Talk:Second Amendment (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Politics

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved and Second Amendment + 2nd Amendment redirected → Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 11:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment → Second Amendment (disambiguation) – The primary topic of Second Amendment is clearly Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (the other uses only have a fraction of the page views[1]), and so Second Amendment (and 2nd Amendment) should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. But this dab page needs to be moved first. В²C ☎ 22:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment has redirected to the US amendment since a contentious move request in 2010: Talk:First Amendment (disambiguation)#Requested move, take 2. All other numbered search terms from Third Amendment to at least Twentieth Amendment redirect to disambiguation pages, I believe. Dekimasuよ! 22:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It meets the two criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Clearly has the much higher usage and its long term significance and notability is substantially greater than the other articles because it relates to a long-term political/social/cultural issue which is of significant interest/notability outside the United States. WP:CONSISTENCY suggests that others should be looked at too, especially Fifth Amendment, something which is well-known in and outside the United States. Shadow007 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A previous move request on this topic can be found at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 31#Requested move. Dekimasuよ! 00:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly different request as it suggested changing the title of the article from "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" to "Second Amendment" which would have been wildly out of step and inconsistent with other articles on amendments to the US Constitution whereas the present proposal is to make "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" the primary redirect of "Second Amendment". Shadow007 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the US, and I don't see any uses in other countries that compete. Fifth Amendment is the only other amendment I'd consider a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirect for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Page views are a terrible way to make decisions because they perpetuate Wikipedia:Systemic bias, particularly Americentrism. The DAB page includes unrelated topics, the Irish, Australians and South Africans should not be expected to be familiar with US law, even if it is a constitutional law with saturated coverage in the US media. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Page view counts accurately reflect how often people actually visit the respective pages. That's as objective as you can hope to get. It's not systemic bias, which has to do with reflecting editor bias. Page views reflect user bias, which is exactly what we want to serve. --В²C ☎ 02:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Page views reflect the systematic bias of Americans having on average easier access to the internet than most other places. You think the Wikimedia_Foundation_Guiding_Principles WMF princples should change "Serving every human being" to "Serving average page hits"? It sure doesn't say that. The article is not improved by removal of "to the United States Constitution" for anyone, not Americans, and definitely not non-Americans in countries with multiply amended written constitutions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Page views are a terrible way to make decisions – you might want to suggest a change to WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY in that case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, that section, when read completely, is pretty good. I should clarify, page views alone is a terrible way to make a decision. One should look as all things listed there. It is lacking in not mentioning that a title that primarily refers to one thing in one place, and primarily to another unrelated thing in another place, cannot be primary globally. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not mentioned for a reason. There is no concept corresponding to "primary globally" recognized on WP. Either a topic is, or is not, primary for a given term. You're also using your own broad (and in my opinion bizarre) definition of "systemic bias", which is not a concern on WP, even though you (initially) linked to the Wikipedia:Systemic bias page which deals exclusively with editor bias. Stop making up stuff. --В²C ☎ 16:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose because the removal of "to the United States Constitution" from the title will necessitate the addition of an ugly hatnote containing more words than the number removed, new words of no significance to the topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose as CONSISTENCY with the other amendments (see Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution) favours the current title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal isn't to move Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, merely to set a redirect. I agree that, per consistency, that page shouldn't be moved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I had that misunderstood, but still, pointing the redirect to an article instead of the DAB page means that the article will have to have a hatnote added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it will need a hatnote. That's what Template:Redirect is for. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing Template:Redirect if avoidable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Even to a non-American like me, the American Second Amendment is clearly primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is famous around the world, and primary for someone in a place without a constitution let alone a multiply amended written constitution, but that is not everyone. There are many Irish, South Africans and Australians who don't bother with US law. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In Australia, amendments to the Constitution are never referred to by an ordinal number. In fact, they are rarely referred to at all. The Constitution is not widely referred to except when specific issues arise, e.g. the recent parliamentary eligibility crisis when the bulk of the public express incredulity at the existence of Constitutional provisions they had no idea existed. In any event, when amendments are referred to, they are referred to by reference to the referendum, e.g "the 1967 referendum". In relation to the referendum appearing on the Second Amendment page, it is a referendum that related to the issue of the federal assumption of state debts existing at that time. The provision of the Constitution is obsolete and of little significance over a century later. Its notability compared to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is non-existent. Shadow007 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2A is the primary topic, it is not on-par with Irish or South African amendments, that's not even debatable. ValarianB (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the American Second Amendment is clearly the primary topic. Lepricavark (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I routinely fix incoming links to this title; the U.S. sense is far and away the most common intended result, definitely by a ratio of more than 100 to 1. bd2412 T 03:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:BD2412, can I get your thoughts on my suggestion that the current title is perfectly fine, and that the change forces the addition of a hatnote that detracts more from the article than the arguably superfluous words? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We use hatnotes all the time. I don't think that they really present any distraction, unless there are numbers of them. bd2412 T 04:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that regular Wikipedia editors are blasé to the hatnotes, hatnotes being everywhere. I note their trouble to screen readers, and that someone already thought to make DownloadasPDF strip them. "We do it all the time" is never a good justification per se. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- On the need to fix bad linking, I understand the problem, but isn't it the wrong solution to reduce the quality of the product to solve an issue for editors doing maintenance? I have elsewhere suggested an alternative solution to the links to DAB pages problem, which is to add "(disambiguation)" to ALL base name DAB pages, and to redirect the base name to the DAB page. When the double redirects are bot-fixed, the presence of "(disambiguation)" in the wikitext will be informative to the editors making the bad links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have weighed the pros and cons of moving all dabs to (disambiguation) titles, and I'm still not sure it would be worth the trouble. bd2412 T 04:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a reader, I know that I think I would like it; I find unexpected DAB pages disconcerting. Is there any recording of a list of pros and cons, including what work would be needed to make it so? I imagine that technically it would just be a fairly hefty but easily programmed bot job, with residual cleaning just the standard bot-fixing of double redirects. Establishing agreement I imagine to be the far greater difficulty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

One of many points the above discussion raises is the (to me) problem of US bias. A disproportionate number of Wikipedia readers, editors and administrators are US-based. And the web itself is similarly biased. To what extent should English Wikipedia reflect this bias?

Despite the claims above, in Australia I have never heard the "Second Amendment" referred to as such, although "the right of the people to bear arms" is often cited, and pleading the fifth is in my experience well understood by Australians to refer to that amendment of the US constitution. (Possibly Dragnet and similar popular TV shows are responsible for that.) Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not American and in my opinion, too much is made of this issue of US bias/Ameri-centrism. The bias runs both ways. Opposing things like an article being primary simply because the United States' position as one of the largest political, social, and cultural leaders (I use that term neutrally) in the English-speaking world results in topics relating to it being primary is a different form of bias. It smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because one is annoyed that the United States is often dominant/primary on a lot of things. My two cents. Shadow007 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am English. It frequently irritates me that some American editors on Wikipedia cannot get their heads round the fact that topics are not primary just because they're American (often using the "there are lots more of us than you so everything of ours should take precedence" argument). However, this does not blind me to common sense and the fact that some American topics are primary because of the wide knowledge of them throughout the world and the overwhelming usage of the term to refer to the American topic as opposed to any other, even internationally. This is one of those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.