This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMP0328. (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 18 February 2008 (→NPOV Challenge: Response to SaltyBoatr's 17:07, 18 February 2008 post.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:52, 18 February 2008 by SMP0328. (talk | contribs) (→NPOV Challenge: Response to SaltyBoatr's 17:07, 18 February 2008 post.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consensus Intro
Since the intro is now seemingly agreed upon, I've archived the discussion. Arthurrh (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thought we were still discussing the exact wording. But, whatever. Have made two minor changes in the intro, changing two words "that --> whether" and "federal individual right" to "individual right". If this is an issue for anyone, lets discuss it. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well no one had said anything for days, and SaltyBoatr had already changed it. We can restore the discussion if it's needed. I think the changes you made were good. Arthurrh (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't chimed in in several days, but I think the current status represents a pretty good compromise too. If I were to quibble with anything, it would be the word "misunderstood." It doesn't add much to "disputed" except to create the impression that the article should be read with the understanding that one of the major views of the 2A is wrong from the article's perspective. That's technically true (they can't all be right, so the non-right views must be based on misunderstanding), but it invites the reader to guess which viewpoint the article holds to be correct. The subsequent quotation from the ABA report suggests that Misplaced Pages is adopting the ABA's POV on the 2A. PubliusFL (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, that's why "misunderstood" wasn't in my original proposal. Arthurrh (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Misunderstood is a pretty important word there, for me at least. The source also says 'misinformed', and I would also favor including article coverage of the large USA societal disinformation "POV push" in the last three decades. FWIW, I am presently reading the Malcolm book, and see that the 'precedent' section seems to include original research vis a vis Malcolm. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you see that it's only "disinformation," "misinformed," or "misunderstood" if you start from the perspective of assuming that a particular POV is right? The article shouldn't do that, therefore we should be very cautious in characterizing any of the major theories as "misunderstood," "misinformed," or based on "disinformation." PubliusFL (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Misunderstood is a pretty important word there, for me at least. The source also says 'misinformed', and I would also favor including article coverage of the large USA societal disinformation "POV push" in the last three decades. FWIW, I am presently reading the Malcolm book, and see that the 'precedent' section seems to include original research vis a vis Malcolm. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- See ref, quote: There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue." My opinion is not OR, but rather based on that sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen the reference. My objection is based on NPOV, not NOR. You can find sources on all sides saying that the other side's arguments are dishonest and/or stupid, but NPOV prevents us from basing Misplaced Pages articles on such claims. The fact that side A says that side B uses "misinformation" and "misunderstands" the Constitution is based on side A's POV. The NPOV approach is to acknowledge and describe the dispute and disagreement, not to accept such characterizations. PubliusFL (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about 'side A versus side B'. Are you questioning the quotation of the ABA, hosted on the guncite website as not neutral? Either or both sides might be misunderstanding. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly do challenge the neutrality of the ABA on the issue. The ABA has long opposed the individual right interpretation of the 2A, and openly lobbied for stricter federal gun control legislation. They are not an impartial referee here. PubliusFL (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quoting the opening sentence of the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms, Harvard University Press, 1994: "The right of the ordinary citizens to possess weapons is the most extraordinary, most controversial, and least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen and bequeathed to their American colonists." (emphasis added) The fact that the 2A is often misunderstood seems to meet WP:V. Do you have a problem with the neutrality of Prof. Malcolm? By my estimation, she weighs in at the far 'pro-gun' extreme of the POV neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly do challenge the neutrality of the ABA on the issue. The ABA has long opposed the individual right interpretation of the 2A, and openly lobbied for stricter federal gun control legislation. They are not an impartial referee here. PubliusFL (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about 'side A versus side B'. Are you questioning the quotation of the ABA, hosted on the guncite website as not neutral? Either or both sides might be misunderstanding. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen the reference. My objection is based on NPOV, not NOR. You can find sources on all sides saying that the other side's arguments are dishonest and/or stupid, but NPOV prevents us from basing Misplaced Pages articles on such claims. The fact that side A says that side B uses "misinformation" and "misunderstands" the Constitution is based on side A's POV. The NPOV approach is to acknowledge and describe the dispute and disagreement, not to accept such characterizations. PubliusFL (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- See ref, quote: There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue." My opinion is not OR, but rather based on that sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am perplexed that the two issues in the following unsigned message seem to have been ignored in the now-archived discussion (Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)): The amendment only states that the people shall not have its right infringed, not the individual. Furthermore, the vast majority of legal precedent has interpreted the militia clause to be a qualifying clause, so that the second amendment is only applicable under such conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The first issue is not one I have heard before, but the second is of paramount importance and quite directly contradicts the wording of the first sentence of the current intro. I hold to this view, and thus am offended that only one view is presented in the intro, that view being that the amendment states two different things instead of stating one thing on condition of another, which it seems quite plainly to do. Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am perplexed that the two issues in the following unsigned message seem to have been ignored in the now-archived discussion (Sparr (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)): The amendment only states that the people shall not have its right infringed, not the individual. Furthermore, the vast majority of legal precedent has interpreted the militia clause to be a qualifying clause, so that the second amendment is only applicable under such conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to share your personal opinion. And, so much of this article is devoted to promoting the various personal opinions. That tension is biased by pervasive Textualist and Originalist premises which permeates the article. Why ignore the traditional authority of the States to exercise police power and legislative regulation of private use and ownership of weapons? As Jack Rakove asks: "If the adopters had the same evidence available to them that we possess today, would they place greater weight on the speculative danger of tyranny, ... Or would they agree that pressing problems of the present warrants placing greater emphasis on the police power of the states?" In other words, I think the article needs less textualism and more contextualism to hold a neutral balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The view of which part of the amendment supersedes the other is a POV. Currently, the lede is worded to take neither POV (whether the right to bear arms is protected from infringement and a militia is also a "good thing" that the right to bear arms supports, or whether there is a need for a militia, and, only for this purpose, probably collectively, only, the right to bear arms is protected against infringement.) It is not for us as editors to pick one POV over the other, but, instead, to present as balanced a lede (and article) as possible. As for the details contained in the article, because it is necessary for the article to contain reliable sources, more textualism is likely to be more appropriate, instead of placing an emphasis on contextualism that attempts to spinmeister towards any particular POV. Personally, I believe that the founding fathers focused on tyranny the most, having just thrown off the tyrannical King George and his minions, instead of focusing on any particular pressing problems that some perceive to exist in, say, 2008. I believe that the article needs solid reliable sources, with an emphasis on historical commentary, over any attempt to sway readers' opinions through appeals to contextualism appropriate for 2008. Yaf (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the Rakove article, which takes patience (it is long and dense), but Jack Rakove makes a compelling argument as to why excess reliance on originalism and textualism does not fit with a policy of WP:V. Simply put, the use of snippet quotes from historical commentary has very often been exploited out of context to push a modern political agenda. This modern political agenda conveniently ignores the fact that the framers accepted as fundamental a traditional authority of the States to exercise police power and legislative regulation; which is at odds with the modern 'right of insurrection' hypothesis. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
With all that we still need to keep in mind that the goal of wikipedia is not to present the "correct" view of a contentious issue such as the 2A, but rather to present an unbiased article with inclusion of the various arguments. Attempts to say which method of interpreting the 2A are correct simply don't belong here other than inclusion as yet another POV in the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I totally get the WP:V "it is not about truth" concept and goal of Misplaced Pages. My point is that the Textualist and Originalist approach to the 2A is vastly over represented in the article. The Contextualist POV is much under represented. It is a question of finding the neutral balance point. Have you read the Rakove article? See for instance section 6.2, 6.2.1->6.2.4 'The gun rights debate'. That section is heavily skewed towards the originalist and textualist methodology, with severely imbalanced POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a few minor changes to the Introduction. The reference to U.S. Court of Appeals decisions is now a footnote (which now includes a Ninth Circuit decision which differs sharply with the other two decisions. None of these changes affects the substance of the Introduction. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- SaltyBoatr has reverted my above described edits. He claims that there should no changes to the Introduction of this article. Is he correct? If not, I should be permitted to make non-vandalizing edits. If he correct, then some sort of warning should be placed above the Introduction so people know not to edit it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hold that changes to the intro must be by consensus, there has been far too many edit wars over this sensitive introduction to engage in changes there without working first on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why does a detailed discussion of division between the circuit courts need to be included in the intro? That detail, if verifiable and neutral, belongs in the article down below if at all. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This proposed change has major WP:POV problems because it fails to recognize that most of the circuit courts presently favor the collective interpretation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you want, I will add more Court of Appeals decisions. The current Introduction does not cite any case that follows the "collective interpretation." If changes to the Introduction are only to occur via consensus on this Talk page, then a warning stating that should be added to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the intro is the right place for a detailed accounting of the rulings of the various circuit courts. Regarding consensus, especially for sensitive articles prone to edit war like this one, please see here WP:CON. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with the introduction reading "with the majority of circuit courts favor the collective interpretation" (however it may be worded). It's quite clear that this is no longer the case, as proven in more recent cases. Mønobi 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- What are you reading that says this? WP:V sourcing says otherwise, like here and I could provide many more. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The earlier version said the following:
"Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia".
The current version does not claim which interpretation is supported by "Most" federal courts. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- (undenting) (edit conflicted) United States v. Emerson, Parker v. District of Columbia, and Silveira v. Lockyer. Mønobi 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we cite sourcing about 'most' please? I cite here] that most meet WP:V standards. Your assertion appears unfounded. Also, pending resolution, I have added a NPOV tag to the article, it is a shame we must skip the step of working a consensus on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here , where it states "the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons...regardless of whether the person is then actually a member of the militia" Mønobi 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- And your source also says (see bottom of page) that the fifth circuit stands alone, in other words, most circuit courts hold otherwise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do federal courts not matter? Why not sum it up by stating "Circuit and federal courts are in disagreement over the interpretation regarding collective and individual rights...." etc. Reword it to make it sound better, and a la fixed! Mønobi 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Gay references in article
The references to gays in the article seems irrelevant to me. I have removed the references once, but they were restored. Instead of getting into an edit war, I am posting my feelings here. Just because a couple of websites refer to gays regarding the Second Amendment does not make gay rights relevant to an article about the Second Amendment. Gay rights and the Second Amendment are separate issues. The gay references in this article should be removed. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I strongly disagree. Two reasons, 1) It is well sourced. 2) If the 2A is about the federal government not infringing the right of people in the states to belong to state militias (as most of us agree) then when the federal government prohibit a subset of the people (the gay) from participating in state militia upon federal call up is 100% relevant to an article about the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most people believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not to join a state militia. The fact that something is "well sourced" does not make it relevant to an article. If I added a well sourced section about the NFL to this article, it still wouldn't belong in this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, we all know that the 'individual right' is subject to debate and opinion is mixed. Still, I think that virtually all scholars agree that, at the least, the 2A prohibits the federal government from infringing state militias. In addition, there is the much debated question about an 'individual right' to firearms, but that is above and beyond the issue that the federal government is not allowed to infringe the state's militias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Read Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not affect these clauses that allow the Congress or the President. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, you prove my point. Funny that Congress called it the Dick Act. <grin> The fact remains that the issue of whether gays are constitutionally entitled to serve in the National Guard is 'on topic' and is well sourced. Did you read the U&M ref? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The question of whether gays can be prohibited from serving in a State militia, or U.S. Armed Forces for that matter, sounds more like an Equal Protection Clause issue. The Second Amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to be a member of any State militia or any of the U.S. Armed Forces. --SMP0328. (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The 2A does not guarantee membership in any State militia, even in the 'unorganized' militia? Many reliable sources disagree with you, yet you are entitled to your own opinion; but not to edit it into the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read the U&M ref? SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The question of whether gays can be prohibited from serving in a State militia, or U.S. Armed Forces for that matter, sounds more like an Equal Protection Clause issue. The Second Amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to be a member of any State militia or any of the U.S. Armed Forces. --SMP0328. (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which one of your footnotes is the U&M ref? --SMP0328. (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is a discussion about the 'gay' paragraph in the article right? The U&M footnote is the first of the three footnotes of the 'gay' paragraph. If you want to discuss this further, please read all three of those footnotes, then re-read WP:Policy, and come back to discuss the merits and relevancy if needed. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That article refers to the Second Amendment under the "collective right" reading of the Amendment. For now, I will leave your additions to the article in place. Whether they will stay in the article will depend on the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. If the Court rules that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, then your additions will no longer be relevant to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can tell you haven't read Uviller and Merkel because to summarize the U&M hypothesis into a phrase, "collective right" isn't accurate. It would be better described as "How the second amendment fell silent", or perhaps, "an individual right gone dormant". SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That article refers to the Second Amendment under the "collective right" reading of the Amendment. For now, I will leave your additions to the article in place. Whether they will stay in the article will depend on the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. If the Court rules that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, then your additions will no longer be relevant to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV Challenge
A challenge has been made regarding this article's neutrality. Anyone who feels this article is biased or neutral should post in this thread. It would be better for this dispute to be resolved quickly. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The POV tag could be removed if we could use the prior consensus introduction. Your recent unilateral change is not neutral because it falsely attempts to suggest an 'even' split of the circuit courts. Please cite sources in your defense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The current wording only states there is disagreement; how does this imply an 'even' split? The current NPOV looks better than before the change. Yaf (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Referring to what most circuit courts say implies that the fact that more federal courts ruled one way makes that way the right way. That is a POV. An interpretation of the Constitution does not become correct merely because more courts have ruled that way as opposed to another way. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you read this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the version of the Introduction you want. That's the version that refers to what "More" courts have ruled. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Per good solid sourcing, most of the circuit courts favor a collective interpretation. The pro-gun POV wants this fact suppressed. The suppression of solid sourcing causes the NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This text is based on data taken from meetings held in 2001 and 2002, long before all the more recent cases listed in the present footnotes that have gone the other way. Current cited data should be favored over stale data. Yaf (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which data? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- SaltyBoatr, there are multiple sources supporting both sides (see "pro-individual" source: . It's best to leave the introduction by stating there is a disagreement over "collective" or "individual" rights, which can clearly be seen by the different sources provided here. Mønobi 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you are talking of a different debate, popular opinion. The separate question at hand is the current status of court opinion. There is no doubt that "nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question." A 9:2 ratio justifies the use of the word 'most'. To omit that word causes a NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- (copied from above) Do federal courts not matter? Why not sum it up by stating "Circuit and federal courts are in disagreement over the interpretation regarding collective and individual rights...." etc. Reword it to make it sound better, and a la fixed! Mønobi 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you are talking of a different debate, popular opinion. The separate question at hand is the current status of court opinion. There is no doubt that "nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question." A 9:2 ratio justifies the use of the word 'most'. To omit that word causes a NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- We are talking of federal circuit courts, the 5th with Emerson, and now the DC circuit with Parker. The remaining nine federal circuit courts adhere to a collective interpretation. That is why the word 'most' is necessary. Leaving the word 'most' out creates a POV push that there is more disagreement in the federal court than there is in WP:V reality. SaltyBoatr (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is a section that notes that most of the U.S. Courts of Appeals have ruled 9-2 in favor of the "collective right" interpretation. So, despite the changes to the Introduction, the information that SaltyBoatr desires to be in the article is in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- And, the intro remains to have a NPOV problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seems fairly NPOV to me. Simply states the disagreement between courts. Mønobi 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of the courts hold a states rights view. This is well established WP:V fact. The pro-gun POV seeks to diminish this fact by characterizing the disagreement as merely a disagreement between courts when it is not even close to being an even disagreement. This pro-gun POV push and is at the crux of the NPOV problem. The overwhelming number of courts favor the States rights view, and just two courts have taken an outlying position of an individual rights view. The intro should accurately summarize the important points of the article, and the article states that 'most circuit courts' hold the states rights view. See here for my sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with SaltyBoatr that it is accurate and reasonable to describe the balance of the circuit courts -- the fact is that "most circuit courts" reject the kind of individual rights view described by its proponents as the "Standard Model." My caveat is that the "most circuit courts" phrase came before discussion of the "modified collective rights" theory, so the article basically said that most circuits take the simple collective rights approach, a couple take the individual rights approach, and none at all have accepted the modified collective rights approach. I'm not sure that that's accurate. I'd prefer to say that most circuit courts hold either the collective or the modified/sophisticated collective view. See, for example, U.S. v. Parker, a 10th Circuit case stating that the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits "have all adopted a 'sophisticated collective rights model.'" PubliusFL (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in. It would be helpful if you could point to the WP:V sourcing at the basis of your opinion, which I would like a chance to read so I may better understand you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that most federal courts have ruled in a particular way, does not mean that those rulings are correct. Unfortunately, many people will interpret the fact that "most" federal courts have ruled in favor of the "collective right" to mean that must be the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. Centuries ago, most people thought that the Earth was flat. Despite being in the majority, they were wrong. Referring simply to a "disagreement" is accurate and avoids the misunderstanding that can occur with the word "most." --SMP0328. (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please describe the sourcing behind your opinion, it appears to be original research and POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, the "most" refers to a state prior to the latest cases, representing a stale viewpoint. If we said "previously, most", then that would be more neutral point of view than just saying "most" without any element of the change in the courts' views. The fact the SCOTUS has taken on Heller after an absence of over 70 years is clearly indicative that there is disagreement which the SCOTUS intends to resolve. The details on "most" are in the body of the article, with the time elements identified by court case dates. Stating disagreement is a better, more NPOV way to summarize in the lede. Yaf (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Today, it is still most, including the recent DC Circuit case. 9 circuits favor a 'militia' interpretation, and two favor an individual (subject to governmental regulation) interpretation. The ratio of 9 to 2 is fairly described as 'most'. Yaf, please describe what sourcing is behind your opinion, it appears both as 'original research' and as 'POV'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is challenging the fact that "most" federal courts are following the "collective right" interpretation. What Yaf and I are saying is that "most" is subject to being misunderstood. Are you of the opinion that a reasonable person could not misunderstand "most" to mean that the the federal courts in the majority must be correct in their rulings? --SMP0328. (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is in the news today. The SCOTUS is taking up this issue for the first time since 1939 to specifically address the "militia" versus "individual" interpretation. Stating "most" implies that the SCOTUS has already ruled (they haven't), through a tacit assumption that is implying that "most" implies "correct". That is a very POV position. It is better simply to state that there is "disagreement", and put the details in the article (which are already in the article, down below.) Yaf (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- How you and Fox News thinks the SCOTUS might rule involves speculation and predictions, and WP is not a crystal ball. There no reason in 'correct' regarding the the present status of how the circuit courts have ruled. Correct, or not correct, how they have ruled how they have ruled. See and for summaries of how they have ruled. Again, could you please cite your sourcing, and spare us the arguments of your personal predictions, views and opinions? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where is your cited source that Fox News is not a reliable source? The article I cited (the oft-labeled Fair and balanced Fox News, I might add) just says that the SCOTUS is looking into this for the first time since 1939, and additionally mentions numerous amicus briefs that support the individual interpretation. Where is your cited source that states that "Most" is still the proper interpretation, and that the SCOTUS is not looking at this for the first time since 1939 to resolve the "individual" versus "militia" interpretation, and that we should mislead readers to the state that existed prior to the SCOTUS taking this case to decide the "disagreement" when "most" was the proper statement? Yaf (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I never said Fox News is not WP:RS, but only that when they predict what will occur in the future, that it is a prediction. The intro paragraph describes what presently is the status quo in the present tense, not what might be at some point in the future so the Fox News prediction does not pertain. And, I already gave you my source, look here. If you don't like 'most' we can say "by a 9:2 ratio", but 'most' is a more concise way to write it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The purpose of the lede is to summarize the present state, not belabor an historical state of affairs. If we put your proposed "9:2 ratio" wording in the lede, then, for balance, we would have to state something along the lines that "...but recent cases have engendered a shift in opinion necessitating a review for the first time since 1939 by the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the disagreement that has arisen among the district courts, as well as to resolve the shift in opinion that recently has favored an "individual" rights interpretation instead of the historical "collective" rights interpretation previously favored by District Courts". This would be needed for NPOV balance with a "9:2" statement, but such wording would be way too lengthy for the lede. Why not just state there is "disagreement" and let the body of the article (already written) flesh out the details of the historical 9 versus 2 historical results. An introduction is supposed to summarize the state of affairs, not push an anti-RKBA agenda POV. "Most" and even "9:2" wording would be pushing this into an unbalanced POV.Yaf (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have already answered your question many times. Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room here. Pro gun activist editors are trying to presage the SCOTUS Heller ruling, and predicting the future is inappropriate in WP. Solidly verifiable (see cites above, and below), the present status of rulings is that virtually all courts, and certainly 'most', hold a states rights interpretation of the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Over the years, 11 of the 13 federal appellate districts have held that 2nd Amendment rights are collective, pertaining, as the Constitution says, to the maintenance of "a well ordered militia." Recently, however, a court in the District of Columbia struck down that jurisdiction's handgun ban, ruling that the 2nd Amendment confers individual rights to gun ownership. The case -- District of Columbia vs. Heller -- is before the U.S Supreme Court.
— Tim Rutton, Los Angeles Times Feb 16, 2008
- If we were "pro gun activist editors", wouldn't we be trying to make the article have a pro-RKBA POV. Wouldn't we remove any reference to a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment? We haven't done that. You're reference to us as "pro gun activist editors" is simply hyperbole. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. Consider rather the problem of Systemic bias, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Editors with a pro-gun bias have a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article. Notice that this article is part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Firearms, and not part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gun control. The issue of systemic bias affecting the neutrality of this article is real, and editors must take this bias into account when determining the neutrality balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where is your sourcing for "ditors with a pro-gun bias having a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article"? As for Wikiprojects, if you want one for Gun Control then you should take that up at a forum from which such a Wikiproject could result. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can see it. Just review the revision history. Such as; here is one specific instance, anecdotal I know but real none-the-less. Here is another specific incident. I could cite many more. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- None of what you cite proves that "ditors with a pro-gun bias having a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article." The first cite shows the edits I made to the Introduction. I guess that means that since you feel that my edits were friendly to the "individual right" interpretation, my edits must come from "a pro-gun bias." The second cite only proves that I feel you have an anti-RKBA bias. The third cite shows what Yaf's name represents. The last cite shows, at most, that Free Republic (a conservative website) expressed a desire on November 28, 2007 to edit the article. I'm not from Free Republic. So you still have not proven that "ditors with a pro-gun bias hav a disproportionate tendency to be attracted to this article." BTW, what's your definition of bias? If you use that term broadly, and if Yaf and I have "pro-gun bias," then you must have an anti-gun bias. Wouldn't it be nicer to say each of us has a different opinion, rather than a "bias"? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am using the term 'bias' in the sense of Systemic bias. Neither you nor I should edit our personal bias, but rather we should refer to a broad spectrum of the most reliable sources, and determine the neutral balance point of opinions of these sources and then seek to edit the article to the balance point among that reliable sourcing. As opposed to a balance point of the personal opinions of self selected editors with a tendency towards being pro-gun. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Part of your sourcing comes from the New York Times. That newspaper is known for having ideological biases (e.g. ). So I wouldn't consider that newspaper to be a reliable source. As for a "balance point", the article currently refers to a "disagreement" among the various U.S. Courts of Appeals and later mentions that this disagreement is 9-2 in favor of a "collective right" or "state's right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are asking that this 9-2 split be mentioned twice in the article. Why does it need to be mentioned twice? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- My NYT sourcing is consistent with many other sources, which I have given above, such as this book. What is your sourcing? Are we in disagreement about whether the lead section should make mention of the the disagreement in the courts? I presume your answer is no. Then, we must accurately summarize the article when we put this point in the lead section. It is inaccurate to describe a disagreement in the court as a simple disagreement, when that disagreement is that a vast majority of the court says one thing, and two isolated court cases saying another. It is a POV error to describe that imbalance as simply a disagreement. That is why I favor the use of the word 'most courts' believe X to describe the current status of the courts. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The NYT has a left-wing bias and in my previous post I provided sourcing for that assertion. You know that I want the Introduction to refer to a "disagreement", but I don't feel that the 9-2 split needs to be mentioned twice in the article. As I stated earlier, the fact that 9 courts rule one way and 2 rule the opposite way does not mean that the ruling of the of the 9 is correct. So how is it relevant that the "disagreement" involves a 9-2 split? Would you want the article to refer to the fact that the last two Court of Appeals rulings held that the Second Amendment referred to an individual right? If the 9-2 split is relevant, then so is that fact. I feel that the Introduction should be a synopsis of the article, hence the simple reference to a "disagreement." The details of that disagreement should be, and are, in the main body of the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- How my user name (Yet another fellow == YAF) and user page with a quote by Samuel Adams is interpreted as a pro-gun bias, I do not understand. Samuel Adams simply supported preserving all our rights under the constitution, including the Right to Free Speech which is inherent with making a better WP, and I agree wholeheartedly with his philosophy of protecting our rights, including others' right to free speech (SaltyBoatr's, too!). But, does this mean that SaltyBoatr now proposes eliminating our rights under the constitution through advocating instead the "artifices of false and designing men" that Adams warned us against, to usurp our constitutional rights? This kind of paranoia, that sees a pro-gun bias behind every edit on WP, is totally off topic towards achieving a better 2A article. Instead of allowing this discussion to drop into a name calling exercise, I propose we return to editing the 2A article with cited statements, and focus on writing a better encyclopedia. Are we in agreement? (By the way, what is "Free Republic"?) Yaf (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Free Republic is a conservative website . As for your proposal, I am in total agreement. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Use of the term anti-RKBA, is esoteric and indicative of a pro-gun POV. Membership in the Wikiproject Firearms is also indicative of a pro-gun interest that has been self selected. My calling attention to this is not intended to be pejorative, but rather I am calling attention to the duty we have as editor to be aware of personal bias as part of our WP:NPOV policy obligation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class law articles
- High-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed Firearms articles
- High-importance Firearms articles
- WikiProject Firearms articles