editor to me. -- Yaf (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to proceed when faced with personal attacks like this. Are you asking me a question? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[←outdent] SaltyBoatr, the section on state courts has now been moved down and thus deemphasized. If you want to make further changes to that section, then I think you ought to do so by way of addition rather than deletion (e.g. by describing further cases). See WP:Preserve.

Are there any sections above the state court section that you think is a big NPOV problem, and if so which one is the biggest problem?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am being ignored. See above 16:39, 18:28 and 21:04. The article suffers from reflecting the POV balance of the personal opinions of the editors versus the POV balance of the reliable sourcing. We cannot skip the important step of discussing and observing the prominence of POV in reliable published sourcing and still comply with NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, according to Wikipedia policy, you should consider "adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced." See WP:Preserve. That's why I asked you about other state court cases. Are there other state court cases that you think would balance out that section?

Regarding your comments at 16:39, 18:28, and 21:04, which of those comments specify the section above the state court section that you think is the biggest NPOV problem? Please note that the lead section was subsequently modified at 00:29 to try and address your concerns about that section. Also, the state court section has been moved down to try and address your concerns. If we can get a better idea of your concerns, then we can do more. I do not think I am ignoring anything you've said.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

State law has next to nothing to do with the Federal Second Amendment. Asserting that it does have bearing is one fringe POV position favored by the concealed carry theorists. I don't see how adding more content about state law can fix this POV fringe theory problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've read over the section on state cases. I agree we can chuck Bliss and Buzzard, because they are interpreting provisions in STATE constitutions. However, the Nunn case seems to be interpreting the federal Second Amendment. State courts sometimes do construe federal law, and it may never end up in federal court. Moreover, Buzzard and Bliss are covered in another Wikipedia article, so we're not violating WP:Preserve.[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Six days later. "...we can chuck Bliss and Buzzard...", still waiting...it is getting harder to WP:AGF here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I extensively revised the section on May 25, and it is now fine,[5] except for the sentence tagged as {{who}}.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The entire Bliss hypothesis is WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE and off topic in this article, redundent in Wikipedia and improperly serves to advance the concealed carry advocacy hypothesis causes WP:NPOV problems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your generalized assertions overlook the cited references. We explicitly say that Bliss involved a provision of Kentucky’s state constitution somewhat different from the the Second Amendment, and that's what reliable suorces say. See Uviller, H. et al. The militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, page 28 (Duke University Press 2002). Reliable sources also say that the Kentucky legislature did not like the outcome of the decision in Bliss. See Doherty, Brian. Gun Control on Trial, page 12 (Cato Institute 2009). This Wikipedia article also mentions that Bliss was relied upon in United States v. Emerson, which is obviously correct. See United States v. Emerson (Fifth Cir. 2001). Therefore, I see no reason to scrub Bliss from this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I am grateful to for your efforts to help fix the POV problem with this article, thanks, I very much appreciate your work here. In order to fix POV, we need a foundation of a WP:RS yardstick to measure neutrality against. There is a systemic editor bias problem in that the article was written according to the neutrality balance of the personal interests of self selected editors, and not according to the balance found in published reliable sourcing. We cannot skip this step and expect to fix the problem.

This systemic bias problem is pervasive, see for instance the first "Background" sentence: "A right to lawfully rebel against unjust governments... ". This 'right to rebel' theory is a minority fringe Second Amendment theory[6] presented as if it were a major theory. The "right to rebel" theory is fringe, and is emphasis which is out of proportion to that found in published reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly tone down that sentence so it doesn't sound so much like an immediate call to arms. But the fact remains that a so-called "right of revolution" seems to have been an important factor in the ratification of the US Constitution. For example, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist that the federal army "can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." It's true that the "gun culture" believes that there is a right of revolution, but they're not the only ones.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the deletion of the early history of interpretations of the Second Amendment in the state courts, per the comment above that "If you want to make further changes to that section, then I think you ought to do so by way of addition rather than deletion (e.g. by describing further cases). See WP:Preserve." WP is not censored; it is not right to remove this content and to then point at another article that is but a summary of this content. Yaf (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The other article seems to have just as much info about Bliss and Buzzard as this article has. Moreover, WP:Preserve does not apply when "moving text ... to another article (existing or new)." State law provisions that preceded the Second Amendment might be relevant here in this article, but state law provisions that came afterward don't seem notable enough. A seealso link should be enough.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that nearly all of the early commentary in the courts regarding the Second Amendment was conducted solely in the state courts. The state courts were also where the collective and individual interpretations that figured prominently in Heller first arose. All in all, the SCOTUS dodged the 2A for a mighty long time, leaving the interpretations to the state courts by default. It is not appropriate to delete this early history regarding interpretations of the 2A that took place in the state courts. It rather smacks of trying to belittle or downplay states' rights, while focusing only on federalism. Glossing over this early history would leave a reader only with the federal interpretation of the 2A. That would not be balanced. After all, it was the states that insisted on the Bill of Rights specifically to limit the powers of the federal government. Let's not re-write history and go with but one point of view here, when both are easily documented. Bliss has also specifically been described as being about the Second Amendment, as noted in the cites. The content should stay. Moving it to where it is, at the end of the article, does address the prominence issue, however. Yaf (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the current wording was largely arrived at through an earlier mediation. Yaf (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yaf writes: "Bliss has also specifically been described as being about the Second Amendment, as noted in the cites." Not plural "cites", but rather "cite" singular, footnote 146[7]. And this cite is exceedingly obscure and actually appears to have not been read in context by anyone here including Yaf. Yaf, has repeatedly stonewall requests to verify the context of this quote which appears only visable in a partial Google book snippet view. Yaf? Please tell us who is speaking in that cite? What question are they answering? That cite is not confirmed elsewhere, and fails the WP:REDFLAG test. And regardless, this "violative of the Second Amendment...that point of view is virtually extinct" is so obscure it fails the WP:UNDUE test when compared to other reliable sources. Lets properly stick with mainstream reliable sources in this important article, and not reach to exceedingly obscure theories favored by fringe advocacy concealed carry theorists. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the text in this Wikipedia article, neither Buzzard nor Bliss said one word about the Second Amendment, nor did any Second Amendment case refer to Buzzard or Bliss. Can't this article at least be edited so that we only discuss the relevance of Buzzard and Bliss to the Second Amendment as explicitly described by reliable cited sources? Regarding the mediation, it does not appear to have reached any resolution.[8]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has gone on for years, and it is a fact that Bliss and Buzzard are explicitly cases about state laws, and this article is about federal law, not state law. Yaf, in the past has found tiny shreds of commentary that blur a distinction between the "right to keep and bear arms" and the "second amendment" relative to Bliss. The RTKBA and the 2A are two different things. The RTKBA is a right, protected by some of the state constitutions, and protected by some of the national constitutions in the world. Yaf's Bliss/Buzzard passage belongs in the RTKBA article. It is off topic in the 2A and does not need to be redundantly included here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bliss is explicitly a case that has been regarded by some sources as being about the Second Amendment. Likewise for Buzzard. The current article text is explicitly cited by reliable and verifiable sources on these points. SaltyBoatr has refused to accept any sources that support any individual right or states right viewpoints regarding interpretations of the 2A, while permitting only a collective militia interpretation of the Second Amendment -- favoring censoring viewpoint towards the 2A article that mentions any individual rights content whatsoever, even despite Heller. This long running dispute is solely about SaltyBoatr refusing to accept other than a collective militia interpretation and/or federalism interpretation of the Second Amendment. I have long favored covering all major points of view (individual, collective, civic duty, federalism, anti-federalism, etc.) provided all the content is cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not censored. Is is wrong to try and censor the cited history of the Second Amendment, while focusing only on a collective militia interpretation. A multitude of views exist on the Second Amendment. It would be a disservice to readers to censor the complete 2A history to favor only a collective militia / federalism point of view. The Bliss / Buzzard passage is clearly cited with reliable and verifiable sources establishing a solid connection to the Second Amendment. Until 1897, no infringement of the right to keep and bear arms was a widely held interpretation of the 2A in many states. Then, with Robertson v. Baldwin, that interpretation officially changed in the SCOTUS, at least with regarding concealed carry laws, but the original interpretation has remained to this day among several states, some of whom are now threatening to secede if this original interpretation is overruled by either the SCOTUS or by evolving federal law. To claim that such a view of the 2A was never held regarding the 2A is clearly an attempt at censorship. As for the earlier mediation, this mediation did result in iterating through 4 or 5 versions of the passage, ending with the current version, that at the time was felt by all involved in the mediation except SaltyBoatr to be a neutral point of view, with reliable and verifiable cites, in a consensus. See the talk page on the earlier mediation for the processes that were taken in hammering out the various versions. An attempt at ArbCom was then attempted to resolve this issue with editor sanctions addressing the one editor idealogue issues, but ArbCom refused to take the case despite recommendations by the mediator at the time to take the case. And, so we are now here, again, involved in countering idealogue issues to censor the content of the article to please but one editor who wants this article to be solely a collective militia and federalism interpretation, only, with no other content. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Yaf (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[←outdent] These personal accusations at me are false. They also are diversionary. Notice also that Yaf slips up and reveals his view that this article is about the right to keep and bear arms. That is the other article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, these statements are true. There are pages and pages of history in the talk pages that establish the facts. BTW, this article is about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Hence, discussions regarding interpretations of what infringes the right to keep and bear arms are entirely on topic, especially with cites that come from reliable and verifiable sources. The slip here is in SaltyBoatr focusing only on the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, rather than seeing the entire amendment. Again, this is but a continued focus on the collective militia federalism point of view, to the exclusion of the rest of the amendment. Yaf (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I oppose focusing solely only on the "well regulated militia". I favor looking at the published reliable sourcing, and writing an article with neutrality balance that matches the proportion of prominence seen in the published reliable sourcing. Yaf seems to favor a neutrality balance based on the energy level of the personal opinion of the editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While ignoring all published reliable sourcing that supports individual or states rights or anti-federalism interpretations... Right... No, the solution here is not censorship through cherry picking so-called proportion of prominence sources that only cover "well regulated militia" and federalism interpretations. No, rather, the solution to perceived imbalance of free speech is clearly not censorship; it is simply more free speech. Add more content if an imbalance is perceived in terms of the coverage. (Incidentally, I have looked and failed to find any collective right interpretations from before about 1905, as that was when they first arose. It is hard to claim they came first when the reliable sources state otherwise... Re-writing history is not the way to proceed, although it has certainly been tried by a certain editor before and chastised.) Yaf (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be specific. Which sources am I ignoring? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, please answer my question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 09-10

I am ruminating how to improve the Heller section using the UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 09-10[9]. On pages 10 through 16 of the paper, the author discusses "...for practical purposes, the most important part of the decision...". You can download a 'pdf' of the paper by clicking the links. I invite other editors to review this paper with me so we can collaborative use pages 10-16 to describe the practical importance of Heller. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I hope we can primarily focus on issues pertaining to NPOV. That way, we can remove the tag as soon as possible. If we get the Buzzrd/Bliss thing straightened out, will that be adequate to remove the tag? Is there a big POV problem with the Heller section?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The pages to which SaltyBoatr refers, contain the Research Paper's author's opinion that Heller does not sufficiently respect the "original meaning" of the Second Amendment, because Heller allows too much firearms regulation (e.g., p. 11). If you add a reference to this Research Paper, do you have to add a reference to someone who holds a contrary view? SMP0328. (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit early to objectively assess the impact of Heller. Also, Adam Winkler is not exactly a neutral source, per this article by David Kopel. Winkler says that "Scalia's opinion departed from the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Moreover, this celebrated landmark decision has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you focus your ad hominem logic on the authors and do you not follow WP:Policy and look at the reliability of the published source? I point to the law journal of a top university, and you point to an opinion editorial published by a think tank with the explicitly declared purpose of advancing a partisan libertarian point of view.

And, it is not as if Professor Winkler's paper is subjective. At the core he simply has objectively counted up each the eighty post-Heller 2A court cases and analyzed the data noticing that the courts with most of these cases have chosen to rely on the Scalia "longstanding prohibition" clause when making their ruling. Clearly, at this point is time based on this scholarly analysis, the courts are focusing on this one clause in the Heller ruling as being the operative portion of Heller.

Kopel on the other hand chooses to ignore actual court rulings and instead selectively looks at five early out-of-court settlements, and then improperly characterizes these five negotiated settlements as a "gun owner victories" that somehow should carry more weight than eighty 2A court rulings. There is little evidence that the five amicable out-of-court settlements, found acceptable by both parties of the lawsuits can be called victories by one party over the other. (Though the NRA-ILA issues press releases[10][11] that match the Kopel spin.)

Lets try to avoid sources published by declared advocacy organizations, and stick to well respected mainstream publishing houses that way we can increase the reputation of Wikipedia. Using advocacy organizations POV push pieces degrades our credibility. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability and neutrality of sources cannot be determined by only looking at the publication, while ignoring who the author is and what the author says. By either standard, Winkler is not an objective observer here, and if we include Winkler's UCLA article then we have to balance it out with a contrary view. Winkler's assertion (which I quoted above) that "Scalia's opinion departed from the original meaning of the Second Amendment" is not a neutral one.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Any more comments about including this UCLA Law Review paper? Specifically the "...for practical purposes, the most important part of the decision..." hypothesis? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That law review paper is already cited 8 times in this Wikipedia article. I agree with SMP0328 that we should not include the additional cite without also citing the opposing POV too.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The second intro paragraph says falsely "...The Heller decision did not address other restrictions on firearm possession..." Yet per reliable sourcing over eighty court cases in the last nine months point to the "longstanding prohibition" clause in Heller upholding unanimously federal gun control laws. "did not address other restrictions" is a weaselly pro gun POV push. Per reliable sourcing[[12] the practical effect of Heller has been to affirm virtually all gun control laws, as shown by the eighty recent federal court cases. Why does the intro ignore that reality in favor of the 'pro-gun' issue/slogan of 'individual rights? This specific problem alone justifies the use of a tag on the article toward talk page discussion of this neutrality question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the entire article is not warranted every time you have an idea for editing the article. The lead currently says: "In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a ban on home possession of an operable firearm, such as a handgun, violates the Second Amendment.[3] The Heller decision affirmed many longstanding restrictions on the possession of firearms, and Heller currently only applies to federal laws and federal jurisdictions, because the Second Amendment has not been held to apply to the states." This seems accurate. No?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To subjectively give undue focus the DC home use handgun ban, which has had minuscule tangible effect; and to downplay the tangible effect of Heller which is the constitutional reaffirmation of virtually every gun law on the books, over and over again. Eighty federal court cases in nine months upholding gun control laws. Your phrase ignores the well sourced reality that in practical terms the operative clause in Heller has turned out to be: the "longstanding prohibitions" clause. I think your "many longstanding restrictions" phrase is far too passive and downplays the reliably sourced reality with the word 'many'. More accurately stated: "virtually all existing gun control laws have been reaffirmed as being constitutional by Heller". SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Each reference to firearms restrictions in Heller, other than the DC gun ban, is obiter dictum. The issue before the Court was whether the DC gun ban violated the Second Amendment. Whether other types of firearms restrictions would violate the Second Amendment was not before the Court and so referring to them is not authoritative. That dicta might be a sign as to what the Court will do in the future, and other courts are free to consider them persuasive precedent, but they are not binding. Any reference in the article to what Heller said regarding firearms restrictions, other than D.C.'s, should make this clear. SMP0328. (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

section break

I'm still curious to know whether fixing Bliss and Buzzard would be enough to get rid of the NPOV tag. Or do we also need to sprinkle on some Winkler? And, if so, will that be enough? If we do sprinkle Winkler, then perhaps Kopel too?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the list of problems here which were recently archived by the bot.

Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism.
Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory.
The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy.
Deletion of the militia history.
The handling of Cruikshank, Miller, Heller and Nordyke all are written with a pro-gun bias.
Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis.
The "common sense gun law" point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article.
Another problem (related to 6 above) is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article.
Failure to define and distinguish the term "individual rights" from the political slogan "individual rights".

Removing the Bliss passage would probably fix #2. Giving appropriate emphasis to the only clause of the Heller ruling to have any practical effect so far in the courts, the "longstanding prohibitions" clause described in the Winkler paper, would fix #2c. Unfortunately, the POV skew has resulted from a very long term pattern of systemic editor bias, and without fixing that problem, fixing the neutrality problem may take time. I propose that in order to counter the systemic bias problem that we do a survey of the reliable sourcing to observe the neutrality balance found in reliable sourcing. Then we should compare the article to the balance found in the reliable sourcing. We need to find a way to stop choosing a neutrality balance point based on the weight of the personal opinion of the editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is "2c"? I don't see a "2c" in your list. Regarding the "longstanding prohibitions" statement in Heller, that seems to be what you view as the biggest problem with this article, seeing as how you've repeated it several times. However, that statement is quoted at length in this Wikipedia article's section on Heller, and the lead also says: "Heller does not prohibit all restrictions on firearm possession." So, I do not feel that your objections (most of which are generalized and non-specific) are sufficient to warrant continued use of a POV tag at the top of the article. I do agree with you, SaltyBoatr, that the treatment of Buzzard and Bliss in this article is defective, because it does not cite reliable sources that tie Buzzard and Bliss to the Second Amendment. I'll see if I can fix that, and then will support removal of the tag.

Each of us shuold not expect to get everything we want. For example, I think it's inappropriate and undue weight to place the commentary section before the section on judicial opinions. But that doesn't mean I will support a POV tag at the top of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

this is so tedious. 1. quantify "excessive". pointing to the archives won't fly - the article today is substantially different from the article a year ago. 4. so fix it. 5. define "pro-gun bias". you're using an advocacy term as a characterization while complaining of NPOV issues. bad choice. 6. quantify "excessive". same caveat as before. 7. patently false. "common sense gun law" is an advocacy slogan, and is certainly not a "major view" in reliable sourcing. this is an empty claim. "common sense gun law" is mentioned in reliable sourcing, as an advocacy slogan, frequently. it is not, however, a major POV, outside of extremist gun-control/anti-gun-rights organizations. 8. there is little modern political history of the second amendment in the latter half of the 20th century. perhaps you're confusing political history of gun control, legislation, crime, etc, for the second amendment? 9. the only people i know who consider "individual rights" to be a political slogan are extremist communist and socialist ideologues. as such, the suggestion leans to extremist POV's, which are not relevant for inclusion in this article per NPOV.

until we dispose of these other issues, your insistence on focusing on but one of your nine claims strikes me as obstructionist. please trim your list accordingly, if you are unwilling to respond to the serious issues with your list that i've described. Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've been at this article for a week or so now, and I don't understand what the specific alleged problems are.

1"Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism." What specific examples are there? The Constitution is an original text, so if we're talking about the Constitution it seems kind of unavoidable to be relying upon an original text.

2"Excessive original research concerning concealed carry theory." What is this theory? Concealed carry is what happens when a weapon is carried out of sight. That's a fact, not a theory.

3"The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy." How about examples? If you don't get specific, there's no way to respond. This article does not say that guns are great and everyone ought to have one.

4"Deletion of the militia history." What deletion? What militia history? I have no idea what this is referring to.

5"The handling of Cruikshank, Miller, Heller and Nordyke all are written with a pro-gun bias." How so? It seems neutral to me.

6"Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis." Whose intent should we emphasize more?

7"The 'common sense gun law' point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article." How about drafting a sentence that explains what you're referring to?

8"Another problem (related to 6 above) is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article." Do you have a diff that shows the scrubbing? Can you give any specific example of an event in the latter half of the 20th century that should be covered in this article but isn't?

9"Failure to define and distinguish the term 'individual rights' from the political slogan 'individual rights'." And how would you distinguish "individual rights" from "individual rights"? It's sounds kind of subtle to me. Is there a reliable source that makes the distinction?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1) The main alternative method of constitutional interpretation is the "Living Constitution", where the meaning is viewed in contemporary context. This is entirely missing from the article.

2) Concealed carry advocacy legal theory, Bliss, Buzzard, Nunn are examples. Take a look at the Concealed Carry blogs to see more.

3) This is why it is proper to follow policy and compare the neutrality tone of the article to representative reliable sourcing. The policy of the editors here to set the neutrality tone based on the weight of personal opinions of the editors fails the policy.

4) This militia history is apparent in the page history. Also, militia history features prominently in reliable sourcing, but it gets scrubbed from the article due to systemic editor bias.

5) I will take a look at this and give more detailed answer. One quick specific, the Nordyke decision was not ruled on Second Amendment grounds and is quite off topic here. It was a "due process" case, and would be on topic in the Heller article, but not here. The reason it appears here is that it is a 'red herring' featured in the advocacy talking points.

6) Roughly 3/4 of the article speaks of 18th 19th Century history, and the 20th & 21st history is under covered, omitted and scrubbed.

7) Fine, though a single sentence would be inadequate. Attempts to do this before were scrubbed, systemic editor bias.

8) The 'living constitution' POV is entirely missing.

9) It would be helpful if you could read more on this topic. The lobbying, and PR campaign of the later half of the 20th Century up to the present is a major historical chapter of the Second Amendment. Missing entirely from the article. Have you read the book Outgunned by Peter Brown? ISBN 9780743215619

I would be willing to discuss and collaborate more on these POV problems. It would be helpful if my co-editors would show good faith and join in this collaboration. Wikipedia should not be a POV battle ground, as this article has become. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion please. It is a hollow criticism that there not a POV dispute when these specific issues go stonewalled and unanswered. For instance why does 3/4 of the article point to "founders" principles of the 18th, 19th (and earlier), and that major 2A issues of the 20th and 21st Centuries go uncovered. The reconstruction of the militia in 1903, the advent of gun control with the National Firearms Act of 1939, the "Second Amendment" political lobby of the latter half of the 20th Century are all 'on topic' per reliable sourcing, but all are scrubbed out of the article. Certainly the modern history of the Second Amendment should carry roughly equal weight with the "founders" history favored by one side of the POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be patient. You posted your long list of responses on May 26, and it's still May 26. Things are very busy for me today.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Replies:

1"Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism."

F: What specific examples are there? The Constitution is an original text, so if we're talking about the Constitution it seems kind of unavoidable to be relying upon an original text.

S: The main alternative method of constitutional interpretation is the "Living Constitution", where the meaning is viewed in contemporary context. This is entirely missing from the article.

F: This Wikipedia article does not use the words "originalism" or "textualism" so there is no reason to use the term "Living Constitution." To say that the "living Constitution" viewpoint is "entirely missing" from this article is obviously incorrect; for example, the dissents in Heller are described and they take that viewpoint.

2"Excessive original research concerning concealed carry theory."

F: What is this theory? Concealed carry is what happens when a weapon is carried out of sight. That's a fact, not a theory.

S: Concealed carry advocacy legal theory, Bliss, Buzzard, Nunn are examples. Take a look at the Concealed Carry blogs to see more.

F: You're apparently referring mainly to the section on early state court decisions. That section is at the very end of this Wikipedia article, so it's hardly being emphasized. And I don't see any WP:OR there, except for the unattributed quote about Bliss that I have already tagged with {{who}}. If you're going to make charges of OR, you should cite specific examples. That sectin looks like it is amply supported by footnotes citing reputable sources.

3"The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy."

F: How about examples? If you don't get specific, there's no way to respond. This article does not say that guns are great and everyone ought to have one.

S: This is why it is proper to follow policy and compare the neutrality tone of the article to representative reliable sourcing. The policy of the editors here to set the neutrality tone based on the weight of personal opinions of the editors fails the policy.

F: Still no examples.

4"Deletion of the militia history."

F: What deletion? What militia history? I have no idea what this is referring to.

S: This militia history is apparent in the page history. Also, militia history features prominently in reliable sourcing, but it gets scrubbed from the article due to systemic editor bias.

F: Then please give a link to the history.

5"The handling of Cruikshank, Miller, Heller and Nordyke all are written with a pro-gun bias."

F: How so? It seems neutral to me.

S: I will take a look at this and give more detailed answer. One quick specific, the Nordyke decision was not ruled on Second Amendment grounds and is quite off topic here. It was a "due process" case, and would be on topic in the Heller article, but not here. The reason it appears here is that it is a 'red herring' featured in the advocacy talking points.

F: The Nordyke decision mentioned the Second Amendment many times, as has coverage of that decision. It dealt with application of Second Amendment rights against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Both amendments are involved, according to the reliable cited sources. If you look at our article on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, you'll see that the lead says: "Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state." That's the sort of thing that Nordyke addresses, and it's perfectly appropriate for this article.

6"Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis."

F: Whose intent should we emphasize more?

S: Roughly 3/4 of the article speaks of 18th 19th Century history, and the 20th & 21st history is under covered, omitted and scrubbed.

F: The Second Amendment was drafted and ratified in the eighteenth century, and therefore it makes sense to speak more about the eighteenth century than, for example, the seventeenth or twentieth centuries. Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified in the nineteenth century. If there are specific facts about the 20th & 21st century history that you think would be useful in this article, then please specify.

7"The 'common sense gun law' point of view about the 2A is a major view in reliable sourcing, but it is entirely missing from the article."

F: How about drafting a sentence that explains what you're referring to?

S: Fine, though a single sentence would be inadequate. Attempts to do this before were scrubbed, systemic editor bias.

F: Still waiting for something to be drafted.

8"Another problem (related to 6 above) is that the modern political history of the Second Amendment during especially the later half of the Twentieth Century has been scrubbed from the article."

F: Do you have a diff that shows the scrubbing? Can you give any specific example of an event in the latter half of the 20th century that should be covered in this article but isn't?

S: The 'living constitution' POV is entirely missing.

F: Already answered at #1 above.

9"Failure to define and distinguish the term 'individual rights' from the political slogan 'individual rights'."

F: And how would you distinguish "individual rights" from "individual rights"? It's sounds kind of subtle to me. Is there a reliable source that makes the distinction?

S: It would be helpful if you could read more on this topic. The lobbying, and PR campaign of the later half of the 20th Century up to the present is a major historical chapter of the Second Amendment. Missing entirely from the article. Have you read the book Outgunned by Peter Brown?

F: No, I haven't read that book. I can't find any mention or review of it in the Google News archive, which indicates to me that it is not a very well-known book. I see a summary of the book here, which suggests that it is related to guns and litigation about guns, but not the Second Amendment as far as I can tell.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your replies are discouraging considering your refusal[13] to engage in dispute resolution with me. How can I assume you are willing to act in good faith in light of your refusal? Regardless, I am willing to try to proceed to resolution of this dispute by answering each of your 'replies'. We will need to break this down into manageable pieces and address each one at a time.

I would be helpful is we could first establish a neutrality benchmark to measure neutrality balance against, the "in proportion to prominence" benchmark required by policy. You have never yet addressed this concern of mine, though I have raised it many times. Or, if you have and I have missed your reply, would you point to the exact talk page location where you gave your reply please? Thanks, I would appreciate a direct answer on this 'in proportion to prominence' issue please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors who disagree over matters of content should first discuss the differences between their opinions on the article talk page. That's what we have done here, and I feel that such efforts are succeeding to satisfactorily resolve the dispute according to a consensus of editors. The disagreement of a single editor does not always warrant further dispute resolution measures.

I generally agree that the balance of viewpoints in this article should be in proportion to their prominence.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this. Can we discuss "in proportion to their prominence" in which specific sourcing? It should be possible for use to agree to a short list of representative high quality published works, perhaps books published by top universities, which we can use as our "in proportion to prominence" yardstick to measure the article neutrality against. How can we proceed with this task? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Selecting a subset of "SaltyBoatr-approved"™ refererences of "representative high quality published works, perhaps books published by top universities" is again codeword speak for using only progressive, collective rights only, living document interpretations of the US Constitution. Achieving NPOV is best achieved by including all reliable, verifiable sources, not just those written in one narrow point of view. No, deleting cited references and article text supported by the cited references that reflect more than a limited point of view would not improve NPOV, but would damage it severely. The key to NPOV is free speech, accomplished through article text that is verified by reliable and verifiable cites, not censorship. Yaf (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's remove POV tag

Seems to me that there is consensus to remove the POV tag. Although there is one editor who has made some generalized objections, we have made some changes to try to address those concerns, and the remaining objections are not supported by specifics. No one is ever going to be 100% happy with this article.

Support. As explained above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, but what would you do if SaltyBoatr (the "editor who has made some generalized objections") restores the POV tag? If he wouldn't be violating any policy, I don't see any point in removing the POV tag only to have it restored shortly thereafter. SMP0328. (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'd like to first establish whether there is consensus to remove the tag. If the tag is then removed, and a single editor tries to restore it, then that would be violating policy.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, please state which policy would be violated. SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Any edit to this article, including restoration of the tag, "should reflect consensus" per WP:NPOV.

At this point, the tag seems to be functioning as a badge of shame, which is not its purpose. The tag should be removed when “there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.”[14]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You abuse the meaning of "consensus". In Wikipedia, consensus means that: "Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions." In truth, I have been personally smeared, my questions and concerns have been ignored, and this "vote" of Consensus is not true in the Wikipedia sense of the word. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not smeared you or ignored your concerns.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have ignored my concerns repeatedly. You have not smeared me, but you have sat silent when other editors have smeared me, which is almost as bad. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the job of Ferrylodge, or any other non-admin editor (I don't know about admins), to protect you from being smeared. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted that to be on the record. Additionally, I add this link. SMP0328. (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support -- The article was formerly a Good Article before one certain editor tagged it as POV and started a one-man campaign to maintain it with a mark of shame, at which time it was, of course, removed from the Good Article list. The article is clearly much improved even from the former Good Article version, with much more detail, and the former Good Article version was not marked as having any POV issues for about 2 months before getting tagged. I clearly support removal of this one-man mark of shame, thereby ending one-man's propaganda campaign. Consensus should serve here, not a single person's propaganda campaign. Yaf (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

comment: check the comment history surrounding the removal of the Good Article listing, it was not a one man show. A clear 'to do' list of items to be fix was issued, (not by me), and that list was largely ignored. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Editor Saltyboatr made a complaint of nine NPOV problems, but has refused upon repeated requests to provide any quantification of them, instead focusing only on the one complaint that is the most nebulous - that the POV "tone" is not neutral. i deem this as obstructionist. i'd like to assume good faith, and that's why i've asked multiple times for specific examples, all met with silence. NPOV dispute requires specific itemization and examples of what is problematic, so that other editors may assist in fixing the problems. this behavior speaks for itself. Anastrophe (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This amounts to a vote of personal opinion as to the proper POV balance. Instead I propose we compare the neutrality balance of the article to the neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

your massive blanking of an entire section of the article with no prior discussion - in contravention of NPOV policy (NPOV is not a license for deletion) - betrays your unwillingness to work with other editors to find the neutrality balance. you are editing disruptively, in a longterm pattern. please stop. i note that you still have not provided a single specific example of what you believe is violative of NPOV, only providing nebulous, generalized complaints. your fellow editors are unable to work with you to fix these alleged problems if you will not cooperate and provide specifics. therefore, your actions further betray obstructionism (again, NPOV dispute requires specifics, and upon repeated requests for specifics, you remain silent). time to end this game. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is discouraging that you attack the editor, not the edits, and use false accusations to boot. The "state court" section has been subject of considerable discussion, see above. It is redundantly included elsewhere in Wikipedia, and my edit was not blanking, it included reference to the redundant material which is replicated in the other article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

there has been zero discussion of wholesale removal of the section. i am commenting on your behaviors which are in contravention of policy. when editor chooses to edit disruptively, it's entirely supported by policy to discuss the matter. there are no false accusations, your actions speak for themselves. Anastrophe (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The "neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing" is simply codeword speak for deleting all article text except that sourced to leftwing, progressive, and revisionist history sources. This is not neutral. The current sourcing comes from a wide range of sources, including progressive, revisionist, and conservative history sources. It is not proper to advocate the removal of entire sections simply because they are not sourced solely to leftwing, progressive, revisionist history sources. Yaf (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. I am willing to follow neutrality policy per the letter, no codeword speak. See WP:UNDUE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

SMP0328.'s revert[15] of the tag at the Second Amendment article which said "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." His summary said: "Consensus is that the POV tag is not appropriate". Which part of the tag is not appropriate?

"The neutrality of this article is disputed", or
"Please see the discussion on the talk page." or
"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Simple question: Which part(s) of the tag are not appropriate? Can you answer? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is clear from what's in this section. Your claims of bias are vague and you are the only editor advocating for that tag. SMP0328. (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question? Which part of the tag is not appropriate? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the tag is inappropriate. You are the only editor claiming there should be such a tag and you do so only with vague allegations. SMP0328. (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that this is an evasion tactic. No matter how I try to phrase my concerns, they are dismissed as "too vague". It is outrageous to consider this a "consensus" in the Wikipedia definition of the term, where "Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions." My concerns here have been ignored and dismissed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommend remove mention of Heller from the lede

i've restored some material that had been in the body for ages, that was the source of the 'most contested' claim. per MOS, the lede ideally isn't cited, instead summarizing what is in the body. by restoring that material, it mitigates the need for the disputed cite in the lede. i also recommend that we remove the second para from the lede. it's unnecessary. it's a symptom of 'currentism'. it's been POV battled on numerous grounds, and the lede should avoid all wording that lends itself to creeping battles in it. i strongly recommend going back to the longstanding, very brief, existing first paragraph as the entire lede. if there is a way to further summarize the article in the lede without it becoming a POV battleground, i've never seen it. oh, and phantastic claims of 'defrauding the federal govt' by not mentioning in the lede that the second only applies to the feds, will be summarily ignored. ;^) Anastrophe (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I forget whether anyone has objected to mentioning heller in the lede. I don't see the harm. If people are looking for interpretation of the Second Amendment, heller is the place to go.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How about keeping the second paragraph, but removing the reference to Heller. That way the second paragraph would be part of the description of the amendment without highlighting any court case. SMP0328. (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, if you'd like. It's also fine with me the way it is.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

POV concerns in Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution subsection

The section Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution has severe POV imbalance problems, reading like advocacy group literature of one side of the POV. Missing is the predominate 'civic duty' of militia service. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

the word you are looking for is "predominant". predominate is an adjective/verb, not a noun. if you were to say "missing is the 'civic duty' view, which predominated other views", then you might be correct. now then, what is your source that suggests that the 'civic duty' view was predominant? this is a pretty extraordinary claim. such a claim raises a red-flag - please provide your source that suggests that the 'civic duty' view was the predominant view in america prior to the US constitution. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to side with SaltyBoatr on the linguistic issue. :-) I noticed the same thing, and checked it out. The word "predominate" can be used as either a verb or an adjective.[16] Here, SaltyBoatr seems to be using it as an adjective.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i believe 'predominant' is the preferred use in the construct editor saltyboatr used. however, that was an aside, hopefully this won't derail editor saltyboatr's good faith response to my good faith questions. he raised the claim that 'civic duty' was predominant; the burden of proof is upon him, not upon you to show otherwise, as took place below. Anastrophe (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

still awaiting saltyboatr's evidence that 'civic duty' was the 'predominant view. absent a response, we can dismiss this claim easily, and move on to more substantive discussion. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The 'civic duty' interpretation is is not a widely held view. The primary advocate for this view is Saul Cornell, but there are a couple of other authors who also mention it. Yaf (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the aspects of the gun control debate, and it probably wouldn't hurt to add a brief paragraph about it in that section. I wouldn't call it predominate any more than I would call the "right of revolution" stuff predominate.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could cite the sources you are reading to form you opinion about "predominate". Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look in Google Books for "Second Amendment" and "civic duty" you won't get many hits.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very distressing that you form your opinion using Google search hit counts research. Have you actually read any books published by reliable sources on the topic of this article? Honest question, please answer. Have you read anything? Please be specific. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it distressing that you are trying to have this article emphasize a "civic duty" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and yet you deplore the notion of comprehensively searching one of the world's largest collections of books for that term. As for my personal education and reading habits, I do not see that they are relevant here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I take it by your non-answer that the actual answer is no, you have actually not read any books on the topic of this article. Bear in mind that there many high quality scholarly books available addressing the high profile topic of this article. Reading of reliable sources is extremely important (see WP:V, and your failure amounts to a failure of policy WP:NOR. Your behavior, is consistent with the systemic bias problem of this article. Please stop. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to report my educational background and reading habits to you, nor you to me. Personally attacking my knowledge --- about which you know nothing --- will not help this article, nor will your false accusations and unwarranted assumptions. Focus on the article, not on the editors.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing the article. You said about the article "I wouldn't call it predominate...". I asked what you were reading to reach this conclusion. You said you did a Google search. It remains very distressing that you have such strong opinions about this article but you refuse to specifically disclose the reliable source(s) of your opinion. Unwarranted assumptions? Hardly, considering your egregious refusal to disclose. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, I said above that it "probably wouldn't hurt to add a brief paragraph" about the "civic duty" stuff. So I was agreeing with you about that. Go draft your paragraph, present it at this talk page, and we'll discuss it. Don't try to cut me off at the knees before I've even said one word about the draft paragraph that you haven't written yet. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of smoke and still no answer to my fair question. It would be OK to answer no, if the answer is actually no. It is easy to rectify because it is a simple task to take a day or two and actually read a few high quality books on this topic from the various points of view. If your answer is yes, it remains necessary for you to explain specifically your sources behind your opinions. In order for you and I to successfully collaborate we need to be making decisions based on the body of reliable sourcing and trying to set aside our personal opinions. Failure to do that in the past has caused this article to be drastically POV skewed necessitating a major rewrite to correct the undue balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to continue in this vein, then I just may start to ignore your comments. Draft the paragraph and we can discuss it. Don't draft it and we won't.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting at the top of that section, featured prominently with undue weight is an obscure editorial opinion article from a newspaper from 1769. This would amount to WP:SYN original research because it is based on a primary document, and violates WP:NPOV because it is put there with the plain intent to push the concept that the 'individual rights' hypothesis should carry more weight. Also, it is subversive because it omits the obvious sourcing[17] which is the POV pushing book by the famous NRA lawyer ~~published by a vanity press without any~~ with unclear reputation for fact checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. On its face I barely accept that book as a reliable published source, due to the unclear reliability of that publishing house. And, the failure to disclose the sourcing obscures the overt POV bias of the author who actively works and advocates for the NRA is yet another specific example of the pervasive NPOV bias in this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

you're actually suggesting that Greenwood Press is a vanity publisher? seriously? are you sure you don't want to retract that? Anastrophe (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article cites partisans on both sides, as well as neutral authors. That is as it should be. NPOV requires that we be neutral and balanced, not that every single person who we cite be neutral and balanced. If you think the quote is false or inaccurate, then please indicate what reliable source says it is false or inaccurate. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) In the absence of any actual proposed paragraph from SaltyBoatr, I suggest adding the following to the section in question:

Early Americans cherished the right to keep and bear arms for several reasons. In no particular order of importance: (1) they viewed this right as useful for deterring oppression, in line with a right of revolution; (2) they viewed this right as useful for personal self-defense; and (3) they viewed this right as useful for maintaining an organized militia system.<ref>Hardy, David. [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=947334 “Book Review: A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America”], William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Volume 15, page 1237 (2007).: “Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations: (1) as auxilliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system.”</ref>

Any comments?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. If you want, I'd be happy to insert it into the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That'd be great, thanks. I'm kind of tied up right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That material has been added to the article, with a few wording tweaks. You can see it here (first paragraph). SMP0328. (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Per Wikipedia:Talk#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it....Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the heading.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts of SaltyBoatr

Can we please discuss the blanket revert warring (see [18] and [19] of my good faith edits to the article? I object to this improper ownership with blanket reverts. I would accept incremental edit collaboration WP:BRD, but blanked reverts without compromise or explanation runs contrary a process of collaboration and is not constructive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

section break

But that sentence which skews neutrality is presently not removed. And, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. And, the dispute remains unresolved. All the while the information tag which says:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed",
"Please see the discussion on the talk page."
"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

...is edit warred out of the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't tag an entire article over a single sentence. See {{POV-section}}.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have identified several specific POV problems throughout the article, this single sentence is just one of the problems. We are in a comical situation here, disputing that we dispute. Calling this a consensus is a farce. I am willing to seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve this dispute, are you? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute about whether we are in a dispute. We are. But that does not automatically mean that a tag is appropriate. Surely, you can acknowledge that a tag would not be appropriate if one thousand editors believe that the article is NPOV and only one editor disagrees. Can't you? The dispute has been resolved in the sense that a consensus of editors believes the article is generally NPOV, but it has not yet been resolved in the sense that you believe there is a POV problem throughout the article. Since we have a consensus, I do not feel that dispute resolution would be advisable, especially because such efforts between yourself and other editors have not been successful in the past.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

4:1 is vastly different than 1000:1. The four editors, believe the article is NPOV according to what? Their personal opinion, or per the neutrality balance seen in the reliable sourcing. Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop saying "please answer". The only comment of yours that I haven't answered was earlier today, and it was a very long comment, so I asked you to please be patient. I have not declined to answer you.

The consensus of editors is of the personal opinion that the article is substantially neutral according to the reliable sources. I don't think your nine points are persuasive, as I've already explained, and will explain again when I have enough time to thoughtfully formulate responses to everything you've said.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"...the article is substantially neutral according to the reliable sources". Respectfully, this is weasel worded. I actually asked about neutrality balance. Per policy, the neutrality balance should be "in proportion to the prominence" to the balance seen in reliable sourcing according to the proportion found in the reliable sourcing. This specific concern has been stonewalled. Please read the policy WP:UNDUE. I have offered a potential solution to our dispute. It should be possible for us to at least discuss, and hopefully agree, to a short representative bibliography against which to measure the required "proportion of prominence". Is their no book in the body of published reliable sources written neutrally for us to look to as an example? WP:UNDUE needs a yardstick to measure "in proportion to the prominence" balance against, and this request to discuss "proportion of prominence" has been evaded yet again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the neutrality balance should be "in proportion to the prominence" to the balance seen in reliable sourcing according to the proportion found in the reliable sourcing. If you would like to suggest a book that you think is completely comprehensive and neutral, then we can discuss it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Here is a list of reliable sources with coverage of Second Amendment issues spanning the width of POV's

To Keep and Bear Arms By Joyce Lee Malcolm ISBN 9780674893061
Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect? By Saul Cornell, Robert E. Shalhope ISBN 9780312240608
The Bill of Rights in modern America By David J. Bodenhamer, James W. Ely ISBN 9780253351593
The Right to Bear Arms By Robert J. Spitzer ISBN 9781576073476
Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 1982 US Government Printing Office
A necessary evil By Garry Wills ISBN 9780684844893
Gun control By Earl Roger Kruschke ISBN 9780874366952
The militia and the right to arms, By H. Richard Uviller, William G. Merkel ISBN 9780822330318
The Embarrassing Second Amendment By Sanford Levinson OCLC 48664187
The Politics of Gun Control By Robert J. Spitzer ISBN 9781566430227
More Guns, Less Crime By John R. Lott, Jr. ISBN 9780226493640
Gun culture or gun control? By Peter Squires ISBN 0415170877
The changing politics of gun control By John M. Bruce, Clyde Wilcox ISBN 9780847686148
Disarmed By Kristin A. Goss ISBN 9780691124247
A well-regulated militia By Saul Cornell ISBN 9780195147865
The Terrorist Next Door By Daniel Levitas ISBN 9780312291051
Negro militia and reconstruction By Otis A. Singletary OCLC 5934970
A Well Regulated Militia By William Weir ISBN 0208024239
Private Guns Public Health By David Hemenway ISBN 0472114050
Ricochet By Richard Feldman ISBN 9780471679288
Searching for A Demon By Steven M. Chermak ISBN 1555535410
Arming America By Michael A. Bellesiles ISBN 0375701982

As to your question of which book is neutral, that involves comparing each book to each other book. (We must avoid comparing each book to our own personal point of views. Taking an initial stab at it, I would suggest that the Bodenhamer book (pages 72-86) gives a pretty good example of neutral balanced coverage of the various points of views on this topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

soup

as expected. pure obstructionism coupled with WP:SOUP. unwillingness to work with fellow editors to fix the problems. focus on the absolute most vague of the nine complaints proferred. coupled with annoying attempts to get my goat, by misrepresenting what i've said, and what i've read. very tiresome, and clearly an attempt to be disruptive and derail progress. i tendered a suggestion for how we could work together in a practical manner to satisfy saltyboatr's vague complaint. in return, the same old 'bring me another stone' method we've seen countless times before. this pattern of disruption is likely sanctionable. Anastrophe (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anastrophe has used his SOUP smear against more than a hundred times now, this repetition is harassment, which serves as a ad hominin smoke screen to avoid my question. Attack the editor when you cannot respond to their position, a debating ploy. Notice that Anastrophe evaded answering my well considered questions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"more than a hundred times"? seriously? are you sure you don't want to retract that exaggeration? (the term is 'ad hominem', btw) you yet refuse to identify any specifics, relying upon only vague assertions of POV problems. i will repeat my request for some effort on your part, rather than meeting every inquiry for specifics with more questions (thus, "soup"). to wit:

"if you would like to work with your fellow editors to fix these problems, then lets begin. copy & paste a portion of the article that you deem problematic here into the talk page (ideally under a new section, perhaps entitled "problematic section: xyz. please review". annotate or highlight the specific portions that are problematic; identify the problem. vague characterizations should be avoided. other editors can review the material and your annotations, and work with you to fix the issues - if there really are issues. absent some effort on your part - at least, effort more strenuous than typing {{POV}} at the top of the article - then consensus will likely hold that you are being disruptive and obstructionist, and our common goal of a better article will never be realized. "

this should be exceptionally easy to accomplish, if indeed the problems you claim are real and actual issues. continued reliance upon vague claims will accomplish no progress, because thus far, your POV claims - being absent any specifics - appear to be little more than efforts to be provocative, tendentious, disruptive, and obstructionist. this pattern of behavior is ongoing, and longterm. Anastrophe (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is roughly correct that you have addressed me with your SOUP smear many dozens of times, and a hundred times is a reasonable estimate. Check your user contribution history if you forget. As to specific complaints about POV problems, I attempted to fix a few with this edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=next&oldid=293109034 which Yaf reverted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

The following sentence in this article seems very problematic: "The Bliss case has also been described as involving 'a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment.'" There are a couple problems.

First, there is no indication of who described the Bliss case that way. We are not supposed to use WP:Weasel words. Additionally, I've read Bliss, and I don't see any mention of the Second Amendment at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

agreed. bliss has been problematic for a long time, due to the reliance on a single extant quote (albeit in a reliable source) that makes this claim. absent the full text of the quote (which is damnably hard to find, as published copies are only in a few regional libraries that store very old govt manuscripts), it becomes an extraordinary claim, as i'm not aware of any other reliable source than this that describes the statute as violative of the second amendment. either another reliable source must be presented, or it should go. Anastrophe (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Undone. The existing article text was cited with a reliable source. The complete reference is also cited. There is no requirement to have additional reliable sources for this, although they certainly exist. The prior content, citing the former Atty General of the US who felt Bliss was violative of the Second Amendment, has already been removed. Having but a single source for this viewpoint, to try and placate the "undue prominence" of Bliss, has already occurred. Without any mention of the connection of Bliss to the Second Amendment, there is no obvious reason for including any mention of Bliss in this article. This small amount of article text (one sentence, really) is entirely appropriate. Or, we can also restore the the other content supporting the same viewpoint, if additional support for this early viewpoint are required. But, that would probably not placate a certain POV warrior. Yaf (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at WP:Weasel? You can't just say that some anonymous person said something.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

if there are other reliable sources that back up the Bliss contention that the statute was violative of the second amendment, then that would satisfy the issue for me. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For me too, but until then the sentence ought to be removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we continue discussion of this problematic sentence. Presently three editors, favor removal. One editor disagrees. SaltyBoatr (talk) 8:04 am, 2 June 2009, Tuesday (UTC−7)

oh great. so now you misrepresent what you previously wrote by modifying it ex post facto, thus misleading later readers as to what i was referring to. please use ~~Strike-through text~~ over your original commentary, then if you wish you can update it, noting that you are updating it in response to being called out for your misrepresention. piling misrepresentations upon misrepresentations is not helpful. i'll thank you to attend to this detail with some alacrity. Anastrophe (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I direct editors to this diff[20] to understand my edit which was a good faith attempt to be helpful and clear. Sorry if you take offense, none was intended. Enough said. It would be more helpful if can we try harder to avoid discussion editors and instead put more focus on the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

it would be more helpful if you avoided misrepresenting what other editors wrote in the first place. your reckless misrepresentations and mischaracterizations are what are disruptive here. calling you out for that disruption is not the proximate cause of the problem. Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If Yaf, or someone else, doesn't fix that sentence, it should be removed. Yaf being the sole dissenter shouldn't prevent removal, any more than SaltyBoatr being the sole dissenter from the removal of the POV tag prevented it. Consistency matters. SMP0328. (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Except the POV tag was not cited, only being one editor's perception. The sentence in question here, on the other hand, is clearly cited with a reliable and verifiable source. Perhaps you are advocating whether Wikipedia is a virtual Republic or a virtual Democracy? By the Wikipedia policy that all major viewpoints that are cited should remain, it appears that Wikipedia is supposed to be treated as more of a Republic than a Democracy. Are you advocating, on the other hand, that it should be a Democracy, instead? If so, it would be like 3 wolves and one pig deciding what's going to be on the menu for supper. That doesn't seem consistent with "Wikipedia is not censored." What is the problem with the sentence in question proving that Bliss has been regarded at times as having been a violation of the Second Amendment? A former Atty General of the US (as was noted in the article earlier, but which was removed to placate SB) clearly believed that Bliss was such a case. But, that content was removed as being "undue weight" to placate SB. Keeping but one small sentence that is cited with a reliable and verifiable source seems a reasonable compromise to reinserting the Crittenden content. Consistency does matter; but with a reliable and verifiable citation for article text, censorship should not instead become our goal. If other editors would support reinsertion of the Crittenden content, then that would certainly address the issue. But, SB will not likely agree with this approach. What say you, editors? Should we leave the one sentence with a reliable and verifiable citation verifying the article text or should we insert the previous content that was removed to placate SB regarding Crittenden? Yaf (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

i've already weighed in twice already. SB above misrepresented what i wrote, which has apparently become standard practice. i won't repeat what i wrote again; other editors are welcome to reread my comments just a short scroll up, and compare with SB's misrepresentation.Anastrophe (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yaf distracts from the real problem. His 'cite' is in violation of WP:REDFLAG as it stands out unconfirmed elsewhere. No one here has actually read snippet quote in context. No one here knows the name of the person speaking in Yaf's snippet quote. WP:V is violated if we do not know the identity and hence the reliability of the person speaking. It is time for that sentence to go. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) yaf has stated that another reliable source supports the existing source. i support inclusion of that sourced material, which should put an end to this nonsense. Anastrophe (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question says: "The Bliss case has also been described[who?] as involving 'a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment.'" Anastrophe, are you saying that the "who?" tag should be removed? I would strongly disagree with removing the "who?" tag until there is some indication of who we are quoting. If such an indication is not forthcoming, the sentence ought to be removed per WP:Weasel, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

i didn't say that the 'who' tag should be removed. i'd like to see that clarified, but per yaf's comments above, the section previously had additional reliably referenced material that also supported the claim that it's been described as a statute violative of the second amendment. contrary to editor saltyboatr's claims, the existing cite does meet WP:V - i would merely like to see that cite expanded to satisfy the 'who', and to have the additional material added, which would mitigate the REDFLAG claims. Anastrophe (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This "second source" alluded by Yaf and Anastrophe is a defense argument made by a defense lawyer defending his client from a charge of murder. Defense lawyers focus on contrived arguments advocating for their clients and these arguments are very dubious for use in this encyclopedia. WP:REDFLAG remains. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

if that is indeed what the other source is, then i agree. please pay strong attention to the if. because of editor saltyboatr's recent campaign of misinformation, i consider his claim dubious until presented with the actual content in question. Anastrophe (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is presently dubious, then we should prudently take the sentence out of the article until and if the sourcing might be found in the future. Bear in mind that well more than a year has elapsed in the search for this improved sourcing, and none has been found. When in the future to you propose we stop waiting for this new sourcing to be found? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I will be removing that sentence shortly per WP:REDFLAG. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence and Yaf reverted[21], for the umpteenth time. Yaf please participate on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Is more discussion necessary? I will be removing that sentence shortly per WP:REDFLAG. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording of that sentence. It now says that the quote comes from a 1967 hearing of a House subcommittee. SMP0328. (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was speaking? What question were they answering? The claim that this Kentucky state law was violative of the federal constitution seems quite outrageous, and is WP:REDFLAG. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

While it would be nice to know who said it, that isn't necessary. The source confirms the accuracy of that statement. Just because you find that statement to be "outrageous" does not make it a violation of REDFLAG or any other policy. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary. We have no idea who said it. The House subcommittee was not saying that the statement is accurate. Who says the statement is accurate?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing confirms that the statement was made. While it would be nice to attribute that sentence to a specific person, it has nonetheless been verified. SMP0328. (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How can we decide if it's a reliable source if we have no idea who said it? We are supposed to use authors who "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We don't even know who the author is here. And saying that "Bliss was described" is clearly Weasel wording, which gives "the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable." See WP:Weasel. Have you ever seen a Wikipedia article quote an opinion without indicating the source of the opinion?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SMP0328 assertion that this meets WP:V standards is just not true. If simple testimony in front of a Congressional committee meets WP:V then it is verified that Germany had flying saucers during World War II, as that was also testified[22] in front of Congress. NO. We need to look to WP:REDFLAG too, if Kentucky state law was violative of the federal Second Amendment then Germany had flying saucers too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's that wonderful SaltyBoatr sarcasm we all have come to know and love. SMP0328. (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No sarcasm at all, I am perfectly serious. You said that by virtue of being testified in front of a congressional committee, "...it has nonetheless been verified." The burden is on you to show that congressional testimony is necessarily reliable. Considering that congressional testimony has been documented as describing the existence of flying saucers, why is your congressional testimony "verified"? Please answer my serious concern. Alternately, please remove your "problematic sentence". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At the linked page, you will see "Blakey G Robert professor of law Notre Dame Law School" just under "Contents". Is that the person for whom we are searching? SMP0328. (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The snippet quote is from page 246 and "Blakey G. Robert" is mentioned on page 1023. Do you seriously believe that this meets quality of sourcing standards appropriate for a high profile article at Wikipedia? You didn't answer my question of 18:35, will you answer my question this time? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reask your question without the sarcasm. As for "Blakey G. Robert", I was asking a question. There was no need for the hostile response. SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that congressional testimony has been documented as describing the existence of flying saucers, why is your congressional testimony "verified"? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the record of that hearing confirms that the quoted statement was said at that hearing. Do you believe that a record of Congressional testimony is never to be considered reliable? SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Quotes, especially those from living people, must be attributed properly. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time."[23] It's obviously not proper to quote someone without saying who it is you're quoting.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Answering SMP0328's question: "Do you believe that a record of Congressional testimony is never to be considered reliable?" The standard is much higher than "never to be considered". The reliability must be confirmed elsewhere, if is not, then it is a 'redflag' anomaly and Congressional testimony does not meet the Wikipedia reliability standard. "either another reliable source must be presented, or it should go." Lacking that confirmation, the consensus here is for removal of this redundant passage, it remains over at the RTKBA article anyway. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags removed

i've removed the {{POV-sect}} tags recently added to the article. we are still awaiting the requested specifics to your (saltyboatr) previous POV complaints. until there are specifics, there is no dispute; for a dispute to obtain, other editors must have a clear understanding of what you're claiming. we can only understand that if you provide specifics, rather than vague generalities. ergo, the tags are inappropriate, and have the appearance of being used for disruption, since discussion is ongoing. please provide specifics, so that your fellow editors may work with you to fix these problems, if these problems do indeed exist. Anastrophe (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a game. I have written many specific complaints which you pretend to not be specific enough for your satisfaction while satisfying you is unachievable it seems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe regarding specificity. An editor who adds a tag should address the issues on the talk page, by pointing to specific issues. General objections do not cut it, IMO. Even this last comment by SaltyBoatr lacks specifics.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

editor saltyboatr has added back the POV dispute tags. the previous nine complaints remain unaddressed - upon repeated requests, editor saltyboatr has yet to offer any specifics to support his claims. does this mean he is abandoning those nine complaints? if so, fair enough. but now we have the next moving target, tags on the sections 'the meaning of bear arms' and 'early state court decisions'. the tags of necessity lack specifics, but editor saltyboatr has not started new sections to address these new claims. are we to just assume we know the specifics, because of previous vague complaints about these sections? the refusal to provide specifics, either in annotated reproductions of the sections, or in proposed NPOV adjusted text, suggests that these tags are being used for disruption, rather than as evidence of good faith issues.

absent specifics about the tags, should they be removed?

yes. Anastrophe (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed those POV tags. They are illegitimate, just as article-wide one was. SaltyBoatr is simply using such tags as a way to undermine the article. If he wanted to improve the article he would provide specifics. IMO, he should be banned. However, Wikipedia usually only bans Vandals and Sockpuppets. SMP0328. (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a shout down, or can we actually work collaboratively? Policy requires the article to match the neutrality balance found in proportion matching the reliable sourcing. A few editors here leave us guessing as to which reliable sourcing they are reading, and absent their disclosure the default conclusion is they view neutrality through their own personal point of view perspective. The false accusation that 'refusal to provide specifics' is laughable, I have provided many specifics. See for instance the discussion dated (20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)) above. It would be more constructive to participate in the neutrality evaluation of the article than to edit war the tags in the article which direct readers to look at the talk page to engage in this ongoing discussion of neutrality. Is there not an ongoing discussion? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not a "shout down", but consensus. I have removed those POV tags. Specious claims of "systemic bias" by a single editor are not grounds for adding POV tags to attempt to force the censorship of a wide range of reliable, verifiable sourced article text. Wikipedia is not censored. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Properly characterizing Saul Cornell

based upon this editorial [24], i have taken the initiate to properly identify saul cornell as a gun control activist. this is necessary for NPOV, so that the frequent references to him in the article are characterized appropriately. Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Which specific part of that editorial identifies Saul Cornell as a "gun control activist"? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

what sourcing did you use to characterize kopel as a "gun rights activist"? why didn't you add that sourcing when you made your claimed "neutrality wording" edit? Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: Which specific part of that editorial identifies Saul Cornell as a "gun control activist"? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

you've already cleared that up. you didn't base your edit characterizing kopel as an 'activist' upon reliable sourcing, but more as a personal characterization based upon your opinion. i did the same re cornell, based upon a reading of his editorial advocating in favor of gun control. you equate 'advocate' and 'activist', thus, we're on level ground here. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, i did answer it. i'm sorry that you're unhappy with my answer - since it impugned your previous edit - but i think we'll both live to fight another day. Anastrophe (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out a number of times that Cornell receives almost all of the operating funds for his "Center" from the Joyce Foundation. He is a "bought and paid for" Joyce Foundation mouthpiece.68.162.241.235 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)