Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 23

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

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

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[1], 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"[2] 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[3] wording to the first four sentences of the "Early State Court Decisions" section. Please specifically identify the "POV problems":

“

State courts have addressed the various rights to bear arms protected separately from the Second Amendment by the different state constitutions. Two different models of the right to bear arms emerged from this early state jurisprudence: one based on an individual rights view and the other on a collective rights view[citation needed]. Historian Saul Cornell has described that there were a number of different views of the right to bear arms around the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment with the dominant view being a "civic model" interpretation which tied the right to bear arms to a sense of civic obligation of participation in the militia, whereas the "individual rights" interpretation emerged several decades after the Second Amendment was drafted, and was later followed by the "collective rights" interpretation.[71]

In the 1822 Kentucky case of Bliss v. Commonwealth,[137] the Kentucky state court overturned the conviction of a man who had carried a sword that was concealed inside a cane illegal under Kentucky state law.

”

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[4], Miller v. Texas[5] and Robertson v. Baldwin[6] 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. [7][8] 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[9], 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[10] 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[11], actually misquotes the ABA, what they actually said is[12]: "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[13] 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, [14], and [15] 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)

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[19], 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[20]. 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.[21] 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[22][23]. 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.[24]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,[25] 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[26]. 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.[27] 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[28]. 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[29]. 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.[30]" 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[31] 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.[32]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.[33] 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.[34] Please explain why you're not using any edit summaries for major edits.

Also, please indicate what stuff is not in other articles.[35]Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, see this diff~~[36]. SaltyBoatr~~ this diff[37].~~(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[38] 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[39], 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[40]. 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:

Anderson, Casey; Horwitz, Joshua, Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea (University of Michigan Press 2009).
Pole, J. R.; Greene, Jack P. A Companion to the American Revolution (Blackwell Publishers 2003)

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)