Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1

Help!
I created this page because I keep running into the alleged law quoted on various blogs and discussion groups, and when I went to Wikipedia to research it I found nothing. I am way over my head with anything legal, and really could use some help from someone with some expertise. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey there, this case seems to have carried a bit of an urban legend for a number of years now, the original quote is as follows: "The law does not allow a peace officer to use more force than is necessary to effect an arrest. . . . And if he does use such unnecessary force, he . . . may be lawfully resisted . . . If the officer is resisted before he has used needless force and violence, he may then press forward and overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person arrested, if absolutely necessary." Samuel Tarling (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking much better. I really appreciate the help. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar: How this document has been cited: [ http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=9571584289232542685 ] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Reddit!
I am the same Guy Macon who posted http://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/q2h34/help_needed_with_legal_urban_myth/ on Reddit. I am hoping to get some help making this page better. I am pretty ignorant in the area of laws but I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and will be glad to help anyone who hasn't edited Wikipedia before. I have gathered together some links to the most important Wikipedia policies and guidelines on my Wikipedia user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon Welcome, and thanks for helping! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusion
The article raises a misquote and then shoots it down. That's not the way to report a case. Is the motive here to discredit the misquote rather than report the case? WP cannot do that unless some RS brings it up. Durham correctly quotes Plummer but says nothing about the misquote.

Is the issue the level of force that may be resisted (too much force is illegal)? The lack of a warrant (no right to arrest)? The lack of announcement (struck from behind)? Those topics might be better handled at resisting arrest articles; certainly more sources would be available for a more general topic.

The case has many issues. The marshal struck first from behind. The marshal shot first. The marshal didn't have a warrant. It is doubted that marshal witnessed an act that gave him the authority to arrest for a misdemeanor; he may not have seen the acts; even if he saw the alleged acts, they weren't a misdemeanor that would allow him to arrest; a jury instruction required Plummer to prove his innocence. There's a lot of material in the opinion, and it is not simple. Some of those points turn on narrow issues of Indiana law.

Glrx (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I took out the "raises a misquote and then shoots it down" portion. I found a bunch of sources discussing it being a misquote, but no reliable sources, just blogs and such, so out it goes until a reliable source is found.


 * I did find a contemporary news report in the Northeastern Reporter which had a summary written by the newspaper followed by printing the actual decision. I wrote a description of the case based upon that summary, and will expand it when I find sourcing.


 * I do have a question about secondary sources. Somehow it feels wrong to not use a description of the facts of the case by a judge in the text of the ruling and then to turn around and use a description of the facts of the case by a judge in the text of another ruling. This seems to go against the spirit of WP:RS; that second judge isn't really evaluating and reporting on the first case like a newspaper would. When the second judge talks about the legal issues in the first case, it feels like a proper secondary source, but not when he describes the facts of the case. Maybe this is just my inexperience working on law articles showing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Glrx is onto the real problem with this article. I take it that the issue here is that there is something of an urban legend/internet meme about the supposed right to forcibly resist a wrongful arrest that cites Plummer as precedent. Quite apart from whether or not there is any merit to the argument of those claiming such a right, there is the initial problem of whether there is any reliable, secondary source for the proposition that there is such an urban legend/internet meme about Plummer. The various blogs, noticeboards, talk pages and other SPS's cited right now don't qualify as reliable secondary sources. Essentially, we as editors are doing original research, saying "See, here are three, or ten, or a hundred posts all repeating this meme". What we need is someone else to do that research and publish it in a reliable sources: a book, a newspaper, a magazine article. That is what establishes not only that the meme is out there, but also that it is notable.
 * The next problem is that it also appears, for a variety of reasons, that the meme is a really bad piece of legal advice, and doesn't really understand what Plummer actually held, that it arises from some specific facts that would rarely occur and has been repeatedly distinguished, and that it is only binding precedent under the narrow facts of the casein Indiana. Again, we need reliable secondary sources that say that. We're in pretty good stead as to what Plummer actually holds, because there are secondary sources that discuss the case. Where we have a problem, however, is, as Glrx writes, we would need some sources that say that the meme is wrong because of these various things. We can't just juxtapose conflicting statements, "the meme says Plummer holds X" and "scholarly sources say Plummer holds Y."
 * Finally, Glrx's suggestion that this material probably doesn't merit its own article, but belongs somewhere in an article on arrests, is probably a good one. Plummer has certainly been cited in a number of decisions and in a number of scholarly publications, but it is by no means a prominent case on the order of those that typically get Wikipedia articles like Brown v Board of Education or Sullivan v New York Times. Unless it is getting widespread coverage in the more general press and literature, rather than being relegated to the occasional footnote in a dusty old Criminal Law textbook, it probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines for its own article. You say you've found one article. That's a start, but may not be enough. Regardless. the case is most certainly notable enough, with plenty of reliable secondary sources, to merit a sentence or two in a more general article on arrests or resisting arrest. Fladrif (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Northeastern Reporter is not a newspaper. A reporter is a series of volumes that publish court cases; there are many reporters. You'll notice that Plummer has a citation 34 N.E. 968. That means volume 34, Northeastern Reporter, page 968. You'll notice that the Google link is also to volume 34 and page 968. It has 3 numbered headnotes, which are summaries of important legal conclusions in the opinion; it then publishes the court opinion verbatim. Glrx (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fladrif and Girx. I found about 30 Indiana cases, including Indiana Supreme Court and Appellate Court cases, citing Plummer. Plummer's legal premise seems to stand today. I searched for law review articles on Plummer and found none. The references listed do not appear to be reliable secondary sources. They are blogs and references whose authors I could not identify. Per WP:Notability, so far, Plummer does not seem to meet the notability requirement. I added a notability tag to the article.


 * The relevant notability policy sections I found include:
 * "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".
 * Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."Coaster92 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I consider that 30 citations to a case make it notable. They will normally not all of them discuss it to a substantial extent, but some of them will. A case that is a precedent in its subject is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been holding off on any efforts to improve the article other than searching for sources establishing notability (there are hundreds and hundreds of them -- this is quite widely misquoted -- and not a darn one is a reliable source). Do you think there is a reasonable chance that this might survive deletion, or would copyediting it just be a W.O.M.B.A.T (Waste Of Money, Brains And Time)? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Expanded
I expanded the article. Hopefully this addresses some of the issues. I also went with the Bluebook citation form, as it is preferred for legal articles, see WP:MOSLAW. GregJackP  Boomer!  02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great job. Your edits help a lot in clarifying both the case and its implications with respect to the apparently fabricated quotation. Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I changed a minor point that you added. In the quotation, the original authors mis-cite the Bad Elk case by 1) using Bad Elk's full name and 2) then abbreviating United States to U.S. Proper citation in Wikipedia legal articles is to use Bluebook citation style for case names, see WP:MOSLAW. Bluebook (and ALWD, etc) all use the format "last name" v. "United States" in the text, and when footnotes are used, the rest of the cite is in the footnote (the XXX U.S. XXX (year)). If we need to, we can put a [sic] following the citation in the quotation, but I didn't think it was necessary at the time. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!  16:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A person "may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest"?
"In fact, the opposite is true; all of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful force—not defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest"

Wait, doesn't the Bad Elk v. United States say the exact opposite?

I'm also very curious as to why there's an external link to an external "Bad Elk" source, but no mention of Bad Elk in the actual article.

76.123.234.177 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

First the easy part; I removed the external link and added a see also wikilink to Bad Elk v. United States, which cites the same external source. Good catch!

As for Bad Elk v. United States saying the exact opposite, please read Bad Elk v. United States, which says:


 * The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.  The most commonly quoted version is:


 * "'Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.'"


 * In fact, the opposite is trueall of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "Internet Meme" Section
The section has a number of problems. In no particular order:
 * 1) "Internet Meme" is not a good title for the section (it's not accurate or descriptive, and has minor negative connotations) - I'd recommend changing it "Misconceptions" instead.
 * 2) The section cites three sources in one ref tag. The sources need to be pulled into separate, appropriately placed ref tags.
 * 3) The section states that the quote given is a fabrication. Yet of the sources cited by the section (ignoring potential reliability issues for now), two claim it is correct.
 * 4) The section states "This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups", yet none of the sources support that statement.
 * 5) While one of the sources does provide the direct quote, none of them provice any comment on how "common" it is for it to be quoted, while the section claims that the misquote is "The most commonly quoted version" - a very difficult claim to support
 * 6) The following is stated by the section, but is entirely unsupported by the sources: "There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court." They are also very strong statement and very difficult to source
 * 7) The sources that the section cites are terrible - the "Constitution Society" one appears to be some sort of right-wing political blog and the "Law Enforcement Today" one is an opinion piece from what appears to be some sort of guest-a-day police blog. The one from "The Blaze" is also an opinion piece, and while it at least cites a few sources, the one it uses regarding this decision is the aforementioned "Constitution Society".

In order for the section to be viable, it needs at the very least a major overhaul in content, sources, and structure.

But there's something of a bigger problem here - in order to make the section's point that this decision is frequently misquoted on the internet, we need to find a reliable source that states as such. Looking around a bit, I haven't been able to find anything sufficient.

Frankly, I recommend that we just scrap the whole section (and related portion of the lede, of course) and make clear in the article what the decision says in an absolute sense, rather than relative to what people think it says. That way we also make the key point of the section - to highlight that the decision is regarding defense against unlawful force, not unlawful arrest - in a neater, better flowing way.

Per WP:BOLD I will do so right after finishing writing this. If you object, please revert and reply to this section. Aero-Plex (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. "Internet Meme" is not a good title for the section (it's not accurate or descriptive, and has minor negative connotations) - I'd recommend changing it "Misconceptions" instead.
 * Except that it is an oft-cited meme.
 * 2. The section cites three sources in one ref tag. The sources need to be pulled into separate, appropriately placed ref tags.
 * That's called a "string cite" and is common in cites using Bluebook as the reference style. They belong in one tag.
 * 3. The section states that the quote given is a fabrication. Yet of the sources cited by the section (ignoring potential reliability issues for now), two claim it is correct.
 * I'll find other sources, but that is sort of the point, that the incorrect, fraudulent quote is cited by websites.
 * 4. The section states "This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups", yet none of the sources support that statement.
 * See above.
 * 5. While one of the sources does provide the direct quote, none of them provice any comment on how "common" it is for it to be quoted, while the section claims that the misquote is "The most commonly quoted version" - a very difficult claim to support
 * See above.
 * 6. The following is stated by the section, but is entirely unsupported by the sources: "There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court." They are also very strong statement and very difficult to source
 * That can be reworded.
 * 7. The sources that the section cites are terrible - the "Constitution Society" one appears to be some sort of right-wing political blog and the "Law Enforcement Today" one is an opinion piece from what appears to be some sort of guest-a-day police blog. The one from "The Blaze" is also an opinion piece, and while it at least cites a few sources, the one it uses regarding this decision is the aforementioned "Constitution Society".
 * Which also show the meme aspect of the quote. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "oft-cited meme"? I don't understand what you're getting at. But either way, my objection stems from the fact that "Internet Meme" is a worse title than "Misconceptions" rather than being a bad title in an absolute sense.
 * My point was that a string cite is inappropriate in this case, not that string cites are bad in and of themselves (though I suppose my wording was unclear in this regard). My reasoning being that, since each of the sources is intended to support a different part of the section, it would be clearer to the reader if each of the sources were pulled into its own citation - that way, they can immediately see what each source is bringing to the article. The other option would be to put this information into the citation itself by adding in some parentheticals to that effect, but that just strikes me as being needlessly complex for the reader.
 * But citing sites that claim the quote is correct does not show that it is often claimed to be correct - you would need a source holding particularly that websites often claim it to be correct in order to do so. More generally, though, claiming that something is "widely" the case is generally not a good idea, and is even directly cautioned against in WP:WEASELWORDS
 * See above.
 * See above.
 * They can indeed be reworded, but without changing the underlying claims you just come back to the same problem. How would you suggest the sentences be reworded?
 * I don't follow. What do you mean by "meme aspect of the quote" and how do those sources show it? And are you saying that you think those to be reliable sources, or are you agreeing that they aren't?
 * Since you think that the section should remain in the article (going by your reversion of my removal), could you explain why it should remain in? Any number of things are often misquoted, badly explained, or outright lied about, yet having a section dedicated to that sort of thing is generally reserved for only the most extreme of cases, generally speaking.
 * Frankly, the whole section could be condensed down into a single sentence along the lines of, say, "Notably, the decision of this case concerns itself with the legality of defense against unlawful force, which is distinct from unlawful arrest."
 * I'll await those sources, I suppose. Aero-Plex (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Law Enforcement Today consists of articles submitted by law enforcement officers who must provide the editorial board a bio, including a professional and educational background. There are submission requirements, such as font, citation style, etc., and the proposed article is vetted by the editorial board before it is published. This particular author has presented over and over again on police issues, particularly PTSD/NAMI issues. He clearly states that it is a false quote.  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. That is indeed a guest-a-day blog - you don't need to have a different guest every day or have a single submission a day for that to be the case. Either way, I don't see how it is a reliable source - the guy's a police officer, not a lawyer, so WP:RS's exception for authors who are professionals in the field at hand doesn't apply. Aero-Plex (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it's not a "guest-a-day" blog. It has a editorial board and it vets both the authors and their submissions. Second, a police officer isn't a professional? Interesting concept, since a profession requires prolonged training, formal qualifications, and continuing education; all of which police have. Third, your outlook on Bluebook cites is completely wrong. Every authority and reference that supports the argument (or sentence) goes into a single citation, with each reference separated by a semi-colon. See B2, Bluebook, 19th Ed., and R.1.1., Bluebook. The order of the authorities in the string cite is covered by R.1.4., parentheticals are covered by R.1.5., and so on. If you don't like string cites, then you can try to obtain consensus to change the citation style, but otherwise, we'll use Bluebook (see WP:CITEVAR). Finally, you need to get consensus to remove the material, as most of the discussion above has been on this very subject, and the material in the article represents the consensus of those discussions. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That it has an editorial board does not change the fact that its content does not come from members of its staff but rather external parties.
 * Of course a police officer is a professional. But a professional police officer is not a professional lawyer, which they would have to be for WP:RS's exception for blogs written by professionals to apply in this case - this is, after all, a matter of law rather than enforcement.
 * Note that nowhere have I claimed that it is a malformed citation. Yet bundling the three sources - without some sort of explication of their relation - in the manner that the article currently does makes it an unclear. So for instance, the following would be clearer:
 * Robert Cubby, Law Enforcement Today; The Right to Resist An Unlawful Arrest, Dec. 10, 2014 (claiming the following quote to be a fabrication); Jon Roland, Constitution Society; Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, July 10, 1996 (using the following quote); Paul Markel, The Blaze; Do You Have the Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest? May 9, 2014 (using the following quote).
 * Importantly, I am not changing the quoting style here - it would still be Bluebook to do something like this:
 * This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups. The most commonly quoted version is:
 * "“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” [Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306]"
 * The above quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true; all of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful forcenot defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.


 * In passing, I'd like to point out the large number of tags I added.
 * Now, I would like to point out an HTML comment I found in the page as I was writing this post, directly following "any other known ruling by any court." Specifically, this comment states:
 * verified by extensively searching various legal databases and search engines. Not sure how to cite "several Wikipedia editors looked really hard and found nothing"...
 * Which is obviously in violation of WP:RS, so I will be removing that section right after submitting this. Again, revert and comment if you object...
 * Either way, I did post a large response, addressing each one of your responses to my points directly - do you have any objections to anything in that post besides what we are discussing in this post chain, or are we otherwise in agreement? I especially would like to hear your response to the part of my post where I wrote:
 * Frankly, the whole section could be condensed down into a single sentence along the lines of, say, "Notably, the decision of this case concerns itself with the legality of defense against unlawful force, which is distinct from unlawful arrest."
 * Aero-Plex (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me make this perfectly clear. If you take anything out without first gaining consensus, I will revert you like I just did. If it continues, I will take it to AN/I. I have pointed out that this was discussed above, that the material met with consensus, and if you want to change it, you need to get consensus to change it. You can't just make a unilateral decision to change it to the way you want it. If you had created some content or had more edits, I might give your opinion more consideration, but if you want to play with an article, try working on a stub somewhere. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the WP:BOLD policy is to make obvious, easily-revertible changes and then discuss them. But in this case, I am very surprised you reverted - that comment I mentioned alone explains quite well why it shouldn't be in there - it's blatantly violating WP:RS.
 * Either way, you keep bringing up this idea of "consensus" that I've been ignoring up to this point, but since literally the only thing your post addressed was that, I suppose I have no choice. Simply put, the consensus above is that the section is to be deleted on account of lack of notability. I was trying to approach things in a more diplomatic manner, but if you really insist on relying strictly on preformed consensus to the point of threatening to bring AN/I into this, then I suppose my only option is to bend to your wishes and just delete the section outright. But again, I am honestly trying to be diplomatic and assume good faith here - so please extend me the same courtesy and actually address the points I am bringing up.
 * Aero-Plex (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, I have no problem taking it up. You obviously misread the consensus above. You have who believes that the material should be in the article. You have  comments in support.  You have  stating that the case is notable. I know how to create content, and how to deal with those that merely snipe at content creators. So go ahead and do what you think is going to get you somewhere. I stand in awe of your 1 article created and your 75+/- edits.  GregJackP   Boomer!   05:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An internet meme exists, and it does falsely quote this case. I could list a hundred blogs, Youtube comments, USENET posts, tweets, etc. that make the claim, and I am 95% sure that it has been on flyers passed out at occupy protests and tea party protests (now there are two groups that don't agree on much!) but have not been able to find a RS for that claim yet. Many people come to this page after reading the false claims somewhere, and we should provide answers to those readers.
 * Yes, it is difficult to establish from reliable sources that this case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups, but I believe that the current set of citations establish that and are reliable for the specific purpose of determining whether this case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not sufficient for that purpose. They do establish that it is misquoted on the Internet (though solely in a logical sense and not in a sufficient-for-Wikipedia sense - we'd need secondary sources for that instead of the primary sources we currently have), but not that it is widely so. Aero-Plex (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And on the other hand, you have, , and taking the opposite position - and more importantly, they bring up a number of reasons why that never get refuted.
 * To be perfectly frank, you clearly don't "know how to create content" as well as you claim to, seeing as how you've been outright ignoring almost all of the points I've been bringing up. I ask again - please argue in good faith rather than bad - it makes the content creation process far more enjoyable for all involved. Aero-Plex (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ROTFL. Yeah, that's why I have created 3 Featured Articles, all of which will have been on the Wikipedia Main Page by the end of this month. That's why I'm one of 175 editors who have earned the Four Award; one of 154 editors who have been awarded the Triple Crown more than once; and one of only 5 editors who have earned a Valiant Return Triple Crown. Content is not created by those who nitpick and stay on the sidelines, it is created by those who actually research and write. When you do some of that, then I may consider your input to be relevant, but for now, it's not. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what relevance any of this has - what matters is that here and now you are acting in bad faith, claiming nonexistent consensus, and refusing to address the points I have been bringing up. You could be the Queen of England and it still wouldn't change that. Aero-Plex (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I've addressed them. You just don't hear the reasons, likely due to your lack of experience in content creation. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The vase is of course notable as a precedent, and it has been supported by the 7th circuit as recently as 1995. The internet meme is curious in using the case for exactly what the 7th circuit said it did not support--it supported the use of excessive force in a lawful arrest, but it is irrelevant to the use of force in an unlawful arrest. I would have expected there to be some discussion of this. DGG ( talk ) 14:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is all well and good that the misquotes are curious, but that does not mean that they are notable, at least not in the sense of WP:NOTABLE. Aero-Plex (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we are not talking about creating a separate article on the misquotes, they do not have to meet the notability standard. Nowhere does Wikipedia require a section of an article to separately meet the notability standard. A content creator would know that. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course parts of articles do not have to meet the WP:NOTABLE standard in and of themselves - that would be ridiculous. But that doesn't change the fact that the misquotes make up most of the article's notability. Examining the article's citations, almost all of them are primary sources, one of them is apparently not even published, two of them are Google searches, most of what's left has serious reliability concerns, and one I cannot comment on because it is behind a paywall. To be blunt about it, the entire article has serious problems with notability to the point that, absent discovery of reliable secondary sources on the topic, the only course of action I can recommend would be to delete it outright. This is not ideal, obviously - articles should, wherever possible, be improved instead of deleted. But the lack of notability of the article combined with neither of us having been able to present usable sources means that at some point one has to write the article off as a loss, perhaps coming back to it down the road in hopes of the case being more notable. Aero-Plex (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done talking with you. Try going to the WP:TEAHOUSE or find a mentor somewhere. Have them explain WP:NNC to you, as you clearly don't have a clue as to notability within an article. Second, the case is notable, as are almost all cases from the highest court within a jurisdiction. It is cited in several works, such as Brill's Cyclopedia, Lawyer's Reports Annotated (LRA), Wharton's Homicide, Wharton's Criminal Law, etc. You don't understand what an "unpublished table decision" means. Hell, there is an entire series of "unpublished" opinions—which are published in West's Federal Appendix Reporter. In the law, "unpublished" means it has less value as a precedent than a "published" opinion, not that is is printed and distributed as a published document. You have to have WP:COMPETENCE, which you clearly do not have as to legal articles. This type of question on notability has been answered time after time after time on the various boards. Drop the stick and walk away. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aero-Plex, I wrote an essay on this situation. Please read WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I totally agree with the objections here.
 * This is pure WP:OR: "There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. (with its note: verified by extensively searching various legal databases and search engines. Not sure how to cite "several Wikipedia editors looked really hard and found nothing""
 * This: "In fact, the opposite is true; all of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful forcenot defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." is not supported by its sources (Higgins, 73 F.3d 364 at *4; Wilson, 842 N.E.2d at 447; Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 383 (1997) (noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests)).   Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted. The first portion, "In fact, the opposite is true;" was left out, but the remainder of the sentence was restored and each reference supports the assertions at the location cited. If you disagree, please point out what part of the reference that you have a problem with and we can discuss it. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please tell me exactly where the statement "All of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful forcenot defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." is supported by a reference. I read them carefully this is unsourced WP:OR.  And i mean  tell me exactly where that is supported. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You looked at Higgins? Can you tell me what it says at the beginning of page *4? I don't answer to you, and while I'm willing to discuss things, I would suggest that you take a little more courteous tone rather than to instruct me to tell meexactly where that is supported. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do not revert a deletion of content that violates policy before it is discussed on the Talk page. By Higgins I assume you mean this. There is no pagination in html. Paragraph 22 is the only paragraph that mentions Plummer. It does not support: " All of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful forcenot defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." " So again where is there support for the text you added back after i deleted it?.  Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you do not think that you are god who can determine, all by yourself, what does and what does not violate policy. It is merely your opinion, which thus far, I am not overly impressed with. If you want the material removed, get consensus. That's what Wikipedia works with, not demands from a single editor. As far as reverting your changes? It's called WP:BRD. As to the rest of it, if you created content, your opinion might actually mean something. By yourself, without consensus, not so much. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content, not contributor. Thanks.  If you are not going to let my changes stand, you have to discuss them.  So please reply to the points I raised.  Let's do just one. What source supports: "All of the court cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue of defense against unlawful force—not defense against unlawful arrest, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest."?   Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article is being discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad Elk v. United States
The "Internet Meme" section refers to the Supreme Court case Bad Elk v. United States so I think that should be mentioned instead. 104.34.250.89 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I expanded the section with a fuller quote. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision
Should the Internet meme section of the article be replaced with the following (between the three dash line on top and bottom): law ---

Plummer v. State, along with Bad Elk v. United States, is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted. The misquote is that "“citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary" although the Plummer quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion. Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law, what one legal commenter stated was a "bizarre, irrational or merely grossly wrong understanding of law...." Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

--- The above was revised based on comments from the initial RfC before I withdrew it to revise it based on the comments by the community. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey
Please limit entry to Support or Oppose.


 * Support, as proposer. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support with no prejudice against improving the section rather that deleting it. Wikipedia's rules exist to make articles better, not the other way around. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The proposed language contrasts (1) the treatment of this case in popular media and (2) a brief summary of the opinions of legal scholars in a manner that is appropriate for this article. Indeed, it's important for our articles on case law to not only describe what a case says, but also to describe what others say about the case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised you would support this, as I had the feeling you are an attorney, legal professional or have a J.D., etc. Please look at what I wrote below when I looked up Indiana law.  Saying that "Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law" is incorrect based on a case just proposed to be used by the nominator, which says:  The Sixth Circuit recognized in United States v. Halliburton, No. 91-6268, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37885, 1992 WL 138433, at *5 (6th Cir. June 19, 1992) (per curiam), that "[t]he principle enunciated in the John Bad Elk case remains valid but is much criticized." Holloran v. Duncan, W.D.Tenn. No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717, at *56 (Mar. 30, 2017).  So the claim Bad Elk is "no longer good law" shows that the references for footnote [5} are unreliable, as is the statement "no longer good law".   --David Tornheim (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He's supporting this because all five of the attorneys who have weighed in on this issue have supported it. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The community already rejected a very similar proposal per this. It is essential the same proposal without the quote and with a few sources removed. The other text is practically the same. The issues have not thoroughly been addressed. Source 4 is not a source. For short citation see Bomis. It links to a full citation. Bomis. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop writing things that you know are not true. The "similar proposal" was not "rejected by the community" and you know it. It was withdrawn after 12 hours and an improved version was submitted. At the point when it was withdrawn, the count was support:5 oppose:9, and so far one of those 9 oppose !votes has supported the revised proposal. Please stop claiming that a consensus exists when it doesn't. We are working on achieving a consensus in this very discussion, but we have not reached one yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.  Montanabw (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support guy macon. but I may change it to delete the whole section. L3X1 (distant write)  20:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose both the "Taser Joe" and "Swisher Sweet" ref s violate s WP:USERGENERATED (the cases are only discussed in the comments) and the Swisher ref also violates WP:CIRCULAR (an old version of this article is quoted and discussed in the comments). PARITY does not reach that far. This version of the content would be good enough without the sentence "Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law,[5] what one legal commenter stated was a "bizarre, irrational or merely grossly wrong understanding of law..."[6] The "Curb" ref is good under PARITY and can be used to add support to the last sentence.  Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (redact - the comments in the Taser Joe ref are by the blog author, so are OK Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC))
 * If, then, as you claim above, "This version of the content would be good enough without the sentence 'Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law, what one legal commenter stated was a 'bizarre, irrational or merely grossly wrong understanding of law...' ' ", why did you once again delete the entire section (after being warned about your continued edit warring) instead of simply making that change? I would not have objected to you removing or editing that sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon The content that was in the article was disputed, especially with regard to the use of Infowars. So I moved the section to talk for discussion, until we could agree on it, with full intention that we would agree on something and restore it.   As you can see in the RfC above, the community rejected use of Infowars - the version that you were arguing for above. So hm.  This version is decently sourced per PARITY without resorting to citing FRINGE-spewing sources themselves, and I am OK with it if the RS-violating refs are taken out.  What I have done is consistent with itself and with the policies and guidelines, and your note above misrepresents what happened - blatantly.  I have no idea why you would do that to me.  User:Mr Ernie  please actually review the history before you judge. And why in the world would you agree to sourcing that violates USERGENERATED and CIRCULAR?  Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per Guy Macon. I do not understand why Jytdog was removing the whole block of text instead of removing the part they disagreed with. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog I made no judgment; I simply said I didn't understand why you did that. The fault may not lie with you but in my misunderstanding. I have reviewed the above discussion but was not able to find an answer to that question. User:Guy Macon had also asked it. I see now in your above explanation and can now understand. Thank you for the explanation. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Much improved. I have concerns with #5 in that the material appears to be self published, however, it appears as though others may understand whether or not if Greenfield and Kopf have expertise or credibility that would permit the use of these sources. -Location (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Judge Kopf's blog was an ABA Top 100 Blawg in 2013 & 2014, until he shut it down. Scott Greenfield's blog was an ABA Top 100 Blawg from it's inception until 2012, when it was put in the ABA Blawg Hall of Fame next to SCOTUSblog. Other ABA HOF blogs are Above the Law, Lawyerist, Patently-O, Popehat, and The Volokh Conspiracy, just to name a few. These are all reliable sources. Plus, Greenfield's blog has been cited in numerous court opinions, see United States v. Erwin, 779 F.3d 620 (3d Cir. 2014) (which also cited Judge Kopf's blog); and State v. Peeler, 140 A.3d 811 (Conn. 2016). Normal blogs don't get cited in Federal Appellate Court decisions and State Supreme Court decisions. These are clearly reliable sources, written by experts in the field. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right to have concerns about #5. Please see my comment in response to Notecardforfree above (and my longer response below).  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. Closer, but not quite there yet. Issues remain with OR, V & NPOV. Suggest: A. Simplify to: Plummer v. State, along with Bad Elk v. United States, is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted as "citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary", which does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion. or even simpler. The "fabrication" text is not supported by the source and is not a neutral phrasing; it's also circular reasoning. B. Render Bad Elk unto Bad Elk, by removing "Several other sources note that..." from here; but not from there; and cleaning up the sourcing there. (NB: personal objection to "sources" in articles; it's sloppy; describe the sources) . Two of the referenced sources do not mention Plummer; the third does, but in the reader comments section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with the caveat that the "several other sources note" sentence is awkwardly constructed and should be rewritten or simply removed. Also, is citation 1 necessary? What is it citing, the title of the related case? That's not necessary. Surely the case itself is not a source for how the case is cited and/or misquoted? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When using Bluebook, you always cite to the official reporter the first time a case is mentioned, and yes, we do cite to the primary source (see MOS:LAW). You are right though, cite 1 is not a source for how the case is cited/misquoted, it is merely identifying the case so that the reader can view it themselves, if desired. Earlier in the article Plummer is identified via an inline cite, while other citing cases are identified in the same manner as Bad Elk v. United States is identified in this section. You'll also see the same thing in Featured Articles that use Bluebook and MOS:LAW, see United States v. Kagama as an example. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, that seems odd to me, but I defer to your experience with the citation method. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Delete entire section. None of this comes from reliable independent secondary sources. [The law reviews are good WP:RS for law, but neither mentions the Indiana Supreme Court case.] All of it needs to go. As I have said many times before. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC) [revised 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)]
 * Starting over: I oppose the meme section on the ground that no reliable secondary sources discuss the meme itself, except perhaps one of the legal blogs, that has it buried in one of the comments.  I am particularly troubled by the reference to Law Enforcement Today which itself misstates this complex area of law and is written by a non-attorney with a COI agenda.  I would support the proposal by  to have a section that discusses the area of law, particularly a brief summary of the area of law of right to resist unlawful arrest in the U.S>, and ideally create a new article on this field of law and go to town with lots of good sources for that article, which can discuss all the law in all of the U.S., not just Indiana.  I prefer we source without blogs and use the best sources you find in a Memorandum of Law.  I just do not see that what InforWars and The Blaze has been proven to be notable in independent reliable secondary sources.  It seems WP:FRINGE to waste our time talking about their confusion or the confusion and oversimplification of the author of Law Enforcement Today, and would be better to just explain what the law is today as it relates to Plummer and the fact that this >100 year old case, would never be binding outside of Indiana, and that you would be foolish to rely only on Plummer rather than more recent cases.  If that is in the one of the legal blogs, I would be okay with that. My major opposition is to wasting time giving any attention in our article to those who say the wrong thing, unless reliable secondary sources talk about. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Provisional support: I'm not crazy about the wording and I think we can do better on the sources, but the arguments against this section and this content are unconvincing and constitute a bastardization of policy. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, and plan to work on it after we get through this RfC, seeing if I can incorporate Holloran and other sources. We can fix wording issues at that time too. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and Guy Macon. Minor4th  00:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The source only discussed The Blaze not "Internet blogs and discussion groups" - this article should probably stay away from this in its entirety, as Plummer is entirely irrelevant to Bad Elk. There is absolutely no need to note every incorrect statement of law made by media publications. "the majority of U.S. jurisdictions" will be confusing for laypersons in an Indiana state case page - the jurisdiction of the law should be clear - this is an Inidiana case from the 19th century. As for repeating the information on Bad Elk's page a SCOTUS decision (even one decided in 1900) can't simply be disregarded based on one citation to a law review article - mostly likely it is correct that Bad Elk is no longer good law, but that needs a full discussion of subsequent legal developments since the case was decided in 1900 - it's probably best to run it through Shepard's Citations. I see that the discussion on the Bad Elk page is adequately sourced, but it should still be removed from this article. Yes, the Blaze was mistaken to say a case that wasn't cited as precedent was "upheld" by SCOTUS but that is entirely irrelevant and not worth mentioning. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Commment, I believe that this revision addresses the initial concerns of most of the community. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Source number 4 is not a source. I explained the problem before. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely a source, linked to the archive version. The article is in a major law enforcement web publication that has editorial control and fact checking for the articles that are submitted to it, and has been published for years. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Source number 4 is not linked to anything. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand. You don't understand Bluebook. Ref #4 is called a "Short Citation Form." Internet references are covered in Rule 18, and consist of author's name, article title, website, and date. On paper, the URL would be listed next, but on WP, we link it to the article title. Subsequent citations to the reference merely refer to the author's last name. On paper, you would add supra and the URL need not be repeated. See Rule 18.8(a). Let me know if you have problems understanding anything else in the citation system. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a source. It failed to verify the proposal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR - the article text states: "the Plummer quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion." The source (Cubby) states: "This statement led to much discussion in social media. The publication The Blaze cited an Indiana Supreme Court decision (Plummer v. State, 135 Ind 308 34 N.E. 968 (1893)) to support their contention that “citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Please note that The Blaze is a right-wing publication. One would tend to think that the likes of Al Sharpton would agree with this. This argument has been refuted elsewhere, stating that nowhere in the original document did the Supreme Court of Indiana make that claim or use those words. The contention voiced by Commissioner Bratton still seems credible." Exactly how does the source not support the material in the article? It directly supports the material. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Source number 4 does not link to that. It still fails V policy. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not going to respond to you or your comments further. You have to be competent to edit in a field, and while you may be competent in other areas, it is very clear that you are not competent in the legal field, either in evaluating sources, reading and interpreting citations in Bluebook, or understanding the link between a reference source and the material it supports. If you want to learn, let me know and I'll mentor you, but it's a waste of my time to rebut your comments here, since they are just wrong at a very elementary level. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 4 is not even a valid source. For a real short citation see Bomis. It is very clear the text failed V because it does not link anywhere. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gee, somehow the reference you put out as an example doesn't look like a Bluebook citation, but is a templated Harvard citation. They are not the same, and use different rules. Sorry. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source I put up works. The one being used in the proposal does not work. Please strike that part of your proposal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No. Please learn the citation system used in this article. I'll be happy to teach you. GregJackP  Boomer!   20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When the citation style does not work it then that part of the proposal needs to be removed. You have had plenty of chances to address the problem. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let me explain how it works. First, by WP:CITEVAR, any reference system can be used. Bluebook is the standard citation system for legal articles. Second, there do not have to be any links in any reference, but they can be included as a convenience. For a citation to an internet site, the first time it appears, it looks like:
 * John Doe, This is the Article Title, (Apr. 20, 2017).
 * After it appears the first time, subsequent cites will just be the last name of the author. The example you gave wasn't even the same type of citation. There's not a problem, anyone who is familiar with Bluebook would understand the citation system. Note that books, periodicals, and other documents have a different citation format. If you would like to view it online, Cornell LII has a decent site. Feel free to ask me any questions on it, or find another attorney on WP - most are willing to help teach others how to cite using Bluebook. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a problem when the citation does not work. Citation 4 does not have a link to click on. Please withdraw that part of the proposal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Let me know when you want to get up to speed with Bluebook and I'll help you. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For other editors who may not know what we are debating. See That is the citation. That citation alone does not tell the reader where to go to verify the text. I would like to start a new RfC to ban these unhelpful citation styles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, the reference is . It's a subsequent reference to a source that has already been cited, and in accordance with Bluebook R18.8(a), the short citation form is used. The problem is that QuackGuru lacks knowledge and competency in the citation system used, and is under the mistaken idea that there has to be a link to the source in every reference, ignoring the fact that the reference only needs to identify what the source is so that it can be found. It does, but QG doesn't understand how to read a Bluebook cite and has refused my offers to help him learn, or to use the link I provided him to a tutorial. If anyone has a question on it, ping me and I'll answer it. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When a reader clicks on the short citation they will be unable to verify the claim. Bluebook is not interlinked like Bomis. We should not use short citations that make it difficult to verify the claim for the reader. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So? Cite the policy that requires me to do that. I've created 5 featured articles and they don't require what you are asking for, so either cite the exact policy that requires it or drop it. On the second issue, I don't care if you don't like Bluebook, it's not your call. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CHALLENGE: See "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." The short citation violates policy. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. The short citation clearly meets the requirement of WP:CHALLENGE, it is just that you are not competent in the citation system used. Since this isn't helpful to others, I'm going to hat this part of the discussion off. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The short citation does not meet WP:CHALLENGE because it does not clearly and precisely cite a date and does not link to a full citation. You can't expect the reader to verify the claim. There is disagreement over the Bluebook citation style. See Talk:Bluebook. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia's rules exist to make articles better, not the other way around. The rules almost always result in a better article, but there are exceptions. WP:IAR specifically tells us "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." and this is a perfect example of an article where we need to apply that. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This article was just fine the way it was for the last few years. It doesn't need "improving" by taking out content after we worked very hard and came to a consensus to include it. Please read those previous discussions before opposing. We had and still have good reasons to make the decision that we made. That being said, it certainly could be improved -- but not by pretending that WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't say "Self-published or questionable sources (infowars) may be used as sources of information about themselves (the things that infowars says that they believe)." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You added the BLP violation and you continued to support it. Now you are ignoring the fact that the source does not link anywhere. It is not even a source. The wall of text you posted does not address my comment. If the text can be improved then we are forced to reject the latest proposal.
 * The same identical proposal was rejected by the community. The only difference I could tell was the removal of the quote and a sentence describing the quote. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to print out both proposals, set them side by side, and compare them. They are significantly different. The block quote was removed along with the string cite with four sources that the community didn't like. The quote remaining is directly supported by Cubby, who is a retired police captain with 38 years experience and a police trainer. You can pull up the article on the Internet Archive, or I can post a link to the original, if you wish. You're now claiming that a BLP still exists? Really? Where? GregJackP   Boomer!   19:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can start here. Part of the proposal says "Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law". Each individual source must verify the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly how is that a WP:BLP violation? GregJackP   Boomer!   19:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment above does not verify the claim. It is WP:OR. Please try to verify the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, please stop responding to QuackGuru. Nothing you say will change his behavior. His block log says it all. QuackGuru, please post your RfC asking that the Bluebook citation system be not allowed in legal articles or drop the stick. Arguing with GregJackP has zero chance of resulting in the Bluebook citation system not being allowed in legal articles. Only a successful RfC can accomplish that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See this part of the proposal "Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law,[5]" Can you verify the text? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (...silence...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Two problems:
 * The notion that Black Elk is often misquoted is not supported by Cubby, so this is unsourced. The closest independent source we had for that was Greenfield but it not cited for the first sentence. This does need to be sourced.
 * Are you actually citing WP:USERGENERATED comments on a blog? Wow.  That is the biggest stretch of WP:PARITY I have ever seen. I appreciate the honesty of actually noting that this is what you are doing in the citation note... but wow.  Am not objecting.  Am just saying wow.
 * It is so strange that there is no legal blog posting or legal journal article about this at all - such that the only things that can be brought are crappy sourcing like this.   It makes it seem like this really is UNDUE.   If this is really so important why are there not better references addressing this  head on?  Stretching for comments on a blog.... Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) First, you may want to go back and sign your comment - looks like you hit the tilde button one too many times, as it just posted the time.
 * Black Elk is supported by the Greenfield references and if needed, I can add that to the references for the first sentence if this version is approved.
 * No, I'm citing a federal judge on his own blog, and the discussion he is having with lawyers.
 * It's not really strange. You don't see peer-reviewed articles on creation science because it is not really science, it's a fringe attempt to get religion back in the classroom and prove that the Earth is 6000 years old. It's bullshit. The so-called sovereign citizen, common-law movement is the same way, and you are not going to find scholarly articles about what the village idiots think about the law. We're an encyclopedia, we need to make people smarter, not stupider, and when people hear about Plummer on the internet, a lot will check it on Wikipedia. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Am well aware that people write stupid and sloppy bullshit on the internet..... but enough about that.
 * As we discussed above, what Scott says about Black Elk is "More to the point, I doubt Dorf (or LII’s Bruce) realizes how many people still contend that the Supreme Court’s John Bad Elk decision, authorizing the use of deadly force against an illegal police arrest, remains good law." which doesn't quite say that it is actually misquoted, just that people think it is good law when it isn't.
 * Am not calling for a legal journal article, not at all - even a blog that discussed this directly would be great, where we didn't actually have to cite comments. I just noticed that the comments actually cite Wikipedia, so this fails WP:CIRCULAR as well as WP:USERGENERATED. Parity does not reach that far.  We really cannot cite this.
 * Again the fact that nobody talks about this dead on makes it seem like this is UNDUE. Would be willing to let this slide if we kill the Swisher blog. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Something missed in all this sound and fury seems to be the very legitimate issue of education about a widespread (and potentially very dangerous) false internet meme. OF COURSE relatively unreliable sources perpetuate a false meme, and of course these sorts of urban myths are not going to be routinely discussed in mainstream sources. Nonetheless, as  is trying to explain, where there is a widespread problem, it is relevant to the topic and it is whitewashing to pretend it does not exist.  So here, we have to turn to the blogosphere, and look to the credibility of the individuals involved.  A federal judge is a pretty darn reliable source, people who do legal analysis in a blog post may well be making a reliable statement.  As we say in the law itself, the blogosphere nature of the source goes to its weight, not its admissibility.   Montanabw (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, nothing is being missed. Speaking for this editor at least, the suggestion that we should engage in advocacy, whether couched as "education" or not, runs counter to our purpose (see WP:RGW & WP:NOT), and is not, in itself, a compelling reason for inclusion. The argument is understood, but not agreed with; please do not confuse these. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Judge Kopf's blog was an ABA Top 100 Blawg in 2013 & 2014, until he shut it down. Scott Greenfield's blog was an ABA Top 100 Blawg from it's inception until 2012, when it was put in the ABA Blawg Hall of Fame next to SCOTUSblog. Other ABA HOF blogs are Above the Law, Lawyerist, Patently-O, Popehat, and The Volokh Conspiracy, just to name a few. These are all reliable sources. Plus, Greenfield's blog has been cited in numerous court opinions, see United States v. Erwin, 779 F.3d 620 (3d Cir. 2014) (which also cited Judge Kopf's blog); and State v. Peeler, 140 A.3d 811 (Conn. 2016). Normal blogs don't get cited in Federal Appellate Court decisions and State Supreme Court decisions. These are clearly reliable sources, written by experts in the field. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The blog postings themselves would be fine sources under PARITY. The usergenerated content in the comments is not, and the CIRCULAR content is not. Unfortunately the cases are only discussed in the comments in the two refs I noted in my !vote above. We are not far from agreement here. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked for sources this morning mainly to see how notable this meme even is. There's not much out there that I could find as far as RS discussing it though there are fringe websites that do. I think it just passes the threshold to deserve a mention. I agree with Jytdog above that the refs to blog comments have to go. The first sentence should be cited to both Cubby and Greenfield to cover the "often misquoted" as Cubby alone is speaking about only one instance. The third sentence should just be something like "Legal commentator and criminal defense attorney Scott H. Greenfield..." and flow into the quote. From looking around at sources it seems Greenfield's opinions are given a lot of weight in the field and he's notable enough to stand alone as representing the general consensus of lawyers. Capeo (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:GregJackP would you please speak to the issues with WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRCULAR? I am not disputing use of the blog itself (the main posting) - this is fine per PARITY.  The problem is that Plummer and Bad Elk are discussed only in the comments where anyone can contribute  - and in one of those comment sections, an old version of this page is cited and used as evidence.   RS clearly forbids using such sources.  Please speak to this - your comments about these 2 sources for example here are speaking to use of the blogs generally which I am not contesting.  We have agreement if that sentence and those two refs come out.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * None of this comes from reliable independent secondary sources. [The law reviews are good WP:RS for law, but neither mentions the Indiana Supreme Court case.] All of it needs to go. As I have said many times before. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC) [revised 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)]
 * Neither of the law reviews are reliable, independent sources? That's an interesting position. In addition, over at the BLPN board, Mendaliv posted another potential source, Holloran v. Duncan, No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2017), which he states discusses Bad Elk and criticizes the mistaken reliance on the case on a national level. I haven't read it yet, so I can't confirm that, but I have no reason to doubt what Mendaliv said the opinion stated. Finally, both of the legal blogs are clearly reliable sources, written by subject matter experts and accepted as such in the legal community. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The two law review articles are potentially WP:RS for the law about resisting unlawful arrest, but neither discusses Plummer specifically. Neither does the Holloran case.  Worse, one of the reviews is from 1997, and the relevant law about resisting unlawful arrest has changed.  And the 1997 review appears to contradict what you are trying to prove about how valid Plummer still is in Indiana.  It says:


 * Other remnants of the right to resist an unlawful arrest remain. At least one court has held that while a person no longer enjoys the right to resist an unlawful arrest conducted in a public place, a person does enjoy a limited right to resist the arrest in his home. In Casselman v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld an individual's right to resist an unlawful entry in his home. The court found a distinction between resisting an unlawful arrest and repelling an unlawful intrusion into one's home.


 * But a significant Indiana Supreme Court case, coming after 1997, Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572 (Ind.2011) would certainly overturn that, with the holding, "A right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy....Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action."  But Shepard's shows negative history for this case too. In particular, an Indiana appellate court of first impression wrote:


 * In Barnes v. State, 953 N.E.2d 473, 474-75 (Ind. 2011), our supreme court held on rehearing that "the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer."1 In so holding, the Barnes court noted that "[t]he General Assembly can and does create statutory defenses to the offenses it criminalizes, and the crime of battery against a police officer stands on no different ground. What the statutory defenses should be, if any, is in its hands." Id. at 475.


 * In its legislative response to Barnes, the General Assembly found and declared that "it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant." Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(a) (emphasis supplied).
 * Cupello v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1122, 1124 (Ind.App.2015).
 * I did read some of Holloran v. Duncan, No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2017), which does indeed discuss Bad Elk when used in a jury instruction:
 * the Court assumes they are referring to that contained in D.E. 227 entitled "Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest." The proposed instruction stated as follows:
 * The right to resist an unlawful arrest was well established at common law. "If the officer have no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest." John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535, 20 S. Ct. 729, 731, 44 L. Ed. 874 (1900). "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and [*56] courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." United States v. [DiRe], 332 U.S. 581, 594, 68 S. Ct. 222, 228, 92 L. Ed. 210 (1948).
 * Holloran v. Duncan, W.D.Tenn. No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717, at *55-56 (Mar. 30, 2017).
 * It goes on to say:
 * The Sixth Circuit recognized in United States v. Halliburton, No. 91-6268, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37885, 1992 WL 138433, at *5 (6th Cir. June 19, 1992) (per curiam), that "[t]he principle enunciated in the John Bad Elk case remains valid but is much criticized." Other cases have likewise looked askance at the 117-year-old decision.
 * The Sixth Circuit recognized in United States v. Halliburton, No. 91-6268, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 37885, 1992 WL 138433, at *5 (6th Cir. June 19, 1992) (per curiam), that "[t]he principle enunciated in the John Bad Elk case remains valid but is much criticized." Other cases have likewise looked askance at the 117-year-old decision.


 * Holloran v. Duncan, W.D.Tenn. No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717, at *56 (Mar. 30, 2017)


 * The Court did not find the proposed jury instruction bad law, only that it was "much criticized" and seemed to be falling out of favor. And this is for Tennessee rather than for Indiana.  I did not spend much time reviewing the other law review article.  It seems clear to me from reading the material I have reviewed that the right to resist unlawful arrest was common law and in many places it has been overturned and eroded, but not completely, and the extent to which it is good law, especially with regard to states like Indiana having the "Castle Doctrine" appears to differ strongly based on the jurisdiction.
 * The whole problem with all of this is that neither The Blaze, Law Enforcement Today, Inforwars, or the other sources are reliable sources for talking about the law, which is why they badly oversimplify and cite or quote a court case, run Sherpard's, or prepare a proper legal memorandum on whatever law they are trying to discuss, etc. So we really just shouldn't waste our time with whatever they have to say about it, no matter how confused they are.  I don't think we need to document every case where someone said something about the law that was not quite right, or we would fill are legal articles with tons of useless junk. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again I say, infowars is not being used as a reliable source for talking about the law. Infowars is being used as a reliable source for talking about the views published by infowars. This is a basic concept that keeps being ignored on this page. It's as if everyone wanted to remove references to the words of Heinrich Himmler, Willis Carto, and James Keegstra from our Holocaust denial article because they aren't "reliable sources on whether the Holocaust happened". That's the point. We list prominent adherents of fringe views and document what they say about the topic. We don't say that they are right, but we don't pretend that they don't exist either. How many times am I going to have to explain this? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that Infowars is not a reliable source for talking about the law, and also that it is a reliable source for talking about the views published by Infowars. But I don't agree that everything Infowars publishes is notable; just as every word of Mein Kampf is not notable either.  I believe that it is only notable if independent secondary sources talk about it.  In this case, we have none.  If you believe there are multiple independent secondary reliable sources that talk about what Infowars said about this case, which ones are you referring to? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC)We do not have a WP:LAWRS that is similar to WP:MEDRS, and the way that you find out what the law is to look (and cite) to the primary source, per MOS:LAW. What you are attempting to do is to apply the MEDRS (or at least a similar) standard to legal articles, which won't fly because there are not always bright line rules in the law.
 * You stated that the court in Holloran did not find that Bad Elk was bad law—to the contrary, that's exactly what they found. Any competent lawyer that read Holloman would come to the same conclusion. The Sixth Circuit found Bad Elk criticized; the Eighth Circuit said it was no longer "good law"; Third Circuit said there was no longer a right to resist; Seventh Circuit, Bad Elk diminished; and the Second Circuit which cited Judge Learned Hand in saying that following Bad Elk was "a blow for attempted anarchy." The court also looked at cases from Tennessee and Texas that also said the same thing. If all of that was clear enough, the court then denied the appeal of the jury instruction, noting that the defendants attorneys had presented no authorities to show that the instruction which contradicted Bad Elk was "confusing, misleading, and prejudicial." That clearly indicates to lawyers that Bad Elk is no longer good law. It is why someone like Scott Greenfield said that "I doubt Dorf (or LII’s Bruce) realizes how many people still contend that the Supreme Court’s John Bad Elk decision, authorizing the use of deadly force against an illegal police arrest, remains good law." Scott said that because lawyers realize that Bad Elk is not good law anymore. He stated another place that "It is not good law anywhere in the United States."


 * BTW, both legal blogs are reliable sources under WP:UGC which states in the relevant part that "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." I've showed where Greenfield's (and Kopf's) blogs have been published in appellate court rulings. Hell, the American Bar Association journal has said that they are experts, part of the best available for discussion on the law.
 * Look, I understand that you are trying to help, but something that you need to realize is that I'm a content creator. I've taken five legal articles to featured status and about twenty to good article status. I pretty much stick to legal articles because as a lawyer, that's what I know best. I'm sure that will confirm what I've said, that's one other lawyer.  is a third lawyer who supports my position.  who supported the first version, but hasn't weighed in here yet, is also a lawyer. None of the lawyers who have reviewed this have indicated that there is a problem with the sources and all have supported including it in the article. Not one has opposed it—which should tell you something.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:GregJackP You are the only person discussing MEDRS.  WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERGENERATED are part of WP:RS.     Please  address the actual problem with the two refs.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just dropping in because I got pinged. I agree that it's a huge problem that none of the sources used to criticize the assertion that Plummer is good law or reflective of state law actually discuss Plummer. This is a general problem when dealing with pseudolegal arguments and other bunkum like what Infowars and the like tend to spew: Someone, typically someone fighting a criminal case pro se, learns to use Westlaw for the first time and spends hours upon hours finding random cases about this kind of thing. And the reason these things live so long is likely because the bad arguments rarely get properly addressed on appeal, and are often handpicked because they haven't been addressed recently. Now, as has been discussed, there is some truth to the argument that the common law permits a person to resist an unlawful arrest. And, in the case of Plummer, it doesn't appear that the rule is completely dead. See Wilson v. State, 842 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). But we have two big problems. First, the context of the Inforwars and similar sources is that the Plummer rule is extended to apply to all situations in all states, and does not note that it is the court that will ultimately decide whether the arrest was lawful, that it will be the defendant's burden to prove it unlawful, and that as a practical matter, overcoming that burden will be tremendously difficult. Infowars doesn't make that distinction. Second, we don't have any clear secondary sources directly refuting the Infowars claims, or directly making the argument I make above, such that we can cite it without risking unpublished synthesis. But, as the lawyers in this discussion will tell you, crap like what Infowars puts out is a serious problem, has some prominence in everyday practice, but doesn't make a ripple in the academic literature. So we wind up with a situation where inclusion of the Infowars claim, or some other sourced form of it, is highly appropriate even though the pseudolegal arguments themselves rarely make it past self-published sources. I think this is a situation where it would be editorially proper to discuss even though there are RS problems. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with your analysis of the situation, except the last two sentences. I appreciate that you highlighted what I have said elsewhere too that jurisdiction is important and the crappy sources like Infowars completely overlook that.  But refs #2, #3 and #4 (Law Enforcement Today) that are used above to justify the claim that sources like The Blaze are wrong, is itself wrong for the same reason of overgeneralizing and giving erroneous legal advice:
 * "Nowhere in any of all that training did an officer ever hear anything about the citizen’s right to resist arrest. I never did in any training courses I attended above and beyond my academy training..."
 * "Case law has repeatedly shown that the act of resisting arrest is an act against the state and the wishes of the people who entrusted those decisions to the authorities who enacted them and interpreted them. If everyone took the view that they could resist arrest anytime they disagreed with the law, there would be anarchy."
 * "...What you cannot do is to refuse to submit to arrest by a duly-sworn officer."
 * The law reviews and current cases we looked at all show that the officer has oversimplified in a similar way as did The Blaze he was criticizing. By including Law Enforcement Today as a reference--3 times--we are giving the reader the false impression that it is a reliable secondary source on the case and the law about resisting unlawful arrest.
 * I do agree that people getting bad legal advice from a popular source like Infowars is a problem for those who are mislead, but so is getting equally bad advice from Law Enforcement Today. Also, I thought we had a rule that we are not supposed to be "righting great wrongs", which says "So, if you want to...spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community...you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in... [ WP:RS ] ."  If the secondary literature doesn't say it is a problem, then to us, it is not a problem, right?  I'm just not convinced all the bad legal advice we have about Plummer is notable.  I think we should just stick with discussing Plummer as is done in the secondary sources and cases, statutes and other sources that would be appropriate for a legal memorandum. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should we give any weight to what you are saying here, much of which is just wrong. The scholarly community you are talking about is law students, not established academics and professors. Unlike science or medicine, the "scholarly" journals are written and edited by law students. In law, you have two basic types of authorities, primary and secondary. Primary is statutes and case law, and is either binding or persuasive. Secondary is everything else, and ranges from legal treatises (which are complied by experts, not students), law journals and reviews, books, periodicals, blogs, websites, etc.
 * Second, what content have you created? A couple of articles? On a high school and a theater? I know how to create content, and don't need to explain the how and why to you about it. This has nothing to do with righting great wrongs, it is about getting the law correct. Every single lawyer who has commented has been supportive of the material being included, but you know the law better that we do? Really? I really can't believe the arrogance that you are showing in this discussion to believe that you know the law better than the lawyers here. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On looking over what I wrote, I see I might have inadvertently been too harsh on the legal blogs, especially any blog written by an expert in the field. I wouldn't choose a blog for a legal memorandum myself, and I think our policy discouraging use of WP:SELFPUBLISH is important. I dislike blogs that are self-published, even if the person is an expert, because bias is likely to not be removed from careful review as in other publications. So I will strike the part that might implicate blogs by experts. In my legal classes, blogs were not given much attention, and they don't come up on LexisNexis, but sometimes we did look at them. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second paragraph, please do resort to personal attacks. Focus on content not editor.
 * Regarding that every attorney agrees with you and disagrees with me: I am going to disagree without further evidence.  I don't know who is or is not an attorney here, since most people are anonymous. And most editors here partially agree and partially disagree with both of us and everyone else, and you are making this far to black/white.
 * Why should we give any weight to what you are saying? Because is it properly supported with WP:RS.
 * Primary is statutes and case law, and is either binding or persuasive. Secondary is everything else, and ranges from legal treatises (which are complied by experts, not students), law journals and reviews, books, periodicals, blogs, websites, etc. True.  And I used the best sources for what I wrote.  What I want to know is:  Why are you using Law Enforcement Today as a secondary source? It's obviously not written by an attorney, law student, etc.  It's written by a former police officer who doesn't want you to resist arrest ever--even if it is unlawful, even if the officer uses excessive force, even if is the result of a no-knock search without a warrant (because officers went to the wrong address) .  This issue had a multipage article in the New York Times .  We also have an article like this in the New York Times.
 * it is about getting the law correct. I'm fine with that.  We can use appropriate secondary sources including the law reviews, if they discuss Plummer.  I think the problem is that you want to use Plummer to make a discussion about the general subject of resistance to unlawful arrest in America, and we should instead have a separate article on that, and we could point readers in that direction.  There is plenty of WP:RS on that .  Would it make you happy if I created that?


 * (EC) Regarding who are attorneys: I'm an attorney and have publicly identified myself as one. I personally know that Montanabw, Notecardforfree, Wehwalt, Minor4th (who's added their support) are lawyers. I don't know Mendaliv, but he's publicly declared as an attorney and writes like a lawyer. I'm stating fact as to who are lawyers. Second, as to your complaint about the second part, you need to re-look at what I've said. There is not a personal attack there, there are statement of fact about experience in creating quality content. You misunderstand the question I asked about weight - you misread Holloran, probably because you don't have legal training. I pointed out the issues with your interpretation, which goes to the weight of the material. As to reliable sources, a source on the law does not have to be written by a lawyer. I've repeatedly used sources that are written by laymen to comment on legal articles, including featured articles. There is no requirement at all that sources have scholarly credentials, peer-review, or anything else. It just has to be a WP:RS, which Cubby is. If you want to change the way sources are used in legal articles, then you need to get the policy changed, because right now, all of the sources in the recommendation meet the requirements of a reliable source. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I do think 's proposed solution would probably work if it is falls within WP:PAG. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I reread the section on the Jury Instruction. What I read there is that the Judge did not find the refusal of the trial judge to include the Jury Instruction that cited to Bad Elk and United States v. [DiRe] (as the right to resist unlawful arrest) was insufficient to show that the trial court had erred, because (1) Bad Elk has fallen strongly out of favor in most jurisdictions and is heavily criticized with "the trend toward its abrogation." (2) A Tennessee statute (where the case was) makes resisting arrest illegal. (3) reference to a similar case in Texas which has a similar state statute about resisting arrest.  I agree the weight of the decision was very negative on Bad Elk and from seeing writing like this  (and of course the age of the case), I would not cite this proposition directly from Bad Elk, but would choose a more current case, like Hollrran that discusses just how weak Bad Elk is. If that's what you mean by "no longer good law", then I agree, that anyopne who cites Bad Elk as "good law" without reference to cases like Hollaran or other more recent sources is in error.  There is no question that InfoWars is wrong.  But that case is a ruling for Tennessee, not Indiana, and as I showed above, the Indiana statutes appear to be different.  If you have more recent cases (or statutes) in Indiana than what I showed about resisting unlawful arrest, I would love to see them.  From what I read--and I did not do a full investigation--it looks to me like the legislature and judicial branch are at odds with each on the subject, and things are a bit in limbo.  My memory of what I looked into above was that the Court clearly wanted to kill the common law rule entirely about resistance to unlawful arrest to conform with the most other states like Tennessee and Texas, and the legislature had other ideas.  Probably the legislators  were reading Infowars or The Blaze.  ;)   Honestly, I would rather work on a article about Right to Resist Unlawful Resist in U.S., where the erosion of Bad Elk and decision like Plummer can be discussed objectively with due weight, without having to worry about what misguided things InfoWars has said.   --David Tornheim (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is what I'm talking about, about misreading the material or being factually wrong. In Holloran, it was not an appellate court judge ruling on the decision of a lower, trial court judge, it was a ruling by the same trial court judge that issued the original ruling, Judge J. David Breen, was responding to defendant's JNOV motion and motion for a new trial. Procedurally, that is the first step after conviction, and the lawyers here recognize that the opinion in Holloman is not binding, since it is from a trial court. The court did not want to kill any common law rule, it cannot do so.
 * Second, this is what Scott was talking about, where laymen read the law, get it wrong, and where lawyers need to step in to correct that misinformation. It's not about "righting great wrongs," it's about getting the article right in the first place. That's why all six of the attorneys are supporting or have supported the section being present in the article. It's also why none of them have criticized the "Law Enforcement Today" reference. GregJackP   Boomer!   13:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said it was an appellate case. Obviously it is not.  lawyers here recognize that the opinion in Holloman is not binding. So do I.  That's exactly what I have said over and over again.  It's definitely not binding in Indiana which is not in the 6th circuit.  And it is not binding in the 6th circuit either because it is trial court.  My point above is that Holloran tells you that if you are relying on Bad Elk (or Plummer) as "good law" everywhere in the U.S. without Shepardizing, you have not done your homework.  Holloran makes it abundantly clear.  And you obviously agree, which is why you brought the case up.  But you as well as I know that Holloran is not binding in Indiana, and I asked you about Indiana case law and statutes that I mentioned above, and you just ignore it.  doesn't hit me with such unnecessary negativity.  S/he sees what I am getting at.  Please don't put words into the mouths of the other people who claim to be attorneys.   --David Tornheim (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you said that the Judge did not find the refusal of the trial judge which implies to anyone who understands the law that it was an appellate judge. I apologize, I should have realized, based on the other errors that you have made, that you might not make that distinction. In any event, why don't you run along, maybe create some simple articles about schools or something. Thanks for your input though. GregJackP  Boomer!   17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the state of the law is far more nuanced than any of the sources provide. The issue we're approaching here isn't one of righting great wrongs, but of providing context to material that either belongs in the article or on doctrinal matters that should be discussed in the article. Wikipedia isn't just a case briefing service; we're absolutely permitted to address a case within not only the context of cases it cites and cases citing it, but also within the general doctrinal field that it discusses. So perhaps we could pivot the discussion away from Infowars and memes, and instead towards a discussion of the substantive and procedural criminal law of resisting and self defense more generally. I think, for instance, it would be entirely appropriate to cite, for instance, to sections of LaFave's Substantive Criminal Law that discuss the general topics, even if those sections do not directly cite Plummer when collecting cases. I think that would be a good compromise approach, wouldn't it? This is very much the same problem that confronted the drafters of MEDRS. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems a more workable solution. I would think that discussing the wider area of law that the case falls within, particularly resistance to unlawful arrest is appropriate for an encyclopedic article, as long as the focus is on how the case relates to the current state of that area law, and not goes off on some wild tangent about how many people get this case confused with Bad Elk or goes into any depth about this obviously complex and changing area of law. If we point out this is a 100 year old case, that it is never binding authority outside of Indiana, that there are more current cases and statutes that trump it might make some sense. I think the best solution is to make a separate article on resistance to unlawful in America and summarize what it is the WP:RS from that article here, point readers there, so that readers who want to know just how misguided Infowars is can look at what the law today says when the go to Plummer, thinking it gives them powers they don't have, which refers them to the current state of the law.  Does that make sense?  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Break

 * User:GregJackP Would you please directly address the problems under WP:RS with respect to WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERGENERATED? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with respect to the proposed text that falls within the issues you're suggesting. The operative issue here seems to be that the Wright and Miller law review articles are old and don't mention Plummer directly. This is not necessary, and it is not violative of WP:SYN to use either those articles, or other materials on the general law of self defense and resisting arrest, to more roundly address the viewpoints that are presented by Infowars. Even if we were to exclude Infowars, it would be proper to include a section on the "current status" of the rule in this case that shows it still has some relevance to the law of self defense in Indiana, as well as including discussion of general self defense and resisting arrest law and jurisprudence in Indiana cited to, for instance Indiana Law Encyclopedia (which is a secondary source for Wikipedia purposes as it almost exclusively cites case law—primary sources), CJS and AmJur2d, relevant ALR annotations, relevant law review articles, etc. It would also be appropriate to provide a summary section overview of the general law of self defense and resisting arrest that themselves link to our articles on those subjects. Again, this is all proper, and moreover, routine, even without mentioning anything from Infowars. That said, it is a significant fringe viewpoint that we can address in proportion to its prominence. While the fringe viewpoint that you can kill an officer who unlawfully tries to arrest you is of exceedingly small prominence, the viewpoint is of substantial prominence when it comes to modern discussion of Plummer. It's reasonable to argue that the viewpoint is probably one of the sole grounds for which Plummer is still discussed, especially outside of Indiana. As such, there exist grounds for discussing the Infowars nonsense. And as rightly states above, the blogosphere nature of the source goes to its weight, not its admissibility. We don't just shut our eyes and bury our heads in the sand when nobody's come up with a better source yet. We are permitted to use our editorial discretion in this circumstance, and I believe we should. As a final note, the mischaracterization of this dispute as one of "righting great wrongs" (as distinct from the earlier mischaracterization of it as being a BLP issue) is disruptive and improper. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What Mendaliv said. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Mendaliv Infowars is off the table - rejected in the prior RfC. Please stop talking about it.  Also, Mendaliv if you will actually read the "“Taser Joe” Martinez Meets The Line" ref and "Swisher Sweets" ref, you will see that the blog postings themselves do not discuss either case - the cases are discussed only in the user comments.  You will also see that in one of those comments sections, an old version of this article is discussed and cited. These two refs violate WP:USERGENERATED and WP:CIRCULAR. It is plain as day and Wikipedia 101 level stuff.   User:GregJackP please address this.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'll conduct my discussion on relevant terms, thanks. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You refuse to actually deal with what the references say, and what WP:RS says. Noted. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care what gripes you have with the sources as presented. We're past that. I gave you, as you have conveniently ignored, a roadmap for how this content will be included. If you have an objection to my policy-based argument, I will respond to it. I will not respond, and encourage GregJackP not to respond, to your attempts to take this discussion away from productive grounds. If you can participate constructively, your points may be addressed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote in my !vote above, that if the sentence supported by those two refs comes out, I am fine with it.  This is the only flaw I have with the proposal that is actually on the table. You seem to be talking about something else. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) The blog itself is generated by Greenfield, his comments as the blog owner do not fall under WP:UGC. In "Taser Joe" there are no circular references, just a flat statement by Scott (SHG in the comments) at 6:21 and at 10:18 that it is bad law. That's not user generated content in the context of WP:UGC, which mainly discusses wikis, IMDB, and sites where the content is collaboratively created by users. Here you have content that falls under the expert exception, which states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert...", which Greenfield is. Surely you aren't contesting that? Again, all of the lawyers here have said the content is good for inclusion, and several of them (myself, Notecardforfree, Montanabw, Wehwalt) have featured articles under our belt. We know what we are doing. What part of this are you not grasping? Why do you have this need to interfere with the creation of quality content? This will be all I have to say on the subject. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for speaking to the issue. Your remarks about the "Taser Joe" blog are interesting and useful - Greenfield speaks in the comments there about Bad Elk and in my view it is a valid argument to say that those comments are on par with his blog posting itself.  (others do too, but their comments are not what we need)  Thanks for that.  I drop my objection to it and will do so in my !vote above.  With respect to the Swisher ref, unforunately the only relevant comments in the comment section are from some anonymous person named "Robert" (who is not RGK, the blog owner) and "Robert" cites WP.   I don't see how this one flies.  Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can live with dropping Judge Kopf's blog, especially since User:Mendaliv found Holloran. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to amend the RfC proposal that way, I will flip my !vote, and I would be willing to do the work of notifying those who have already !voted that the proposal changed. This should fly. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If the consensus is to keep the concept but tweak a few of the sources per GregJackP, I see no reason to amend the proposal, those who support after changes can just refractor their vote to indicate their understanding... it's a PITA to "re-!vote." Montanabw (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC will terminate (unless GregJackP closes it earlier) May 20. Now would be the time to make those tweaks so that people who come from now til then are !voting on the actual proposal.  And yes people can refactor their votes  if they want to change them. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Montanabw is correct. It's cleaner to allow this RfC to close with consensus to include the material, and then tweak / improve the refs. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "correct". You don't want to update the proposal, fine. My !vote on the proposal remains as it is, and my hope is that a competent closer will reflect that we don't allow incompetent referencing into WP.  Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A competent closer will note that of the nine support !votes (compared to the four oppose), that all five attorneys weighing in support the proposal, that one of the opposes doesn't understand Bluebook nor verification, see here; that another doesn't understand reliable sources, stating that a web publication with editorial control and fact checking is not "reliable" because the author is not a lawyer, while he himself misinterprets case law relevant to the issue. I don't think that a competent closer will ignore the fact that all the people who have created featured content support the proposal. So why don't we wait and see? GregJackP   Boomer!   19:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness closes are based on policy-and-guideline driven reasoning, and not raw numbers nor repeated irrelevant claims about putative off-wiki expertise. Especially jarring in light of the incompetence with regard to the policies and guidelines of this place. You will surely want to get in a last word, to which I will not reply as I am done here. I made my effort to reach consensus.19:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to be hard on yourself or your friends. I thought you did much better this time as far as your competence was concerned. You reached out to one to explain that I was correct in what I did, you didn't address Bluebook as an issue, and so on. So I wouldn't fret about incompetence, I see plenty of improvement. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)