Jump to content

Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

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[1]. 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[2][3] 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[[4] 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.
  1. Excessive reliance of the theory of originalism and textualism.
  2. Excessive original research concerning "concealed carry" theory.
  3. The neutrality tone is in violation of WP:NPOV policy.
  4. Deletion of the militia history.
  5. The handling of Cruikshank, Miller, Heller and Nordyke all are written with a pro-gun bias.
  6. Intent of the Founders given excess emphasis.
  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.
  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.
  9. 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[5] 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, 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.”[6]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[7] 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?

  1. "The neutrality of this article is disputed", or
  2. "Please see the discussion on the talk page." or
  3. "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.[8] 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[9] 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 [10] and [11] 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:
  1. "The neutrality of this article is disputed",
  2. "Please see the discussion on the talk page."
  3. "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

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://wiki.riteme.site/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[12] 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[13], 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[14] 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."[15] 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 [16], 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)

David Kopel, gun rights activist

what sourcing did you use to characterize kopel as a "gun rights activist"? Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This honest truth is that I recalled it from earlier reading of reliable sources, though I forget exactly which at this moment. Looking now in archives I see that Fox News has defined David Kopel as "a gun rights advocate" here[17], and at least a dozen other reliable sources indicating similar. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
so you see 'advocate' and 'activist' as synonymous? i'm not aware that they are. so it would appear that your characterization of kopel as an 'activist' was more a reflection of your personal opinion, rather than sourcing. will you be changing your earlier edit which characterized him as an 'activist'?Anastrophe (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've changed "activist" to "advocate". The sourcing says "advocate" and "activist" sounds like a loaded word to me. SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
"NRA activist David Kopel"[18] SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess the activist/advocate distinction is now moot, as both have been removed from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
cornell can be properly characterized as a 'proponent' of gun control based upon the editorial i pointed to, since by its very title alone he is advocating in favor of the gun control position. SB's reference is a highly POV source that demonizes the NRA, which probably isn't the best source for characterizations. it's probably best if those who are mentioned in the article are not characterized beyond what they characterize themselves as. thus avoiding creeping POV and advocacy of a different form from infecting the article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No. Your inference amounts to original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
as did yours. Anastrophe (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Objections to original research only apply to article "content". It does not apply to researching the background of the "sources" of that content.68.162.241.235 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Restore version of the "Early State Court Decisions" section

I would like to restore this[19] wording to the first four sentences of the "Early State Court Decisions" section. Please specifically identify the "POV problems":


Also, as two editors now have POV problems with this section, it probably would also be helpful to place an alert tag on the section directing readers to this discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments please. Without objection, I will be restoring that passage to the article within a day or so. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So, let me get this right. You are proposing removing cited article content while putting in new POV content, wording it grammatically poorly, and then marking your new content as POV. I don't get it. Announcing in advance that you will be using your editor's permission to edit, to intentionally create a POV section, with intentional bad grammar, just so you can put a POV tag on the article, while also preannouncing the insertion of POV content -- this all seems much too strong on Wiki-Drama -- and it further seems contrary to Wikipedia policies. Looks like a waste of everyone's time. Yaf (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
SB, isn't the fact that you already believe there are editors who feel that the above quoted material would be POV, a strong reason not to add it to the article? Especially in this case, because the result, according to you, would be to place a POV tag on that section? SMP0328. (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
ignoring for a moment the grammatical error in the second paragraph which is a showstopper for me, cornell's assertion is being presented as fact, but having only a single citation for that assertion throws out a WP:REDFLAG for me. as cornell has professed sympathy for gun control proponents, i'm increasingly suspect of the large number of cites in the article attributed to this apparent partisan, without his being identified as such.Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoa. This proposal doesn't involve removal of cited content. This proposal improves the clarity of this section. We can fix the poor grammar, though I don't see the problem, please be specific. How is this POV? Please be specific as to what exactly is not neutral. This proposed edit would help fix the present NPOV problem. Work with me please. Also, I am asking for citation of the second sentence. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it would. The existing cite at the end of the paragraph was for the paragraph. Have duplicated this cite for SaltyBoatr for the second sentence, since he apparently couldn't or wouldn't read the one existing cite at the end of the paragraph. Now, there are two of 'em. Yaf (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of secondary sourcing for Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas and Robertson v. Baldwin and POV issues

The footnotes for the passages on Presser v. Illinois[20], Miller v. Texas[21] and Robertson v. Baldwin[22] all simply point directly to the court document, and do not use secondary sourcing. This is likely a violation of the WP:NOR policy and I suggest that we improve these three passages by using secondary sourcing. I invite other editors to collaborate in the process of doing this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your additions to the Presser material, but why have you removed the SCOTUS quotes? SMP0328. (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The policy based reason is that the selection of excerpted quotes is a subjective editorial synthesis, prohibited by WP:SYN. A second reason is that those jumpy quotes were just poor wording, making it too difficult for readers to understand the significance of Presser. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the one-sided sourced material that replaced the neutral worded original content, reverting back to the version by Ferrylodge. For example, the false claim of "brandishing" is entirely not appropriate for parade formation carrying of arms in a parade. (Brandishing implies waiving or moving arms in a threatening manner.) Likewise, the signing of article text with one's WP signature is also indicative of very poor quality edits. Better quality is needed here, not unencyclopedic, left-wing, poorly-worded, good faith edits. We have higher standards on Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The word 'brandishing' was taken directly from the book source. You wholesale replaced text sourced to reliable sourcing with passages that are sourced only to the court document, in violation of WP:PSTS. Also, you ran contrary to the consensus (See SMP0328 just above "I agree...") Further, by doing a blanket revert you took out much more than you claim. Try talking on the talk page before you hit the 'revert' button please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that others have undone SaltyBoatr's insistence of insertion of his signature into article text which he had reverted when I removed it. Likewise for other content that he had reverted in his edit warring. There is still one issue of "brandishing", which seems to confirm that the source is from a biased source. Yaf (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the DeConde book by Northeastern University Press? It doesn't sound like you have, which begs the question of how you know whether it is biased or not. I am about halfway through the reading of this book now, and find it to be very carefully researched. Considering that it is extensively footnoted (30 pages) and has a very long bibliography (38 pages), coupled with the fact that it draws upon and represents a wide spectrum of sources from both extremes of the 'points of view', this book actually seems remarkably thorough and balanced. I notice also that it includes the most thorough coverage of the Bliss v. Commonwealth case that I can recall seeing in any book.
You obviously have a well formed opinion of the actions of Herman Presser in 1886, could you tell us please what you have been reading to learn what your opinion is based upon? The reality is that in the decades following the Civil War that unregulated private ethnic militia groups like Herman Presser's were commonplace, along with private "Law and Order Groups", and private police forces. These groups caused all sorts of trouble in the United States, which is consistent with the enactment of the Illinois statute of which Herman Presser was tried and convicted. You may notice the similarity with the other important 2A case in the prior decade that also involved a rogue armed ethnic mob organized by William Cruikshank who massacred a black militia in Louisiana. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not what I have read. It is, rather, what you are now reading. DeConde, the source for all your recent edits, is a well known gun-banning supporter who still supports Michael Bellesiles. DeConde is a retired professor at UC Santa Barbara who advocates banning all guns. [23][24] Hardly a paragon of neutrality, although you obviously believe so, having inserted a bunch of his anti-gun diatribes that he wrote in his notorious book -- in place of the neutral content that was in this article previously. (Saul Cornell at least tries to appear neutral while sometimes leaning the same way as DeConde. DeConde is much more of a left wing extremist, and it shows in his work.) But, the neutrality issue is not your concern, obviously; rather, inserting DeConde's anti-gun diatribes supported by his biased book is apparently the current mission you are on. Removing all balanced content, and then replacing this content with heavily one-sided POV content from one biased author simply degrades the article into unbelievability. The reason for the previous content, in case you forget, was specifically to avoid using extreme POV sources from the far right or the far left, while instead simply quoting from the original documents. In your previous more neutral persona, you even agreed with this approach. But, with your SaltyBoatr persona, you now are pushing only the extreme POV sources. This shift, while also removing neutral sources and replacing NPOV content with only one-sided POV sources, leaves readers unable to decide for themselves, but, rather, leads readers into forming opinions with biased text. Having article text that is "verified" by one extreme POV source is not NPOV. Is it now necessary to insert far right POV sources to balance the unbalanced wording? It was better with the previous approach, simply quoting from the original court records, without putting in all the POV text (brandishing, etc.). Until this is fixed, a POV tagline will be needed, to alert readers to the problem. I will insert this warning. Yaf (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your smear at the man DeConde, pointing to a hatchet job editorial found on the Gun Owners of America political advocacy website, doesn't really address the central questions which are:
1) Is this book source reliable, and...
2) Does the article reflect a neutral point of view matching that found in the balance of reliable sourcing.
The first question: Yes, books published by major university publishing houses are generally considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. I would welcome a WP:RS noticeboard review of this standard for this book.
The second question: The neutrality balance question must be measured against the balance of reliable sourcing on this topic, which does not include opinion editorials published at the political advocacy website of the Gun Owners of America. It would be helpful if you let slip the sources of your opinion, but over and over you refuse to disclose, though occasionally you reveal that your sourcing seems to come from gun rights political advocacy websites. Your perception of neutrality seems improperly skewed. This makes progress difficult. I would welcome a process where we compare the neutrality of the article to a representative group of reliable sources on this topic, which would exclude the internet political advocacy websites that fall short of WP:RS standards. It seems smart to stick with deeply researched books, and there are plenty available, like DeConde's which have presumably been fact checked during the publishing process of well respected scholarly publishing houses. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Presser 'dubious' tag

Researching this more I see that the New York Times[25], July 20, 1886, reported that Herman Presser and his group "were men who believed that the only way for working men to secure their right was to fight" and that "whose object was to train and drill in military fashion and get ready for the great conflict between capital and labor which agitators of that class for many years have declared to be imminent." Plainly, news reports at that time using words like "to fight", "conflict", "train and drill" and "imminent" is consistent with the word "brandishing" and is not simple non-threatening parading in formation like Yaf's claims. Yaf should disclose his sourcing behind his 'parade formation carrying of arms in a parade' belief, and not force us to guess. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed both of the POV tag and dubious tag added by Yaf. I've removed "brandishing", so hopefully that will alleviate the need for the dubious tag. As for the POV tag, that tag has been abused regarding this article; it's better to simply bring any POV concerns to this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have revised the wording to match closely the 1886 newspaper article. That reliable sourcing, coupled with the recent DeConde book, plus the Marjorie G. Fribourg 1967 book describes on page 199 this event as "Herman Presser headed a band of reactionary vigilantes." which is available only in Google snippet view[26] so I will omit using it as a reference until after we can read the full book, but the message here is clear: Herman Presser and his private militia was not simply parading or innocently "holding" weapons in a ceremonial way. Is there any sourcing at all that says he was just ceremonially parading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Dave Kopel, in December 2003, referred to Presser's group as "a self-defense organization". SMP0328. (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see Dave Kopel's personal gun rights political advocacy website as meeting WP:RS standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting adding that to the article. It's simply an example of a reference to Presser's group being more than ceremonial. SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I should have been more clear. I am asking if there is any reliable sourcing that says he was just ceremonially parading? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
@SB: You provided that sourcing yourself when you quoted the 1886 Times. Drilling is marching in formation, frequently with shouldered weapons. Celestra (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, the article doesn't say 'brandishing' anymore anyway. The 1886 newspaper article made clear that these people were "get(ting) ready for the great conflict" which they "declared to be imminent", drilling is not all they were up to. The courts at the time heard evidence, tried and convicted them of the crime too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

The MiszaBot archived the discussion thread about the Bliss "violative" sentence before we finished. I believe we had reached a consensus that the sentenced marked "dubious" should be removed from the article. If the editors here agree, and considering my long history of involvement, it would be a good gesture of collaboration if another editor here would remove that sentence now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with second opening paragraph

The last sentence of the second opening paragraph says: "...the Court has not ruled whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments." This seems wrong, or weasel worded, considering that at least two major SCOTUS cases say otherwise. For instance Cruikshank "[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…" and Presser "...the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." This error must be fixed soon. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the Incorporation reference. In light of Nordyke and that those 19th century cases ruled the same way regarding the First Amendment (which of course is no longer good law), the Second Amendment's status regarding the States is uncertain. That reference in the Introduction reflects that fact. SMP0328. (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:SPECULATION. What some people wish might happen in the future doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and especially not in the opening paragraph of a high profile article. Even in Heller (the SCOTUS latest word on this) they wrote unambiguously "Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." Worse, the status of this issue is a severe POV imbalance in the article and if it stands, it would need to be POV tagged. Can we work out some compromise here? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about a reference to the fact that the Court ruled against Incorporation in the 19th century, but that there are current efforts to change that and that the Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of Incorporation? SMP0328. (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
What current efforts to change? All I see is current hope that the split in the 9th Circuit might someday, maybe, maybe-not, lead to Incorporation. That is WP:SPECULATION. We are talking here about the introduction of a very high profile article which currently says something plainly WRONG. "has not ruled", in light of Presser and Cruikshank, is plainly wrong and amounts to a severe POV push and OR violation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is to omit the last sentence of the second summary paragragh, and to let the text down below in the article explain the context of the 9th Circuit split. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In light of your concerns, I have removed the second paragraph of the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's recent well intentioned edit[27], actually misquotes the ABA, what they actually said is[28]: "There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms than on any other current controversial constitutional issue." Calling 'less agreement', 'more misinformation' and 'less understanding' equal to "most contested" is false. I could handle the words "most misunderstood", but "most contested" is false. Also, I think SMP0328 removing the entire second paragraph is wrong, as it is important to mention the Heller effect on the DC total gun ban, and the Heller effect legitimizing virtually all other existing gun regulations, and that should be put back into the opening. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I floated a suggested compromise, please take a look. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, another problem with calling the 2A the "most contested" is that this runs a risk of playing into the myth, documented in reliable sourcing, perpetuated by one of the POV's on this topic that there is a large ongoing legal battle to protect this right, reported to be part of a well-orchestrated fund raising strategy. Wikipedia should steer clear of supporting an outside group fund raising strategy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have restored "contested". That is neutral as the meaning and application of the Second Amendment are clearly contested. Saying "misunderstood" suggests the article is providing the correct understanding of the amendment. That clearly would be POV. SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Except the word "contested" is WP:OR. The American Bar Association actually wrote "less understanding" and didn't write "contested". The word "misunderstood" is much closer to the source 'less understanding'. And no, "contested" is far from neutral, matching closely the fund-raising strategy[29] of a well known advocacy group associated with just one of the POVs. The word "contested" if wrong per both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies. As a compromise, I can accept verbatim wording taken from the ABA, "less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding " but I don't favor that many words due to the desire for brevity in the opening paragraph. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it's necessary to quote the ABA. The ABA says "less agreement" and "contested" seems synonymous with that. To me, "misunderstanding" suggests the article contains the correct understanding. I'm sure that not your intention. SMP0328. (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I could accept the word "problematic", which means: Posing a problem; difficult to solve; open to doubt; debatable; not settled; unresolved. I have a problem with the words "most contested" because that means that it has been contested a lot, and objectively, with only two court cases achieving certiorari in the last 110 years, the Second Amendment is literally one of the least contested amendments. And as an aside, the ABA observation of "more misinformation" deserves deeper coverage in the article, but not in the opening. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Another problem with the word "contested" is that it reflects the attitude of just one of the POV's. Per reliable sourcing, (see for instance the book Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America by Kristin A. Goss), who documents that there is not really much "anti-gun" contest, but rather it is one sided, in that the "pro-gun" advocacy groups prop up "gun grabbers" as boogie men to motivate their troops and to enhance fund raising, etc.. This disparate view of the "contested" attitude is also described in the Richard Feldman book mentioned above. "more contested" is a decidedly POV term, favored by one advocacy group who hopes to foster the impression that this is a battle. In truth, 'gun control' is a very weak value issue with few active advocates, while 'gun rights' is opposite. "More polarized" is accurate, "more contested" is not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have changed that sentence in the Introduction to read

Determining the meaning and scope of this right has been described by the American Bar Association as among the most problematic of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.

I hope that alleviates any POV concerns. SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that makes it sound like the ABA was objecting to what the Amendment says.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Ferrylodge has changed "problematic" to "controversial". I have conducted a wordiness cutdown. As a result, that sentence now reads:

The American Bar Association has described this right as among the most controversial of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.

SMP0328. (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Kentucky law arcana details

Yaf should explain why the information, cited to reliable sourcing, needs to be removed from the article. Twice removed by Yaf, [30], and [31] with the edit summary " rm irrelevant content", which appears to defies logic. Let's talk not edit war. Please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yaf's edit summaries need to explain why that material is "irrelevant". Only then will I be able to decide whether he is right. SMP0328. (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Citing to reliable sourcing is not the only criterion for inclusion of content in article space. Relevancy is also important. The removed content is about obscure state laws in Kentucky that are unrelated to the Second Amendment. It is therefore irrelevant to this article, hence it was removed being it was irrelevant content. The tag of "rm irrelevant content" seems not to defy logic, but rather to follow the logic of keeping on topic rather than devolving into lengthy discussions of state law arcana of content that is unrelated to the Second Amendment. Why is there a need for detailed discussions in article space of content unrelated to the Second Amendment in the article on the Second Amendment? Yaf (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm tending to agree with Yaf on this one. The material in question only involves what happened in the Kentucky legislature after Bliss was decided. Maybe if the Kentucky legislature had said Bliss was wrongly decided that might be noteworthy here, but they instead simply amended the state constitution.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The huge problem here is that Bliss was NOT a Second Amendment legal case. I believe that discussion of any legal case not about the Second Amendment should be deleted from this article as off topic. Short of that, we must make extremely clear that the case was about the Kentucky Constitution. Making that distinction is extremely relevant, for failure to do so creates easy chance of misunderstanding by the reader that Bliss somehow relates to the Second Amendment which it decidedly does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, it is extremely important that the fact that Bliss was overruled by the Kentucky Legislature, after the fact, must be clearly mentioned or the false impression is created that Bliss is still binding precedent, which it is not. Bliss is moot, and is at best trivia because it stands alone, an anomaly in Kentucky, with no connection or bearing to the federal Second Amendment what-so-ever. Another trivial fact about Bliss is that it caused a backlash in Kentucky which instigated a movement for one of the first gun control political movements in the USA, but that trivia probably belongs in another article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You have some valid points, though they can be addressed in very few words. I've attempted it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, Ferrylodge's wording achieves a reasonable compromise. It keeps the reference to Bliss in the article (as Yaf wants), but clarifies that Bliss was about the Kentucky State Constitution (as SaltyBoatr wants). SMP0328. (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ferrylodge's wording is a good compromise. Bliss, though, has clearly been considered a Second Amendment issue by some, as noted in the cite that SaltyBoatr removed. In the hopes of compromise, I did not revert SaltyBoatr's removal of this cited content, nor did I add more detail to it with additional cites, which was/is also an option. Bliss was also considered a Second Amendment issue by at least one former Attorney General of the US, from another cite that SaltyBoatr also removed. No, Bliss is clearly an important Second Amendment precedent, being cited in older as well as recent Second Amendment case law, as noted in the article. The question at hand is deciding the amount of content in this article related to Bliss. The former balance was established during a formal Mediation (MedCom). The present content seems to strike the proper balance now. It is worth noting that Bliss was not overruled in a court of law, nor in appeal. Rather, the constitution itself was changed to permit restricting concealed weapons without running afoul of the Commonwealth of KY's constitution. Long after Bliss in 1822, the Supreme Court finally ruled in 1897 that regulating concealed weapons did not violate the Second Amendment, contrary to what some had believed. Between 1822 and 1897, however, there were differences of opinion regarding whether or not the Second Amendment permitted regulation of all weapons, including concealed weapons. It is worth noting, also, that Bliss did not cause a backlash in Kentucky that started a gun control political movement. Kentucky to this day remains one of the most freedom-loving states with regards to respecting gun rights. Similarly, it is rated "F" by the Brady Campaign for its failure to impose gun control laws, a perspective that clearly depends on one's point of view. SaltyBoatr needs to keep to the sources, rather than making up content. An attempt at compromise would also be a great improvement, and show good faith. Yaf (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The large problem is that the Bliss case was relative to "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state", and the "themselves" is wording not found in the federal 2A. See the recent edit. Also, it is important to mention that the Bliss aftermath involved an early example of gun control law in the USA. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrected SaltyBoatr's POV push edit to what the quote in the cite says. Please stick to the sources. The Bliss aftermath had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, being simply amending the Commonwealth's constitution. Yaf (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It is Yaf who is not sticking with what the source says. See U&M pg 28 which says "that decision was based on state constitutional language quite different from that of the Second Amendment." This important fact, found in reliable sourcing, must not be suppressed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yaf should retract his false accusation that I don't "stick to the sources", see U&M pg 28 which says exactly what my edit said: "that the Kentuckians' "right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state". SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change to content under "Drafting and adoption"

I think it would be in order to make the following change to the content under "Drafting and adoption":

Presently it reads:

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[30]

It should be changed to

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1788 Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.[30]

Reference 30 would now be [32]

In the above new content, the words George Mason would be linked to [33]

Why this change:

George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights included, as number 17:

"That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."

This may be found at [34]

The Virginia Convention proposed a Bill of Rights amongst which was the 17th:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."

These two, in all but minor punctuation and wording, are the same.

Madison then used the language of the Virginian Convention Proposal for his draft, which then underwent changes in the Senate and HOR. The differences of these two were then reconciled in committee.

But, the point is that if the above change is made, then history would be more accurately stated and the lineage of the present wording more accurately provided.

I assume the following is the correct manner to sign. I am new to this procedure. Conservativevirginian (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with your citations to Jon Roland's blog www.constitution.org as not meeting WP:V policy standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reply with additional info. It appears not to have transmitted. So, I am appending this as a test. If it appends, I will redo the additional info.

71.62.64.118 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to 1- Amendments Proposed by the Convention of Virginia (June 27, 1788):

- Have been certified on following web site http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=9524

- May be found in “The Federalist, A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, Edited by Paul Leicester Ford, Pg 635, Henry Holt and Company, 1898 - May be found in “The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, Edited by Ralph Ketcham, Page 217, Penguin Putnam , 2003

2- George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights -Has been certified in a letter from George Mason to John Lamb (Jun2 09, 1788) on the following web site http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&documentid=995

- Original copy is at the New York Historical Society in the John Lamb Collection

- Referred to in “The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792, Vol II, by Kate Mason Rowland, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892.

If this does not address your remark then be more explicit. These are references are, to my knowledge, of the kind used within SCOTUS case studies. 71.62.64.118 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your ideas pertain to the Virginia article, I think. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Events after adoption

It seemed odd to have a subsection of the Background section that began "In the first couple decades following the adoption...," so I moved that subsection to this new section following Drafting and adoption. Celestra (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That works, good. The big missing thing in that section is coverage of the Second Congress' 1792 Uniform Militia Act. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Right to bear arms, OED and OR

It seems to me that presenting the dictionary definition of a phrase (or portion of a phrase) in the amendment should be considered either original research or synthesis. We have enough content based on secondary sources discussing that phrase in the context of the second amendment. Would anyone object to removing the sentence about the OED definition? Celestra (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Specify which part of the article you would remove. SMP0328. (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a secondary sourcing ref for the OED passage, from the Michigan Law Review. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I do heartily agree that we should clean out the WP:SYN. The worse culprits of WP:SYN are the selective quotation of the founding fathers and the selective quotations of primary court documents. These should be confirmed in secondary reliable sourcing or be removed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a source. I think there are still two problems. First, the source talks of "to bear arms," not "bear arms." Second, the sentence is similar to a sentence which appears the source, it does not appear to summarize the source. From the fragment at Google Books, the author is examining various similar expressions and I assume he makes a point that encompasses more than just the fact that OED defines "bear arms" as miltary service. That is synthesis; picking facts from various sources to reach a conclusion not found the sources. Where details from court documents are used that way, I agree that that is a problem. We disagree, though, about court documents in general. They are primary sources for the decision they document, but they are secondary sources with regard to the earlier decisions and documents upon which they comment. Celestra (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we disagree whether the OED is a secondary source regarding etymology of the term "bear arms"? The OED is the standard reference work that experts turn to when they want to learn about etymology of the English language, and the OED is a secondary source in this use. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The OED is a great reference, but when it is used to research the etymology of phrases within the second amendment, it is neither a primary source nor a secondary source, it is simply a reference used for doing original research. It seems better to find other secondary sources that comment on the etymlogy in the context of the second amendment and summarize those comments here. Celestra (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to address your concern about distinguishing "to bear arms" from "bear arms" by adding a ref to the Spitzer book where that author uses the "bear arms" without the word "to". That at least satisfies the WP:V hurdle. Also, the problem of the 'snippet view', this law journal is widely available in many forms, so you can easily view it in whole either online through your library card, or at a local library in paper form. Notice also that the OED is cited this way in the court decision Silveira v. Lockyer[35], which you view as an acceptable secondary source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to work this out, but those changes do not address my point. Simply stating that the OED defines a portion of the second amendment in a certain way invites synthesis. The OED does not discuss the phrase in the context of the second amendment. Synthesis is about gathering facts from various sources to make a point not found in those sources. Shouldn't we limit ourselves to those secondary sources that make this claim in context? Declaring that OED defines "bear arms" that way also gives an illusion of authority, encouraging the reader to accept this implied claim.
At the broadest level, this article is about the second amendment. The fact that there is dispute about the scope and meaning of the amendment certainly belongs in the article. The detailed bickering around the etymology of "bear arms" or "keep and bear arms" or "militia" or "well regulated" or "infringed" seems to me to go past capturing the dispute and into participating in that dispute, which lessens an otherwise good article. Celestra (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing editor synthesis, (which was your complaint originally), with synthesis by reliable sources (which is your complaint now). The cited book by Robert Spitzer is a reliable source, and Robert Spitzer is doing the synthesis to which you object. Do you object to reliable sources doing synthesis? Robert Spitzer (and other reliable sources too) makes the claim that the OED definition of 'bear arms' is relevant to the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I think we both understand that I am commenting on what you are choosing to call editor synthesis. I haven't read Robert Spitzer's book, but I will take your word for the fact that he mentions the OED definition in the context of analysing the second amendment. But I'm also sure that that is merely a fact he presents as part of an analysis, not a claim that he makes. His claim would be around the meaning of that phrase in the second amendment. Presenting that claim is fair, but merely pulling a fact from a secondary source and presenting it here in order to promote some other claim is synthesis. Besides, the history does not support that the OED statement came from that text. Doing original research and later pointing at a source that happens to include the same detail seems like a problematic approach. Celestra (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You raise hypothetical concern with no basis. I agree that we should read the reliable sources first and then base the article on what we read. That is what has happened here. I have read a lot on this topic and I can recall perhaps a dozen reliable sources that make the connection with the "military service" meaning of "bear arms" to the 2A, including several that use the OED to do that. This is a very widespread well accepted connection in reliable sourcing. It would be helpful for you to read the Robert Spitzer book now so we can productively discuss it. I have found my hard copies, I own both the first edition and the second edition, so we can discuss either. I read this in 2008 so I admit I am working from year old memory. I am willing to work with you get this accurately representative of the Robert Spitzer source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Why the insistance with using only Robert Spitzer as a source? There is no requirement to use only one source when writing article text; on the contrary, it is vastly preferable not to use a single source. Yaf (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I identified three reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I do not like the way the OED is currently being used here in this article. The article says that the term "bear arms" is used primarily in a military context; does that mean we are deliberately overlooking one of the secondary definitions in the OED? Additionally, the term "bear arms" is not a single word, whereas the OED only defines single words; we should be clear about which definition in the OED we're talking about (I assume that the key definition is for the word "bear"). Additionally, the OED lists current definitions, and therefore a more pertinent source would be something like Samuel Johnson's dictionary which was the leading English-language dictionary in 1791 when the Second Amendment was written. Given all of these issues and questions, I do not support inclusion of this new material, especially not at the very beginning of the section "Meaning of 'bear arms'".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a compelling reason. The arrangement of discussion of the etymology of 'bear arms' in that section is chronological, which makes perfect sense. Your hypothesis (which seems to originate from the 1994 Clayton Cramer gun rights advocacy paper) about Samuel Johnson's dictionary speaks not of "bear arms" but rather of "arms". The issue here is whether "bear arms" has a "military service" meaning. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The words "I don't like it" by themselves are not compelling, but when followed by specific reasons they may be compelling. For example, "I don't like unsourced material that is purely a personal opinion derogatory of a living person." Also, I don't recall ever having read a 1994 Clayton Cramer gun rights advocacy paper. I said above that the Johnson dictionary was the most prominent dictionary of English in 1791. That's just a plain fact, which is why courts analyzing the Constitution frequently malke reference to Johnson's dictionary.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You say "just a plain fact" yet you don't say where you learned this to be fact. This looks like WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You say: "The issue here is whether 'bear arms' has a 'military service' meaning." Actually, it's undisputed that it has a military service meaning; the issue is whether it has more than one meaning. Regarding OR, people say lots of things at a talk page that is not suitable to be transferred verbatim into an article, and in fact such discussion is often very useful. If you believe that the OED existed in 1791, or that the Johnson Dictionary did not exist, then you're mistaken.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, personal opinions on the talk page are not very useful. Lets focus on what we see in reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It’s not my personal opinion that no one disputes whether the term “bear arms” has a military service meaning. The Supreme Court said so in DC v. Heller: “Petitioners justify their limitation of ‘bear arms’ to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context….”
As for the OED, this Wikipedia article is currently incorrect about what the OED says about the term “bear arms”. According to this Wikipedia article, the OED “dates its use to about 1330.” That is wrong. According to the OED, the battle cry “To arms!” can be roughly traced back to 1330 whence comes the following quote: “Richard, ‘has armes!’ did crie.” Notice that neither the idiom defined, nor the example from 1330, contains the word “bear.” Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think our Wikipedia article should mislead readers in this fashion. The only usage of the term “bear arms” cited by the OED is from 1795.
The Second Amendment is supplemented by similar provisions in all of the state constitutions, except for California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. For example, the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 stated: “The people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.” See Carter, Gregg. Guns in American Society, 693-698 (ABC-CLIO 2002).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
A few other things, the OED defines words and phrases. In this case, the reliable sourcing is pointing to the OED definition of the phrase "bear arms". The OED does not just list current definitions, it lists historical definitions, which is especially important when speaking of the usage of language 220 years ago. Also, the OED passage is not new to the article, it has been there for quite a while as far back as 2007 if I recall correctly. If there is any question about the 'military service' usage by the founding fathers a good example to think about is the usage in the Declaration of Independence where they speak of bearing arms as sailors on a war ship, where the conscripted sailors' "weapon" was the entire warship. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for recommending Spitzer's book. Our discussion, though, is not about his book, so let's not digress. My concern, which is neither hypothetical nor without basis, is that presenting the statement about how OED defines "bear arms" constitutes either original research or synthesis. Finding a source for the statement deals with my concern about original research. It could have come from a reliable source, so we'll assume it did. My concern about synthesis remains. The fact that the OED defines "bear arms" in this way is not a claim, it is just a fact. Presenting facts found in sources in such a way as to promote a claim that is not found in the sources is synthesis. What claim does it support? This section of the article should present the fact that there is disagreement about the meaning of "to keep and bear arms" and present the major camps (NPOV). How does that claim fit into an NPOV presentation? Celestra (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Robert Spitzer did the original research, therefore WP:V and WP:NOR policy are satisfied. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

FYI, a discussion relative to this talk page is commencing here. Yaf (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing us of this development. I wonder why SaltyBoatr did not do so? SMP0328. (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to follow the WP:Dispute Resolution procedures which include seeking out help from the noticeboards. Are you willing to follow dispute resolution procedures with me? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As you know, SaltyBoatr, all of the editors who have commented in this talk page section participated in your DR efforts at the Original Research Noticeboard, even though you failed to place any notification here at this talk page. If you continue to keep your DR efforts secret, then of course fewer editors will participate. Also, please beware of WP:MULTI.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no secret here[36]. Ferrylodge, are you willing to participate in WP:Dispute Resolution procedures? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I already have today, as you know.[37] Please provide some decent notice, instead of requiring everyone to monitor your activities.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, in lieu of notification by SaltyBoatr, this is notification that SaltyBoatr has initiated discussions elsewhere regarding verifiability and NPOV of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution is about powers and authorities of the state; the bill of rights is about rights of the of the people:

I believe this is germane to the WP entry. If one simply reads the text of the US Constitution, one finds it deals mainly with the Powers and Authorities delegated to the States, United States, the Presidency, Congress and Courts: nowhere in the text of the Constitution itself is an entity of the State guaranteed a Right. In the Bill of Rights, there are guarantees using the language "Right of the People" in the First, Second and Fourth Amendments. The "collective interpretation" of the Second Amendment asks us to believe that the very people who wrote consistently about the Powers or Authorities of the State in the Constitution turned around and used the language "Right of the People" to mean a Power or Authority of the State under the Second Amendment, but simultaneously used "Right of the People" to peaceably assemble and "Right of the People" to be secure against unreasonable search and siezure to mean to individual rights under the First and Fourth Amendment. Reference: the US Consitution and Amendments. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that point is not adequately covered by the present article, please feel free to suggest putting something more into the article. But keep in mind that you would have to cite a reliable source in a footnote, per WP:RS. We cannot include our own opinions.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved material

I moved some material from section 3 to section 2.2:

  • 2 Background

  • 2.1 English history and common law

  • 2.2 Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

  • 3 Drafting and adoption

  • 3.1 Activity during state conventions to ratify the Constitution

  • 3.2 Conflict and compromise in Congress

Historical background material belongs in the Background section, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring of POV-section tag

I guess we need to discuss this too. The tag which says: "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." is being edit warred[38][39]. What is wrong with using a tag to alert editors to join a discussion on the talk page? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus was to remove the tag.[40]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Your dif link is unrelated to this incident, though the tactic of stonewalling is the same. Would you answer my question: What is wrong with using a tag to alert editors to join a discussion on the talk page? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Your past conduct clearly shows that you use POV tags as a way to stigmatize this article, because it differs from your POV. Don't play innocent; it's an insult to our intelligence. SMP0328. (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
We obviously have a dispute here. SMP0328, will you agree to WP:Dispute Resolution procedures to resolve this dispute? Or, do you prefer edit warring? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a hobson's choice (agree to your desire or violate Wiki-policy). DR is the most useless part of Wikipedia, especially when you are one of the editors. We've been through DR and have experienced its uselessness. You don't want to compromise. You want unconditional surrender to the anti-gun POV and for this to be your article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It is wrong for you to predict what I will or won't do. It is also wrong for you to smear me with the label "anti-gun", which is also false. The question here is pretty simple, that is how to bring this section to neutrality. Presently it offers up the "right to arms" and implies that this is relevant to the "right to bear arms" protected by the 2A. Certainly, the NRA and Mr. Hardy believe this to be true. Also certainly, other reliable sources see no connection. Work with me, there must be some compromise wording that you can accept that conveys that the concept of the 'right to arms' is not universally considered relevant to the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You say, "other reliable sources see no connection." If you divulge those sources (preferably with links for easy verifiability), then we can discuss them, and perhaps modify this article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we start by not just using the NRA book review, but also using the book being reviewed. By contrasting both the criticism of the book, with the thoughts presented in the book we can write a more neutral article. Presently, we only include one of the POVs. (I am searching my home library for my misplaced copy of that book now), but my recollection is that it describes in detail the colonial and revolutionary experience leading up to the drafting of the Second Amendment. For instance I recall that it includes the colonial attitude about "the people" having a civic "jury duty" being an analogous form of civic duty of militia service. Lets go re-read that book and include things from both the book and the critical book review. Lets not just include the book criticism, as is the present case. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You claim my labeling you as "anti-gun" is a "smear", yet you have repeatedly labeled other editors as "pro-gun". Were you smearing them? SMP0328. (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that these other editors considered "pro-gun" to be a smear. If they do, I am sorry and offer my apology. I consider "anti-gun" to be a smear. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)An NPOV tag is supposed to be a last resort. The editor inserting the tag needs to provide specifics, instead of generalized complaints vaguely referring to "other reliable sources." An NPOV tag can be removed when there is a consensus among the editors that there is not a continuing legitimate NPOV dispute. Since that seems to be the consensus at the NPOV page,[41] I'm going to remove the tag again.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I second everything Ferrylodge just said. SMP0328. (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Section tags are considered to be helpful in the process. Ferrylodge has agreed to proceed using WP:Dispute Resolution procedures, though SMP0328 has not? So, can we then struggle ahead resolving this dispute? Would it be OK if we both take a moment and re-read WP:DR to get a road map of how to proceed? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I particpated in DR at three different noticeboards where SaltyBoatr has posted in the last few days. Support for SaltyBoatr's position was conspicuously lacking. SaltyBoatr continues with generalized complaints vaguely referring to "other reliable sources" without giving specifics. Repeatedly inserting an NPOV tag into the article effectively discredits the article, and SaltyBoatr has repeatedly declined to make anyone aware of the pertinent noticeboard discussions which suggests that the NPOV tag is not intended to help with DR. I'll remove the NPOV tag again.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Is edit warring the POV tag considered part of dispute resolution procedures? Come on, sure we disagree, but can't we find a way to work things out short of edit warring? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading this discussion, it appears that the editors have not read Template:POV/doc. It might help.LeadSongDog come howl 04:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the POV tag edit war continues. Is there any question what-so-ever that there is an ongoing dispute about the neutrality of this section? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The POV tag edit war continues, this time by SMP0328[42]. SMP0328, are you willing to stop this edit war and instead engage in dispute resolution procedures with me? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog pointed us to the Template/POVdoc which says:

Template usage notes:

1) Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

2) The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.

3) The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

4) This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

I believe that

1) There is an ongoing dispute.

2) There is discussion, or at least attempts at discussion, on the talk page.

3) We can benefit from bringing in different viewpoints, the template is not used as a 'badge of shame' here or to "warn". It is used to improve discussion on this talk page.

4) We need to focus on the perspective in high quality sources and get away from using the prevalence among editors.

That said, can we discuss putting the POV-section tag back into the article until this dispute is resolved? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, it is better not to have simultaneous discussions about the same subject matter. You have already started and participated in a lengthy discussion about this at the NPOV Noticeboard.[43] The discussion cannot go on forever. What do you think the consensus was at the NPOV Notice Board? And why do you still neglect to point anyone there?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"right to arms" does not equal "right to keep and bear arms"

There is a neutrality problem with the "prior to the US Constitution" section where it leads with a statement by Mr. Hardy, from the NRA, mentioning a "right to arms". The second amendment is actually about the "right to keep and bear arms" which is a different thing. The various POVs differ on this, "arms" meaning one thing, and the term "bear arms" meaning another thing. This NPOV problem must be fixed. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is at least substantial overlap between the shorthand phrase "right to arms" and the longer phrase "right to keep and bear arms." In any event, you have not cited any source saying they mean two completely separate things. And isn't the statement in question supported by two footnotes rather than one?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, two footnotes. The first written by the senior attorney of the NRA, and the second sources to a book written by an NRA board member. Yes, "right to arms" is preferred term by the POV that seeks to link individual arms to the Second Amendment. There are at least a dozen books that explore the difference between individual arms and military service arms, also known as "bearing arms". Both these POVs should be fairly represented in this article section, and presently one POV is given undue emphasis and the other has been suppressed and deleted. If your question is an honest question, my answer is: Please take a day and read the book "The Militia and the Right to Arms" by Uviller and Merkel, 2002 Duke University Press. In it you will find your answer. It is increasingly becoming impossible to assume good faith with you as long as you refuse to show that you base your opinion on what you read in reliable sourcing. Prove me wrong please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If "right to arms" was changed to "right to keep and bear arms", without any other change, would that be an adequate response to the complaint you expressed in this section? SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what the sourcing says. Have you read that David Hardy paper? Have you read the book? When I look the synopsis of the paper says "right to arms" and it also says "Second Amendment" but it doesn't say "right to keep and bear arms". Probably the prudent thing is to compare and contrast both what the David Hardy book review says with what the book says. Presently, only the critical partisan book review is used, and the actual book is ignored. Let us read both the book and the paper, and then let us write a section that gives even handed coverage of both. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we continue this discussion? SMP0328, could you please answer my questions? This remains a WP:NPOV policy problem. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution section

Could we take a look at a neutrality balance rewrite of the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section? Looking at it I see that it is put together by drawing disproportionately upon the writings of two well known NRA attorneys and gun rights advocates. The balance of point of view gives undue emphasis to the individual rights theory. The footnote pointing to a book review in a law journal, and not to the actual article seems improper. Has anyone here actually read that article? The use of improper synthesis of primary documents is also a problem. I have given this a start with a few recent edits and welcome some collaboration on fixing these problems. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The section looks fine to me. What specific cite(s) are you questioning? Yaf (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that AliveFreeHappy, who identified himself with "civilian firearms" as a personal interest has reverted[44]. Per WP:UNDUE the article should match the POV balance of the reliable sourcing and presently this section gives undue emphasis to the writings of two prominent attorneys of the National Rifle Association. There are other ways to achieve a NPOV balance instead of reverts according to personal POV, without talk, lets discuss. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article text appears to match the POV balance of reliable sourcing cites, per the cites from reliable and verifiable sources that are used that clearly support the text. What is the issue that you perceive to exist? Yaf (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are presently six paragraphs in the section and the first five paragraphs advance the individual rights theory, based on writings of two prominent NRA lawyers. This is undue balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the section is imbalanced. In any event, per WP:Preserve, I suggest you suggest suggestions for adding rather than removing material from that section.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A 5 out of 6 (now 8 of 9) is not imbalanced? Wow, could your judgment be influenced by your personal opinion? Remember we have the obligation to edit based on the balance found in reliable sourcing, not based on the personal opinions of the involved editors. The policy WP:NPOV trumps the WP:Preserve.
The first four paragraphs make the impartial leap of logic, presented as fact, that a right to arms is synonymous with the right to keep and bear arms. Only one of the POVs sees it that way. The right to keep and bear arms, per WP:RS, actually has to do with providing for a well regulated militia, but that viewpoint is downplayed this section. While the right to arms for hunting purposes and for self defense has been demonstrated as important (in some of the state constitutions, in newspaper editorials), making the link between hunting and self defense as being protected in the federal 2A is a POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
First, if any changes should be made to that part of the article, they should be made via addition rather than subtraction. Second, for the umpteenth time, please show good faith toward your fellow editors. SMP0328. (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
AGF is a two way street. How is the ignoring of my two questions good faith? SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
It is one thing to ignore two questions (as you also did in the discussion above) and quite another to accuse question whether your fellow editors of not being are able to set aside their personal viewpoints and edit objectively. Everyone appears to be extending you that courtesy and you owe it to the others to assume good faith in return. There is no guideline that every section must have a mathematical balance of POVs found in available reliable sources. The section in question covers the background to the second amendment; the history that prompted the second amendment being included in the Bill of Rights. How would you change it to form a more neutral section? Celestra (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong about 'mathematical balance', keeping proportional balance is indeed a policy. Neutrality requires 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. The proportion of prominence of this section is not in alignment with the published reliable sourcing. Virtually every source, on both sides of the POV agrees that the 'A well regulated militia being necessary' was the core reason in the minds of the people in the American colonies. The disagreement is whether the 2A stops with maintaining a militia and also extends to "self defense", "hunting" and/or "rebellion". These last three points are subject to variable POVs, protected by the 2A, and/or by the 10A, and/or protected by natural law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I did not "accuse" Ferrylodge. I asked an honest question, which is very much important here, as to whether Ferrylodge can set aside his personal bias editing, and whether perhaps he has been influenced by his personal opinion. Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. In short, I think to meet policy, this section should give top emphasis to the tradition of militia in the colonies, and then give secondary coverage to the fact that some (such as David T. Hardy) believe that hunting, self defense and rebellion were also relevant. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can set aside my bias, and yes I agree there may be a problem with this section, though I'm not convinced of it. I think everyone agrees that a primary rationale for the Second Amendment was to support the militias, so prattling on and on about that undisputed fact does not seem particularly useful or interesting in this article. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to tweak the heading or the lead paragraph of the section than to overhaul the contents of this section. The heading is currently: "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution." Maybe the first paragraph could be augmented to emphasize that supporting the militias was the primary rationale (assuming we can find a good source for that), and then the succeeding paragraphs could still detail the other rationales that existed. Ferrylodge (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Assuming good faith implies not questioning that good faith, but if you feel "accuse" was too harsh, fair enough, I'll retract that. The way I read it, the "proportion of prominence" refers to the viewpoints, not the sources, and applies to the article on the whole. Major views, minor views and fringe views should have different levels of coverage. Two major views should roughly balance in the overall article, but need not balance exactly in each section. I understand your concern about the reader getting an inaccurate picture of the background. I like Ferrylodge's idea of trying to lessen that. What, exactly, would you change to improve on that? Celestra (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One change would be to make it clear that the thought that examples of personal 'right to arms' is viewed by some as relevant to this article and viewed by some as not relevant. Some make distinction between 'bear arms' which clearly means 'military service' as with a civilian militia, and the 'right to arms', which is a larger concept covered by natural law and the 10th Amendment and not necessarily by the 2A.
The former hypothesis (sourced to David Hardy, lead attorney of the NRA) is presented as a matter of fact, when it should be presented as one of the POVs. When I attempted to clarify the partisanship of Mr. Hardy earlier, I was reverted[45]. Specific example: As a start, we should identify the hypothesis presented in the first few section paragraphs as being that of the NRA and not imply that they are undisputed. 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)SaltyBoatr (talk)
It might help to extend some AGF to the authors, as well. The fact that Mr. Hardy, or Mr. Cornell, receive money from advocacy groups doesn't invalidate their opinions. If the source itself is an advocacy piece, we should treat it more like a primary source regardless of whether the author is employed or funded by an advocacy group, or if they merely find that advocacy pieces sell well. If it is more scholarly, we shouldn't need to cast doubt on their reasonable observations and conclusions. It seems to me that if one major view considers the background meaningful and the other does not, it would be as POV to remove it as to keep it. Wouldn't it be better to keep it, but observe that the other major viewpoint doesn't consider it meaningful? Celestra (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias. In this case, Mr. Hardy's Insurrectionist viewpoint is a minority viewpoint and it should be framed as such. I am curious, who here has actually read the David Hardy document we are discussing? It appears that what was read was just the first sentence of the abstract. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:SUBSTANTIATE requires us to rewrite this section that the linkage between the "right to arms" to the 2A is not implicitly fact, but rather it is one opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr wrote: "personal 'right to arms' is viewed by some as relevant to this article and viewed by some as not relevant." Perhaps SaltyBoatr could mention a source that says the existence of a personal right to arms prior to the Bill of Rights is irrelevant to the Second Amendment? We can certainly mention that in the article. SaltyBoatr also says "'bear arms' ... clearly means 'military service.'" That is your POV, and should not be the voice of this article. Can you put your bias aside, SaltyBoatr?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I reject the implication "That is your POV." The way to avoid the influence of personal bias is to read the reliable sourcing and then edit based on such. That is what I do. Answering your first question, there are many, a couple of the most succinct are page 39 of U&M and Williams pg 117. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you contending that "'bear arms' ... clearly means 'military service'" or not? If so, then that is your POV. Regarding "U&M" and "Williams", could you perhaps provide links to make life easier for your fellow editors? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I am contending that after reading much reliable sourcing on this topic. As to 'bear arms' meaning 'military service', the sourcing has some variation...at one extreme John Rowland concludes that ""Bear Arms" was an unambiguous military concept" and an other extreme Clayton Cramer/Joseph Olson say "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase "bear arms" in English language documents around the time of the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts.". So the range of opinion goes from "unambiguous" to "almost entirely". SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully all editors on this topic are familiar with and have read the major books discussing this topic, including The militia and the right to arms, or, How the Second Amendment fell silent By H. Richard Uviller, William G. Merkel ISBN 9780822330172 and The mythic meanings of the Second Amendment By David C. Williams, Yale University Press ISBN 9780300095623. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to be careful not to discourage participation by setting up intimidating and arbitrary requirements on your fellow editors. I haven't read either of those books, but I trust you to cite them when appropriate and quote sections that are useful to share during discussions. Was there a point that you wanted to make? The way you answered above implies that your is the only correct viewpoint. Do you believe that? Or do you accept that others can hold educated opinions that differ from yours? The first paragraph of this subsection does seem to give equal weight to those three purposes. It also does a good job of introducing the subsection, which makes the subsection more readable. Attributing it to the author helps the former and harms the latter. Could we re-order the purposes and attribute it later in the subsection, when that purpose is discussed? Celestra (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked a bunch of questions. The difference between my editorial actions (which you improperly call my opinion) is that I have specifically identified the sourcing. It is frustrating that Ferrylodge, on May 28th and now, argues and takes editorial action in this article while refusing to identify the sourcing behind his actions. "Educated opinions" need to be based on disclosed sourcing or it looks like personal opinion. This article suffers from too much editing based on personal opinion. We can do better by first reading the many high quality published sources, reliable sources which cover the full span of POVs, then editing based on what we read. Celestra, what sourcing have you read on this topic? Asking for the third time now, has anyone here read Mr. Hardy's paper, the citation for the first paragraph? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You keep asking what is my point, and I keep answering, yet you keep re-asking which is not constructive. One point I made above which you ignored is that the "right to arms" is not universally considered equivalent to the "right to bear arms". This section improperly treats these two concepts as synonymous. Only the pro-gun POV (as expressed by Mr. Hardy) considers these two concepts to be synonymous. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Editors may choose to contribute based on whatever knowledge they have on the subject and should not be obligated to share the source of their knowledge. Being well-read on the subject allows you to draw on those resources to make your case when there is a disagreement, but that is about the only advantage it confers. I agree that good sourcing is important to the article, but one doesn't need to spend months reading some fraction of the available literature to recognize a POV push or to hold meaningful opinions of the content and presentation. Discussing the source, merits or even validity of other editors' opinions seems to be just a distraction from the conversation about the content of the article. As reasonable editors, we should be able to discuss the section without such digressions. You have said that you dislike the weight the first sentence gives to those three purposes. I have answered and suggested a minor change to help with that. Would you respond to that, please? Celestra (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Celestra asserts: "Editors may choose to contribute based on whatever knowledge they have on the subject and should not be obligated to share the source of their knowledge." This is flatly at odds with the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. No, editors cannot keep their sources secret. All sourcing is subject to openness and is subject to verification by other editors.

Celestra asserts: "...or to recognize a POV push." Considering that the POV balance must match proportion to the prominence of each found in published reliable sourcing, personal opinion has nothing to do with it, without openness about which sourcing is being used, Celestra is flatly wrong. Opinions about 'POV push' must be relative to reliable published sourcing, not personal preference. The article suffers from being affected by the personal POV balance of the interested editors instead of being based on the POV balance found in the reliable sourcing as required by policy.

Celestra asserts: "...to hold meaningful opinions of the content..." No. Editors personal opinions are meaningful only to their person. We must leave our personal opinions outside of Wikpedia and edit based on what is found in the body of reliable sourcing.

Notice that Celestra and Ferrylodge have not identified their reliable sourcing, and it is reasonable to conclude their editing is based on their personal biases.

Yes I will respond to the your suggestion of a minor change. It is insufficient. Considering that no one here admits to have actually read the source document, prudently we should strike that entire paragraph as unverified. How can something none of us have read in its entirely be considered verified? The larger question is just why do we need a "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section. The purpose presently seems to be to set up a WP:SYN trap to push the framing of this issue favored by just one of the POV camps. A "right to arms" is not universally considered the same as a "right to bear arms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors are required to cite factual material in the article; they are not required to disclose the source of their knowledge here on the discussion page. It appears your interpretation of the policies about verifiability and reliable sources differs from mine about that. Such is life. You choose to paraphrase the policy about undue weight, rather than quoting it. That part of the policy reads: "Neutrality requires 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." My interpretation of that is that the balance should reflect the proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, as I said above. Yours appears to be that it is in proportion to some set of sources, based on your choice of words. Again, we disagree. It does not require an audit of all of the published materials on this subject to be aware of the major viewpoints that need to be balanced, nor is that at all practical. How I came to be aware of those viewpoints is none of anyone's business. If we disagree on those major viewpoints, I may choose to disclose some things to strengthen my argument, or I may choose to state that the sky is blue without referencing a book on Rayleigh scattering. That is my choice to make. And how you choose to interpret that is your choice. It doesn't matter to me as long as it doesn't interfere with getting the work done.
Assuming we discard the section on "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution," what would you suggest we add to give background to the drafting of the Second Amendment? I know you dislike textualism and giving too much weight to the viewpoints of the founding fathers, but there was the text and there were the viewpoints and both have a place in the historical portion of this article. Celestra (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You have no reason to say that I like or dislike textualism. Also, the answer to your question is found by reading the reliable sourcing on this topic and considering that you refuse to disclose any sourcing that you have read how can we have a discussion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the books include coverage of the colonial period and also the 1780's article of confederation period just prior to the drafting of the 2A. As I recall, essentially all describe the militia system, and effect of British colonialism on the militia system. Joyce Lee Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right covers this in much depth, also Saul Cornell's Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect?. These two books have roughly equal small bias tilts left and right of POV center, but both are scholarly. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
We can have a discussion by discussing the article and not our reading lists. Don't you agree that limiting the background to just militia related topics is biased toward that one viewpoint? How is that better than the current section Celestra (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we limit it to just militia based topics. My point is that both the major POVs agree that at the core, the 2A was about well regulated militia, therefore that point should be giving top billing. It is also important to mention that one of the viewpoints is the individual rights viewpoint. Presently this article section improperly implies that the individual viewpoint, that being that the "right to arms" is equivalent to the "right to bear arms" is the correct viewpoint. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The "top billing", if there is to be any, should go to the official reading of the Supreme Court (individual right, but no incorporation). SMP0328. (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not familiar with US v Whisnant which found that Heller did not establish just an individual right, but rather found and individual right in addition to the militia right. "Pursuant to the Heller decision it is clear that there are two specific types of rights protected by the United States Constitution.[46]" Therefore, the militia version of the right is more widely held and should be given top billing, with the individual right being mentioned as a less widely held opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
First, the Supreme Court trumps that court. Second, even if the Supreme Court agreed with that ruling, that wouldn't result in the supposed "militia right" getting "top billing". Instead, the two rights would get equal billing with each other. SMP0328. (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My point is that both sides of the POV agree that 'well regulated militia' rights are relevant and only one side holds that individual rights are paramount. I am flexible here, but the section as written leads with the presumption that "the right to arms" is synonymous with the "right to bear arms" and that just isn't neutral. Try to suppress your apparent personal loathing for me and lets just find a way to fix this problem in the article. There must be some mutually acceptable compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Back when the Bill of Rights was being proposed and ratified, the militias were filled by individuals bringing their own firearms with them. That's why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was seen as essential "to the security of a free State" via "a well regulated Militia". However, that didn't mean that right only existed within a such a militia. So, we are not talking about two rights; we're talking about two sides to a single right. SMP0328. (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Your thought appears to be entirely original research. At the best, it is one POV, which I favor respecting. The problem is that this section in the article presents this one POV as implicitly universal. It is not universally held that "right to arms" is synonymous with "right to bear arms" and this section should present that dichotomy fairly and neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, it is worth pointing out that Joyce Lee Malcolm's and Saul Cornell's mentioned books do not have roughly equal small bias tilts left and right of POV center, but are decidedly far left of POV center, with only occasional dog biscuits thrown slightly to the right of center. Likewise, discussions of reading lists are tedious at best, and are entirely inappropriate. I say we should focus on the article text and on particular references in the text that support the article text, not on belaboring on who is reading what. What editors have read or will read is no one's business but their own. What editors put into articles, however, as sources, is entirely an appropriate topic of discussion. Lets focus on the article. This would also be less intimidating to newbies. Pushing a POV supportive of the far left through limiting the choice of references is entirely counter to Wikipedia policies... Wikipedia is not censored. All reliable and verifiable sources should be used. The existing content seems fairly well representative of the historical record; however, it is always possible to find new points of view. Lets focus on that, instead of encouraging censorship through removal of cited content that is supported by reliable and verifiable cites. Yaf (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yaf, how do you measure POV center point? In my case, I was using the metric of individual rights viewpoint. Malcolm's book tends sympathetic with the individual rights viewpoint, and Cornell's does not. I agree we should discuss the neutrality of this article section. I just now added a NPOVtag to the section to direct editors to this ongoing discussion here on the talk page. A fundamental question is how do we measure neutrality. Is it up to a vote of the personal opinions of the editors? Or, is it to be matched to the balance seen in the reliable sourcing. If the latter, how can we discuss it if discussion of which reliable sourcing should be used is off the table. What if one editor is using non-reliable sourcing, or original research, when casting their vote as to neutrality? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that tag. Such tags serve no constructive purpose for this article; they simply work as Scarlet Letters. SMP0328. (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Directing editors of an ongoing discussion on a talk page is not a constructive purpose? Wow. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You have repeatedly used POV tags to undermine the legitimacy of the article. To claim otherwise is to insult my intelligence. SMP0328. (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Try to assume good faith. A tag calling attention to this talk page discussion does not undermine the legitimacy of this article. Enough evasion of my questions. Please take the time to answer the legitimate questions above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. You almost never assume good faith, but are telling me to do so regarding you. It is clear to anyone who reviews the history of the article and this talk page, that you use POV tags as a weapon. As to your questions, nobody has any obligation to answer any of your questions. So please stop ordering us to do so. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I object to the incivility and personal attack "Hypocrisy, thy name is SaltyBoatr". Starting on June 30, see above, I requested collaboration to fix this section. Now, it has degraded into a name calling session. How can we work together? Do you agree to follow WP:Dispute Resolution procedures? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
More hypocrisy! How many times have you personally attacked Yaf? You are nothing, other than a disruptive influence who wants to own this article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I reject that innuendo. Can we steer this talk page discussion back to the article and away from discussion of me? Presently this section implies that the "right to arms" is synonymous with the "right to bear arms". Only one of the POV's holds this viewpoint and the section should be rewritten to reflect that neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-reliable sourcing and original research are not permitted. If a cite is non-reliable, or if an editor has gone beyond what a cite claims and has engaged in synthesis, editors will identify it as such, and the added text will not stand for long. Original research (identified by article text without cites that support the text) is likewise not permitted, and may be removed at anytime. Doesn't look like a real problem to me, as the hypothetical situation you pose cannot exist for long -- active editors will quickly identify all such problems. As for censoring text supported by reliable and verifiable sources, this is not a problem, for Wikipedia is not censored. Looks rather clear cut to me. What's the issue? Or, are you advocating that Wikipedia should become censored, permitting only some points of view, despite a wider range of cites from reliable sources that are verifiable being available? If so, that is not a topic for this article; take it to an appropriate noticeboard and discuss such a proposal there. Meanwhile, discussions involving advocacy of censorship for Wikipedia does not belong here. Yaf (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yaf, how do you measure POV center point? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yaf, could you answer please? SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has asked that I give specifics of my neutrality dispute, (see also above), but here is a concise summary: The question is neutrality balance and does it match prominence found in reliable sourcing. The section we are discussing presently has eight paragraphs, seven of which favor the POV of the insurrectionist 'individual right' wing of the POV spectrum. (Plus, an iconic photo commonly used by that POV in their literature.) A ratio of 1:8 does not seem neutral. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of the 8 paragraphs in the section, only two seem to discuss any kind of opinions: in one of those paragraphs, the opinions of Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan are fairly contrasted with the opinion of Jack Rakove, and in the other paragraph we contrst the opinion of "some scholars" with the opinion of "other scholars." That seems extremely evenhanded, and everything is carefully footnoted. If there is factual material (rather than opinion material) that could enhance that section or make it more balanced, please describe it, keeping in mind WP:PRESERVE. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
All eight discuss opinions, seven of which favor the insurrectionist POV, which is presented as fact, and not as opinion. Keep in mind, WP:UNDUE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, they're certainly not phrased as opinions. The only two paragraphs that are phrased as opinions are the two I just described above. Maybe you would get more traction by focusing on a particular paragraph. I think each individual paragraph should be NPOV standing on its own, and if that happens then automatically the entire section will be NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

section break

Yaf and Ferrylodge deleted out[47] entirely my attempt to improve this section, by bringing sourced POV balance. They should explain the actions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I believe that some of your material is fine, and I have reinserted it.[48]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Check again, about 2/3rds remains deleted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That's right. First of all, info about life under the Articles of Confederation should be in chronological order after discussion of life under British rule. Secondly, your new material was too wordy, and was not about the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms, or the Second Amendment.
Moreover, you continue to use the tag as a badge of shame.[49] Please stop.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE says you should fix, not delete, this well sourced relevant material, no? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE may mean "move sourced and encyclopedic content to another article" instead. But in this instance, the material is already in other articles, so there is no need to move it.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is not already in other articles. This has the appearance of a blatant egregious POV scrub. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition to not notifying anyone at this talk page of relevant noticeboard discussions that you've started, and using NPOV tags as a badge of shame, you're also failing to use edit summaries.[50] Please explain why you're not using any edit summaries for major edits.
Also, please indicate what stuff is not in other articles.[51]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, see this diff[52]. SaltyBoatr this diff[53].(talk) 23:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC) SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not a diff.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence, for example, contains nothing that is not already in other Wikipedia articles: "In the period of time, 1783-1788, between the end of the war of independence from Britain but prior the ratification of the US Constitution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation." SaltyBoatr, do you really want to argue that this information is scrubbed from Wikipedia?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It is extremely relevant to describe that the events of the period of time just preceding the US Constitution were influenced by the experience of the Articles of Confederation. You described one sentence, and deleted more than a dozen. This remains unexplained. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's relevant to describe that the events of the period of time just preceding the US Constitution were influenced by the experience of the Articles of Confederation. Thus, the present article says: "Following the war of independence from Britain, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. An unworkable division of power between Congress and the states caused military weakness, and the standing Continental Army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[25] Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention in 1789 granted exclusive power to the federal congress to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size." You are complaining that the present article does not contain material that it actually does contain.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You wrote this 17 minutes after having deleted[54] four well cited reliably sourced paragraphs. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Just as it did at 23:38, the present article continues to describe that the events of the period of time just preceding the US Constitution were influenced by the experience of the Articles of Confederation. Sincere thanks for suggesting addition of this content today.
The present article now says: "Following the war of independence from Britain, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. An unworkable division of power between Congress and the states caused military weakness, and the standing Continental Army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[25] Subsequently, the United States Constitution in 1789 granted exclusive power to the Congress to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[26] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establish a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[27]"Ferrylodge (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has for the second time deleted out entirely this well sourced material[55], with no coherent explanation. This remains to have a strong appearance of blatant POV scrub. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it incoherent to point out that the Articles of Confederation came after British rule? Or to point out that this article is about the Second Amendment rather than a general discourse on American history?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you check any of those book sources before deleting? The relevance and WP:V is very solid. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
None of those books say that the United States was under British rule after the Articles of Confederation.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
For what it is worth, British rule ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. Did you read those books before you deleted? SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So Independence Day was not on July 4, 1776. You learn something new every day.</sarcasm> In any event, there is no question that the year "1769" discussed in this section preceded the Articles of Confederation.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This is bordering on irrational. The passage you refer to describes "revolutionary era newspapers...1769" but the revolution did not begin until the Battles of Lexington and Concord in the Spring of 1775. This passage is cited to writings of the revisionary history of NRA advocacy of NRA senior attorney David Hardy and NRA board member Stephen Halbrook, an extreme POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. I have changed "revolutionary era" to "pre-revolutionary".Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not fix that small problem, instead you wholesale deleted several paragraphs? This looks like a POV scrub. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I did fix that problem repeatedly, while describing it repeatedly at this talk page, only to have you revert repeatedly. Again, what specific information do you feel is being scrubbed from Wikipedia?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Which problem? The date sequencing? Why didn't you reorder the passages? Instead you deleted. The material being scrubbed you know, see diff[56]. This well sourced relevant material comes from very reliable scholarly sources, published by Blackwell Publishers, University of Michigan Press, ABC-CLIO, Duke University Press. Plainly you have made a POV push deleting this material sourced to scholarly publishing houses in favor of the writings of officials of the National Rifle Association. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Any chance you could ease up on the attacks a little bit? The only sources that I added to the article today are the following, none of which are from the NRA, as far as I know:

Are these NRA works? You suggested inclusion of these sources, and I reinserted them after someone else removed them. I did remove a total of three two sources:

  • Bancroft, George. History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent [to 1789]. pg 105 New York: Appleton, 1895, cited for this quote from George Washington in the article text: “Unless the principles of the federal government were properly supported and the powers of the union increased, the honor, dignity, and justice of the nation would be lost forever."

*Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding (ABC-CLIO 2005), cited for this statement in the article text: “When confronted with a suggestion that this new federal army should be limited to only 3,000 troops, George Washington is reported to have said that the congress should also move that any foreign enemy should be limited in any future invasion to only 3,000 troops.”

  • Shy, John W. A people numerous and armed: reflections on the military struggle for American independence (University of Michigan Press 1990), cited for this statement in the article text: “optimism was replaced with a new cynicism and realization of a critical urgency for the need to establish a sufficiently powerful central government to protect was has been gained.”

I've already explained why this stuff was removed. This material is already covered by this or other Wikipedia articles. Regarding the book from Duke University Press, it is currently cited seven times in the present article, so clearly I have not removed it from this article; I restored this reference at footnote 27 today, after someone else removed it. Please get your facts straight. Thanks. [Note: I've re-added the Vile reference, but without more text.]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you deleted the quotation from George Washington? There remains a NPOV balance problem with this section. The issue of the American experience and federalist attitude during the period just prior to the US Constitution has been deleted leaving the miss impression that anti-federalist opinions were the norm. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as I explained previously, this Wikipedia article already says that the Philadelphia Convention declined to limit the size of the standing army, and anti-federalists were unhappy about it. The footnote is included so that interested readers can find out about it that way, if they want. Adding more detail about this would be undue weight. Also, it's already covered in a footnote in our Wikipedia article about Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

deleted passage

In the period of time, 1783-1788, between the end of the war of independence from Britain but prior the ratification of the US Constitution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The country was faced by the near disaster of a bankruptcy from war debt and a weakness of the federal government.[21] George Washington and his brethren grappled with the problems of the extreme weakness of the federal congress and their inability to support a real army or to efficiently support a sustained military campaign. In December of 1783, faced with this crisis, George Washington warned[22]:

"Unless the principles of the federal government were properly supported and the powers of the union increased, the honor, dignity, and justice of the nation would be lost forever."

Regardless of this warning to federalize, a military weakness persisted created by an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was not able to protect the newly created country's commercial and territorial interests, and the standing Continental Army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[21] A widespread desperation existed with fears that the country was doomed without new and expanded federal fiscal and military powers to protect the independence recently gained from Britain.[23] This political spirit lead to the creation of a new constitutional convention to fix these weaknesses.[21]

A shift in general attitude in the American mindset had occurred, from the euphoria in 1776 Philadelphia, towards a grim reality a decade later following the long and grinding war. The optimism was replaced with a new cynicism and realization of a critical urgency for the need to establish a sufficiently powerful central government to protect was has been gained.[24].

In the debate and discussion during the convention to create this new more powerful constitution, some concerns remained about the dangers of a standing federal army. When confronted with a suggestion that this new federal army should be limited to only 3,000 troops, George Washington is reported to have said that the congress should also move that any foreign enemy should be limited in any future invasion to only 3,000 troops.[25] Ultimately, the supporters of a strong federal standing army prevailed, resulting in the adoption of the Article 1 Section 8 which granted exclusive power to the federal congress to raise and support a standing army and navy.[23] Faced with this new popular consensus to establish a powerful federal military, at first anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal, but later as the adoption became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to secure an agreement for a follow up constitutional convention to establish a bill of rights which would focus on establishing some limits on federal power.[26]

-refs- 22 Bancroft, George. History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent [to 1789]. pg 105 New York: Appleton, 1895.

23 a b Pole, J. R.; Greene, Jack P. (2003). A Companion to the American Revolution (Blackwell Companions to American History). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 398. ISBN 1-4051-1674-9.

24 Shy, John W. (1990). A people numerous and armed: reflections on the military struggle for American independence. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. pp. 131-132. ISBN 0-472-06431-2.

25 Vile, John R. (2005). The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding( 2 Volume Set). Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 30. ISBN 1-85109-669-8.

26 Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The militia and the right to arms, or, How the second amendment fell silent. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press. pp. 79. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2.

Above is the text deleted by Ferrylodge. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That text was restored by SaltyBoatr and now has been re-deleted by me. It is irrelevant to the Second Amendment. That material sounds like it is about the Congress's authority to raise a standing military. Please explain how that material is relevant to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the book sources? They explain in considerable detail why that is extremely relevant to the Second Amendment, please look for your answer in those sources. It appears your deletion was entirely based on your personal opinion. Additionally, it appears to show a personal POV bias. Please explain your action deleting wholesale those four paragraphs, violating WP:Preserve policy at the least. Actions which are opaque and seemingly based on personal bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about what is in any of those books (btw, stop telling editors what to read). I'm talking about the material you want added to the article. That material does not refer to either the Second Amendment or the RKBA. This article is about the Second Amendment, which to a certain extent links to the RKBA article. If you want that material to be in the article, you will need to explain how that material relates to either the Second Amendment or the RKBA. SMP0328. (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read those book sources? (A 'yes' or 'no' will do. Please don't make me ask again.) They do indeed refer to the Second Amendment. How can you say otherwise? Bear in mind that this entire section is about the 'experience prior' to the Second Amendment, and these authors are describing the republic experience that lead up to the conditions that inspired the Bill of Rights. You have deleted out the entire decade immediately preceding the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we continue this discussion please? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the time to find and read those books, nor am I required to do so. The material I removed did not refer, or otherwise make a clear linkage, to the Second Amendment. If those books do so, then it should not be difficult to do so regarding material which is to be based on those books. SMP0328. (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

one more try

It is a shame this conversation has degraded so much. We still are missing the elephant in the room here: that being that SMP0328 has deleted out coverage of the American experience in the five years immediately prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment. It makes little sense to omit this description of what happened during the years 1783 and 1788, as obviously the immediate attitudes just prior the the framers drafting the 2A carried a lot of weight in their minds, but astonishingly this time period remains left out. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_13&oldid=1267580406"