Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/1


 * Comment Note: SMP0328 is an active editor with self interest in the article. My personal opinion of the recent Supreme Court ruling is not relevant. (In fact, I like the ruling.) Personally, I am a hunter and I support gun rights, which is also irrelevant. The issue at hand is that presently the article does not neutrally represent all credible points of view with balance in violation of GA criteria 4. I, and other editors, have identified these unresolved POV issues on the article talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Response What does "self interest" mean? Wouldn't you also have a "self interest"? SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have an opinion along the lines of this regarding the historical pattern of editing this article, with SMP0328, Yaf and a number of the 2A special interest group of Wikipedia editors when I say "self interest". This 2A special interest POV action results in a systemic bias in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of a conspiracy. I don't consult Yaf (who has now vanished) or anyone else before making an edit. I'm not a part of any "special interest" group. SMP0328. (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You and Yaf regularly coordinated your editing to control a pro-gun bias at the 2A article, see for instance on November 14th where you sought Yaf's alliance to skew the neutrality of the article on Yaf's talk page. Yafs WP:RTV action obscures the record of this somewhat, but I suspect that an admin could confirm the Ownership of articles evidence in that diff. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are sounding paranoid. The fact that I speak to a like minded person doesn't mean we are part of a conspiracy. Do you feel there is something wrong with like minded editors speaking to one another? SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your speaking with Yaf on November 14th showed clear intent to collaborate with Yaf to defend the pro-gun ownership of the article against edits which would have made the article a less pro-gun POV. So, yes, I believe that this violated WP:NPOV policy, and was "wrong" in context of WP:Policy. This, and other similar events, has caused a pro-gun systemic bias problem with the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked him if he would like to give his opinion on the 2A talk page to questions regarding the article's neutrality. We felt, and still feel, the article is neutral. It's sad that you see something nefarious in all of that. SMP0328. (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say nefarious, but rather I am pointing out that editors like you who personally view the pro-gun POV as a neutral POV are disproportionately attracted to this article, causing WP:OWN concerns, and causing systemic bias. The challenge is to review all the available reliable sourcing, including the points of view which don't match your personal point of view, and then to edit the article to match the balance of points of views found in the reliable sourcing. The wrong thing to do is to edit the article like as you say: "We felt, and still feel, the article is neutral." The neutrality of the article shouldn't be determined by how you feel about the topic, but instead it should reflect the balance of the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not put quotes around "nefarious", so I wasn't claiming you said (or typed) that word. I was describing how you feel something was wrong with me speaking to Yaf on his user talk page. BTW, if you have reliable sourcing which you feel would improve the article, why don't you add it? You complain about neutrality, but your only solution is to remove sourced material and demand other editors implement edits you feel would improve the article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Editing in that hostile environment is difficult. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In determining whether the article should keep its GA status, please note its recent pruning. SMP0328. (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that that the article is improving, but I think there is still a ways to go before it reaches good article consideration. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)