Talk:Roger Benitez

NPOV
There's an unregistered editor writing edit summaries that are politically charged and constitute ad hominem attacks while editing this article. The summaries seem to be references to Benitez's decision on California's Assault Weapons Ban. These summaries are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can request hiding revisions or edit summaries via the instructions here.Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing “politically charged” about observing that a Swiss Army knife is not a combat weapon. It also not “ad hominem” to describe a statement as “insane”, though it is impolite and therefore I can agree with removing the wording. OTOH the current version of the article gives an interpretation of the comparison that eschews the literal reading for something much less over the top, and I would suggest to restore the actual wording.14.3.151.90 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Heller Citation and Reuters Article Regarding Kolbe v Hogan (Assault Weapons Ban)
Regarding the invocation of The 4th circuit's opinion of "Assault Weapons" in Kolbe v Hogan via the Reuters article, The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would not be binding on a judge that is within the jurisdiction of The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Additionally, the quote provided is out of context and misleading.

District of Columbia V Heller

Page 55 of the opinion provides the full context

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "
 * Except you're doing WP:OR. Secondary reliable source Reuters reported:
 * soibangla (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly how is this WP:OR? The quotation provided by soibangla is not germane to the the biography of Judge Benitez, nor is it a faithful quotation of the opinion of the court in Heller.While it could be argued that is how The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted Heller in Kolbe v Hogan, it is not the opinion of Antonin Scalia nor of The United States Supreme Court, let alone germane.

Below is the full context from which the quotation provided by soibangla drew via the Reuters article.

This would not violate Rule 4 regarding Primary Sources as providing full context of source material is not analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of primary source material. Additionally, this quotation is consistent with:

The United States Supreme Court website which holds District of Columbia v Heller is a publicly available resource for any person with a computer to verify (let alone any educated person).

If anything, the quotation supplied by soibangla is itself WP:OR.

PubliusChecker (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, such as expertise in constitutional law to accurately interpret complex SCOTUS decisions. This is why we rely on reliable secondary sources rather than raw documents interpreted by editors. soibangla (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not further, specialized knowledge to provide full context of a quotation from publicly available document. Any person in the world can do a CTRL+F within their browser to provide full context.

Additionally, the provided Reuters article is providing a demonstratively & materially false representation of the opinion of The United States Supreme Court (and that of the late Antonin Scalia) through selective quotation without proper remarking such as using ellipses to indicate certain text is omitted.

No case has been granted a writ of certiorari pertaining to any question of Assault Weapon Bans by The United States Supreme Court as of this writing, let alone opinion issued.

The insertion of the Reuters coverage of Kolbe v Hogan and The 4th Circuit's interpretation of Heller is not relevant to a biographical entry of Judge Benitez. PubliusChecker (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ctrl+F is certainly useful in finding content, but it doesn't do much to interpret semantics. Heller was added to the paragraph because the judge specifically referenced it in his decision, even though Heller doesn't support ownership of assault weapons. BTW, kudos to you for ramping up so quickly on the mechanics of WP within just a day. soibangla (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. The issue is less to do with semantics, but rather providing proper context of Heller and language within Heller.Without the inclusion of ellipses, it implies that Heller ruled pertaining to Assault Weapon Bans despite the syllabus of Heller stating holdings of:

While the syllabus isn't considered "the opinion", it provides an outline of how the opinion will flow.

Heller at its core does not cover AR-15s, M-16s or any other "Assault Weapon" explicitly in terms of legality. With that said, Kolbe v Hogan (what the Reuters article covers)was a case in separate judicial circuit from that which Judge Benitez is part of.As such, it would not be binding on Judge Benitez.It is not the opinion of The United States Supreme Court, but that of The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit. It would be more accurate to say there remains a dispute among federal courts as to the legality of such weapons and any edits should further reflect that and would allow the referenced article to remain as part of the record.PubliusChecker (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with semantics, and this is not the venue to be debating 2A and Heller, we use reliable secondary sources rather than any editor's interpretation of SCOTUS decisions. Continuing to cite long passages of Heller does not bolster your argument here. Please do not endeavor to remove the content based on your approach thus far, as doing so simply would not be compliant with policy. Benitez cited both Heller and Miller to allow assault weapons, yet neither precedent allowed them, and virtually every federal court prior to Heller found the 2A was a collective rather than individual right. I suggest googling what chief justice Burger said about the new interpretation of 2A after his retirement: "Fraud."] soibangla (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think you are using the word "semantics" properly. What your edits amount to are a significant and material distortion of the court record. The contribution as it stands to a biographical entry of Judge Benitez is serving no other purpose than to distort the record for the sake of partisan editing during high traffic times. Providing FULL context to a quote showing a significant and material distortion on the actual judicial record made by an editor is not interpretation.The honest edit would be to re-write your contribution to indicate that there is a dispute in other federal circuits regarding such weaponry as opposed to distorting the record of The United States Supreme Court.I have not declared my intention toward 2A and Heller, but rather sought to correct shoddy editing done in a nakedly partisan fashion.It appears though,you have imparted your own biases into your editorial decisions.

I'll let other editors make the determination based upon this discussion between you and I as to whether or not this article should be changed to reflect the current state of The United States Supreme Court precedent. Your contribution is what amounts to WP:OR as I have stated before:

To spell this out plainly: The United States Supreme Court has not ruled IN ANY DIRECTION regarding the legality of these weapons as of this writing and your contribution is a deliberate distortion of the judicial record constituting WP:OR.

This is not editorial "interpretation",this is a publicly available fact. Invoking the term "reliable secondary sources" is a sleight of hand to conflate Reuters coverage of what The United States Courts of Appeals for the 4th Circuit THOUGHT Heller supported with what The United States Supreme Court has granted cert AND ruled on.You have conflated the issues of The 2nd Amendment being an individual versus collective right and that of possession and carry of "Assault Weapons". As I said, the far more neutral take would be to state Judge Benitez cited Heller in his decision, but the issue remains disputed within other federal courts.

If you want to dispute Stare Decisis by claiming judicial activism and citing Chief Justice Burger, that's your privilege but invoking it is nothing more than you editorializing your opinion onto this article through manipulative citation games.Additionally, wouldn't a citation of Chief Justice Burger's own statements constitute WP:OR since you have taken Chief Justice Burger's own words without the use of a "reliable secondary source" to use as an interpretive lens?PubliusChecker (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the bottom line: you are disputing a reliable secondary source with your interpretation of a primary source. This is in direct contravention of a cardinal principle of this encyclopedia, and if it were allowed Wikipedia would be full of Bundy analysis. Nowhere in your verbosity here do I see you providing a single reliable secondary source to make your argument, and those are our bread and butter here. Your analysis may be completely correct, but it doesn't matter here, and this is why I've tried to explain that your long Heller passages are futile here, regardless of whether your interpretation is correct. You can certainly challenge the content with other reliable secondary sources, or simply by reverting it and asking others to defend its inclusion, but your approach thus far is fatally flawed from the standpoint of the core principles of Wikipedia. But don't take my word for it, ask around. Please note that I included the Burger clip here on a Talk page for discussion and persuasion purposes, but in no way did I suggest it should be cited in the article. There's a very big difference. I have numerous other objections to what you just wrote, but this discussion has become a time sink for me and I'm just gonna let it go, so I encourage you and others to discuss it further. soibangla (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The straw-man of "reliable secondary source" is on full display here. From your source:

Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th Circuit

This is a report of The United States Court of Appeals for The 4th Circuit's interpretation of Scalia's remarks in Heller by Reuters.This is a tertiary source, not a secondary one given that Heller itself is primary and The 4th Circuit's Opinion in Kolbe v Hogan would be a secondary source.

Wikipedia's own documentation on sources.

Appropriate use of primary and tertiary sources

Providing the full context of Justice Scalia's quote is an uncontroversial fact unto itself.If calling out this scholastic malpractice is likened to amateurism as opposed to grappling with the criticism of the editorial malfeasance, then your fiefdom lies upon a poor foundation. If you insist however:

Post-Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence

Your standards are far too lax in terms of what you deem to be reliable, but again, here are Wikipedia's own definitions.

There is no more reliable source for the meaning of a United States Supreme Court Opinion on an issue than The United States Supreme Court itself. The selective, literal quotation of a portion of District of Columbia v Heller laundered about purporting to be faithfully exhaustive and authoritative is nakedly transparent.

Given that both a PRIMARY and SECONDARY source have indicated no United States Supreme Court Opinion, nor that of the opinion of the late Justice Antonin Scalia has indicated Assault Weapons Bans are constitutional, your contribution is that of WP:OR. The conflation of verbosity with that of irrelevancy (and dare I say implication of falsehood) is rather telling given your editorial work is on rather dubious grounds. Your strongest case for factual determination of this claim would be grants of cert, but so far none are offered by you.

I was under the assumption that I was a rank amateur capable of only "Bundy Analysis"? Shouldn't be too hard to deal with the likes of me in terms of your disagreements.Our discussion has made it quite clear, institutional and practical norms of select Wikipedia editors have been equated with truth,proper scrutiny however demonstrates the lack of ability by those said editors to ascertain truth and such inability is obvious to a layperson. PubliusChecker (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research and Circular Referencing
The passage - "Benitez vocalized his disapproval of the measure in his ruling and expressed doubt that it had assisted in reducing the number of deaths inflicted by AR-15 variants, stating "More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California."" - does not have anything approaching a proper reference to backup that quote. It instead cites a CDC page on vaccination and a wikipedia page listing shooting in California. Of course, that would constitute circular referencing on top of original research. I do not really interact with the Wiki that much (I only keep an account for the rare bout of copyediting), but when I was looking at this page (Template:Original research inline) thinking that would be a good quiet remedy, I learned about the exceptions to its use under the BLP policy.

Can someone with more experience take a close look at that passage? From the looks of it that quotation seems like a serious violation of BLP in and of itself given the useless references presented. I just don't want to mess with a bio page to remedy the suspected issue unilaterally. Goddale120 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I looked through the article's history and found the problem edit from June 19, 2022. An editor removed washington post references for the quote, seeming to dismiss those articles as "partisan" and "personal opinion", replacing them with the aforementioned original research and circular referencing. I know to assume good faith, and would suggest just removing that quote from the article altogether if those previously utilized references are too "partisan" for the regular editors of these articles. As of right now, it appears to just be a made up quote attributed to that judge, and of a very serious and controversial topic as well. Goddale120 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit war resolution
as referenced by other editors, your content additions seem POV-pushing; I'd be happy to discuss this if you'd like. Please also note that further reverts without discussions and resolution might violate WP:3RR. Iseult  Δx parlez moi 01:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)