Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Reliable or not reliable?

The following was recently removed from the article:

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

The edit summary for the removal provided lack of reliable sourcing as the reason. Is the sourcing provided reliable? If not. why not? SMP0328. (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Change the first cite so it is clear that the source is Patrick Henry's 1788 speech. Wake Forest is merely where you got it. The second source is redundant and probably fails rs, so remove it. TFD (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither source meet the requirements of WP:RS. Belchfire-TALK 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the sourcing of the Patrick Henry material, per TDF's suggestion. I've also restored other recently removed material, but added cite tags to it. There should be a chance for proper sourcing to be added to that material. Only if that fails, should that material be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your last sentence, but be advised: the wfu.edu source fails RS, so you might want to start searching for a replacement. The references provided at the end of the page would be a great place to start. Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The speech itself does not fail rs and that is the source, not the website. A lot of material used in Wikipedia is taken from reprints posted to websites, such as Google books. Readers and editors are able to check other copies if they choose. The link just is helpful for people who wish to read more. Where we would have problems would be if we used a an article on wfu that summarized the speech and therefore became a secondary source. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The speech is not the source; the Wakefield web page is the source. It's a secondary source, and secondary sources are not considered reliable unless they have editorial oversight. See WP:RS and WP:V.

The page is just somebody's user space on a university server - it might be a faithful reproduction of the speech, but there is no way to know if anybody's checked it for accuracy. It could be a work of fiction cut from whole cloth, and there's no evidence that anybody would be held accountable if that were the case.

In all likelihood, there's nothing wrong with that version of the speech, but that's not the point. The point is that the Wakefield source doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia's policy for secondary sources, and that's the actual answer to the initial question that was asked here. Belchfire-TALK 06:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.... A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Henry's speech is a primary source, while an article commenting on it is a secondary source. And we are allowed to provide external links to copies of primary sources. In fact if the cite had not mentioned where the editor found a copy of the source, you would have no cause for complaint. It seems reasonable however that the Wake Forest University copies of "primary texts", not "just somebody's user space on a university server", would be accurate. This issue comes up occasionally at RSN and the RS talk page, and you are welcome to ask again. TFD (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again, even if you might be right about what kind of source it is. Look at the policy you linked: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia;" As I've already pointed out, there is nothing whatsoever to ensure that the Wakefield source is an accurate copy. It's a personal web page, not a reliably published source. Belchfire-TALK 07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It was reliably published in the 1700s, which is why we have a record today. There are of course primary sources that have not been reliably published, for example, an account of meeting aliens on a UFO website, and of course we should exclude them. Again if you do not believe me then take it to the RS talk page. TFD (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• You have a remarkable gift for missing the point. Yes, we all know the speech was published a very long time ago - the point is, how do you know you are looking at an accurate copy? In the case of the source being used, you don't know. We should be using a reliable source, and we have guidelines to help us identify such sources. I've already spelled out why the current source fails, per the guidelines. Belchfire-TALK 11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is always an issue when sourced material is inserted into an article whether it accurately reflects the source. When editors question the edit, they may compare it with the source or, if they do not have direct access, may post to Resource Request. When editors add sources there is no requirement to state whether they were using a physical book or an on-line copy. If you are still in doubt you should post to the RS discussion page. A similar issue came up recently regarding Ancestry.com, a user-generated site which includes original and scanned copies of original records. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 132#Genealogy databases.) No one questioned whether the records could be used. Incidentally, please try to avoid personal attacks as it detracts from constructive discussion. TFD (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be best however to identify a source where the speech was published, if the university's website is not considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I removed the material. Even if the source was reliable, it doesn't say that Henry was eloquent, or that his statement was an argument "for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression." That's synthesis and it has to go. I'll take care of it.

I'm also going to revert the restoration of major chunks of original research. If you want to restore them, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find reliable sources first. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any discussion about the content and whether or not it should be in the article. I'm just seeing a sidebar discussion on sourcing details. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• What else would you expect, since this is a discussion about sourcing details. Take a look at the initial post: " Is the sourcing provided reliable? If not. why not?" Belchfire-TALK 11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the reason for its removal. While it meets rs, normally we would want a secondary source that establishes its significance. OTOH it seems to be just an example of a speech made in support of ratification by a well-known legislator. Is there anything particularly unusual about Henry's comments? TFD (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be ideal but is not the standard for knocking out material. I'm not saying that it should certainly be in either, just that we should have a discussion tat doesn't sound like just wikilawyering. My first quick thought is that it should be in. These are what people prominent amongst the framers said, includes supporting historical context information, and is consistent with what they ended up with. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the removed material. It should not be removed again, unless we reach a consensus for such removal. Such a large amount of material is should not be removed without consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm comfortable with the quote being in there with a citation to the speech itself, but I'm not comfortable with SMP's synthesis claiming that it constitutes and eloquent argument for this or that. SMP is getting close to 3RR and should probably exercise greater restraint. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I took out the "eloquently". On the second point, SMP has proven themselves extensively/ over a long time to be the calm restrained editor and voice of restraint here. I have not analyzed this situation closely, but at first blush this appears to be another case of them continuing to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never worked with SMP myself, so I'll take your word for it. Given the extensive edit history, though, he should probably already know that there isn't actually a rule that requires consensus to remove the uncited material and original research that he's added. There's a guideline that notes some people prefer that, but that doesn't make it mandatory. If I'm wrong, I certainly would appreciate someone directing me to that rule.

I'm not going to pull it myself, as it's not worth the edit war/pissing match that I'm concerned about it turning into, but I hope that someone else will take a look and deal with it. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I did that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You did grab the "eloquently" bit, which I appreciate. Thank you.

But there is still quite a bit of additional material that constitutes uncited original research. You can see the diffs from SMP's first revert here. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I found reliable sourcing here and have added it to the material. SMP0328. (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm. I don't think an institution whose writings are intended to perpetuate "a Biblical worldview applicable to present-day problems" constitutes a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a "Biblical worldview" makes a source unreliable. Also, that website allows all of the material that we have been discussing viewable together. Finally, I also provided other reliable sourcing for each part of the material that had a cite tag. SMP0328. (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bdb484's objection reveals (1) that he hasn't read this discussion and therefore doesn't understand why the original source needed to be replaced and (2) that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. I suggest studying WP:RS and WP:SOURCES for a refresher. Belchfire-TALK 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I appreciate your attempt at condescension. I really do. But if you want to prove you're smarter than everyone, you're going to need to find the nearest elementary school.

The initial objection to this material was in fact never about finding a source to prove that these things were said, but rather about the fact that these sources are being used to support claims that they were intended as an argument "for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression," which -- to me -- is a pretty clear case of synthesizing the material. Maybe it's accurate. But we need to find a source whose reliability is not compromised by its goal of imposing a "biblical worldview" on historical events and public policy.

If you disagree with the arguments I'm making, feel free to address them substantively. If you can't, feel free to brush up on WP:DICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Bdb484, you are falling into your own trap here Belchfire. While Bdb484 shouldn't have gone on the personal attack (neither of you should of), how does the biblical website constitute a better source than the university one? How can you know that either of them/both of them are showing an accurate and precise reproduction of the speech? Hentheden (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Since we haven't gotten anywhere recently but have probably both had enough time to cool down, I'm going to open up an RFC to see if we can get some more input. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible revisions in lead

I'm getting confused. I thought that I was agreeing with Grahamboat and now in my confused mind it looks like they are taking issue with my agreement with them.  :-) And I agree completely with Grahamboat's 04:33 post. What I was saying should NOT be included is characterizing pre-Heller court findings to be overall one way or the other on the individual right question. The best thing would be for someone to propose specific (unbundled) changes and we could use those for an unconfused discussion. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer something along these lines.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] The Heller decision resolved many prior disagreements in the lower court cases on the individual verses collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. (ref CRS) In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] Grahamboat (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a brief summary of federal court cases (Miller, Cases, Emerson, Sylveira v Lockyer, Parker and Heller) belong in section 8.6.2 Heller along with the disagreements on how to interpret the Amendment prior to Heller. Grahamboat (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is not a single case in the history of the United States that ever invalidated any American statute on the basis of the Second Amendment prior to Heller. NO Federal Court that EVER looked at it accepted the individual rights interpretation before 2000. That's what CRS said, that's what the NYT said, that's what the Library of Congress said, and I ask you respectfully, North8000, if you disagree with this assessment, to find me any court in the country at any time pre-2000 that found an individual right to bear arms under the Fourth Amendment or invalidated a law under the Second Amendment. Assuming you can't find any such case -- and I'm quite confident based on these impeccable sources that there is none -- it does not make sense to me to hide this fact from those who are coming to wikipedia to find a neutral, verifiable source of information. I would like other editors to weigh in as well. But unfortunately the bold-faced solution is inaccurate in that it states there was a difference in lower court opinions when in fact, no court prior to Emerson in 2001, ever claimed the individual rights analysis, and no court prior to the Heller case itself invalidated a law under the Second Amendment. We must be careful not to rewrite pre-Heller history based on the Heller opinion. Just because five justices of the Supreme Court say one thing (and four vehemently disagree) does not and cannot change the pre-Heller past. The history of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

-->I have problems with weasel words in the boldfaced language like "mixed views" in that while any human can have any view about anything, no US court found for the individual theory prior to 2000. The "individual rights theory" is a recent theory in American jurisprudence, barely a decade old. Even Robert Bork and Ronald Reagan supported the literalist/strict constructionist interpretation of the militia clause (i.e. the collective rights theory) as recently as 1989. See, e.g., citations in http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Where%20Will%20the%20Second%20Amendment%20Revolution%20Lead.pdf. Again, I don't dispute it's currently the law. I dispute those that suggest it was law anywhere in the USA prior to the 21st Century. Wikipedia should know the state of the law pre-Heller, just as the lead to Brown v. Board of Education states the law prior to that decision. The Brown lead is certainly not an endorsement of Plessy v. Ferguson. Neither would a lead on the Second Amendment that mentions its interpretation pre-Heller be an endorsement of those views.GreekParadise (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello GreekParadise. You seem to be blending two different questions here. I may be misinterpreting, but I'm seeing it as you are using a valid argument against a non-existent proposal (of characterizing pre-Heller court findings) as a way to justify doing the very thing that you were arguing against (characterizing pre-Heller court findings). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is not a lot of case law pertaining to the full meaning of the 2A prior to Emerson. Up until the 1960s there was very little discussion on collective rights v individual rights. Before that most people assumed a law abiding citizen could own a gun. With the enactment of Gun Control Act of 1968 the collective right theory stated to abound. BY 1982 a by-partisan Congressional Committee including Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Edward M. Kennedy, Robert C. Byrd, and Patrick J. Leahy supported the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.

The lede should be about what the 2nd A means as defined by SCOTUS, the ultimate authority, not what people thought the law ought to be. It is OK to briefly mention prior contention, but not a long litany attempting to diminish the true meaning. Prior Heller discussion belongs in 8.6.2 Heller.Grahamboat (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree about where the history should fit in the article, I am absolutely in agreement with North and Grahamboat about not distracting the user with POV talking points. The fact that the judgement was 5-4 is mentioned in 8.6. Although it is a fact, giving it undue weight is POV. Likewise the fact that no gun control law was previously found unconstitutional; as a bit of trivia, it might have a place in the article, but presented in a way intended to somehow diminish Heller, it is POV. Celestra (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While I prefer my earlier suggestion, I would be willing to discuss the following suggestion in paragraph two BOLD:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3]The Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court did a comprehensive review of the meaning of the Second Amendment resolving prior vague interpretations and conflicts within the lower courts and the Supreme Court itself. The 5th Circuit Court in United States v. Emerson (2001) and the 9th Circuit Court in Silveira v. Lockyer (2003) reached opposite opinions regarding the individual rights verses collective rights (Militia) interpretation of the Second Amendment. In the last Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court, United States v. Miller (1939), both views claimed a victory as the ruling was vague failing to give either side a clear-cut victory.[4] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[5]

Since none of the other frequent editors to this article have expressed an opinion, perhaps we have a consensus by default to make no changes to the lede. That would be OK with me. Grahamboat (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that as-is is better then the bolded idea. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I see only a sidebar mention of Emerson, and no coverage of Emerson or Silviera. Should we put those in? North8000 (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the bolded language is it is unsourced (and inaccurate) in that it implies that the conflicts between the lower courts existed for some time in American history. In fact, there was no conflict prior to the Emerson case. "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. This is the New York Times by the Senior Supreme Court Reporter there. I have given an impeccable source for this fact. (This is not an op-ed. It's a news report) No one has ever given a source for the contrary fact. If the consensus is not include this fully-sourced fact anywhere in the article and to imply without any evidence whatsoever in any publication there was some court conflict prior to 2000, then I must insist on re-putting up the POV tag and seeking mediation. I don't understand how an unsourced and incorrect belief can trump a fully sourced fact.GreekParadise (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that "both sides claimed a victory in Miller," just as it would be irrelevant that segregationists and integrationists both claimed a victory in Brown. The question is how the courts decided it. And it's incontrovertible that all Federal Courts in the United States of America from the Miller case in 1939 to 2000 solely found the Second Amendment to be solely a militia right. It is extremely relevant to the history of the Second Amendment that the was the universal interpretation of US Courts prior to the Emerson case. Just as it's also extremely relevant that the Heller and McDonald opinions changed this long-standing interpretation to become the first cases in US history to strike down a statute as unconstitutional on the basis of the Second Amendment under the individual theory.

In sum, please let me know whether there is a willingness to compromise and to put up the truth that no one here has ever cited a single source to dispute. Conversely, if anyone has any source to contradict this impeccable one, please let me know. But unless a) there is a claim that the many sources I have cited (NYT, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service) stating without qualification that the collective rights theory was the view in the US courts prior to 2000 are somehow not neutral or not respectable; or b) someone finds some source somewhere to claim that a court in the nation prior to 2000 did strike down a statute under the Second Amendment or even claimed the individual right to bear arms theory was the law, I don't see any choice but to go with the sourced material over the unsourced vague opinions of some editors. And if there is insistence that vague unsourced opinions trump uncontradicted sources, I will put up the POV tag and seek a request for comment and/or mediation. I don't know what else to do. Sourced fact trumps unsourced opinion in wikipedia, right?

I'm open to any suggested compromise that allows readers of the article to know this truth. My favored suggestion is to simply include in the history the accurate 18th century, 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century interpretations of the US courts. And once we complete that history section, write a fair lede to summarize it, giving due deference to the Supreme Court landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 that changed the prior interpretation of all US courts prior to 2000 from the collective to the individual theory. GreekParadise (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources: See, e.g., Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)GreekParadise (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation and overruling the "clear" and "uniformly held" ruling of the lower federal courts prior to 2001 that the Second Amendment "preserves a collective, rather than an individual right." (Citation Love v. Peppersack and United States v. Warin.) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession found by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4], overruling prior law dating back to 1876 holding that only the federal government was so limited.(citation Cruikshank).

The only source that you gave is an op ed piece making that claim. Also, I'm against us editors here trying to characterize history, especially in the great-efforts-at-spin way that you are proposing. We could find hundreds of biased opinions on this on either side of the question. The second part was even more so. Incorporation is not a "new reversal" it is continuation of a very old reversal, with Heller merely providing the moment to continue the process to another amendment. Sincerely, font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Greek Paradise - please remember to sign all your posts – it is becoming increasingly difficult to follow you. The bold suggestion was sourced (4), not listed on talk page, but easily supplied. The information is accurate. Your statement "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds” is false. Your point that no federal court struck down any gun control law is irrelevant in that there were scant cases reviewed. Cruikshank was not overturned by McDonald. Your proposed changes are POV suggesting that the Heller decision was some radical change in Second Amendment thinking. GP proposes using a 1995 case Love v. Peppersack to support his claims Ignoring Emerson (2001) and the 1982 a by-partisan Congressional Committee. You have not established any support for your proposals. Editors are willing to work with you along NPOV grounds. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Graham, the source (4) is Adam Liptak, the Chief NYT reporter for the Supreme Court and the exact source I want to use!!! How is he reliable when you want to use him and not reliable when I want to use him? Please read what Adam Liptak said. I hesitate to repeat it yet a third time, but it's clear that you did not read it. So I will repeat it one last time and put it bold: "In March [2007], for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable. There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias..... Liptak reports in fact that there was a radical change in court holdings on the Second Amendment. And the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service agree. You cannot cite a source as reliable for one proposition and deny the same source's reliability for another proposition. I will therefore put back up the POV tag until we come to a consensus that Liptak and the NYT is or is not a reliable source. Also Cruikshank ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. McDonald said it does. I doubt there's a legal scholar in the country that says that the holding in Cruikshank continues to stand after McDonald. Can you find me one? Also, I don't want to ignore Emerson. Not in the least. Like the CRS, I acknowledge that Emerson was the first federal case to hold a contrary view and that Heller adopted the Emerson view. Please, I ask with respect, that anyone joining this conversation take the time to read the sources I'm citing.GreekParadise (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise? I am willing to put the post-Miller, pre-Heller federal cases from 1942-2000 in the history section with only a brief mention in the lede such as "overruling the holding of lower federal courts which, in the 20th Century, found the Second Amendment preserved a collective right to serve in a militia, rather than an individual right to bear arms".GreekParadise (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that what we have in there now.....listing the cases and viewpoints without trying to create a characterization is the real wikipedian compromoise. This includes giving space to the now obsolete collective right viewpoint. (And I call cherry picking an op-ed "create" in Wikipedia terms.) North8000 (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi GreekParadise – source (4) was not Adam Liptak, it was Andrew McClurg, p. 139 that appears as ref. 144 in the current article. We know “In March [2007], for the first time …” is not true because of Emerson. The Cruikshank ruling went out when SCOTUS heard Miller. I gave you two proposals that accomplished your stated request in a NPOV way. Your suggestions appear POV because stressing "clear" and "uniformly held" ruling” tends to distract from the Heller ruling. The facts are that none of your cited cases dealt with individual rights. Miller upheld the National Firearms Act (1939), Silveira v. Lockyer dealt with California’s assault rifle ban. Neither of these cases was about individual rights but rather if there could be restrictions on that right. Please take another look at my last proposal and see if it satisfies. A statement of facts without a characterization. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Grahamboat, I meant footnote 4 in the current article. Emerson (2001) did not invalidate any law on the basis of the Second Amendment, even though it was the first to cite the individual theory. The NYT, CRS, and LOC are all right on this point. And I'm glad you realize that Cruikshank was overruled but it was overruled by McDonald. (Miller, as you point out, upheld a federal law). How about this compromise proposal (citations to be added)?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The first law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment was the District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement, invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2008 in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In Heller, the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected to service in a militia, as long as that arm is used for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession, ownership, sale, and use listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. Prior to the 21st century, federal courts upheld the Second Amendment's prefatory militia clause as delimiting the scope of the right to bear arms to a collective right to serve in in a well-regulated militia.

In a second landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, overruling prior case law dating back to 1875 holding that the Second Amendment restricts the federal Government alone.

If you disagree, please be specific about whether you disagree because you doubt the reliability of my sources that cite these facts or for some other reason. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GP – Your last suggestion is far better, less POV and may be the beginning of a consensus. I suggest rewording the first sentence, paragraph 2 to The District of Columbia handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement was the first gun law to successfully be struck down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). I don’t think case numbers are needed in the lede (note word duplication in the last line paragraph 2). Conceptually I have no major objections, perhaps some word tweaking. Let’s see what input other editors have. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we are coming to a consensus and I fully accept your change to my first sentence of paragraph 2. (It's more concise and better written than my own.) With that change, are we in agreement?GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi GP - Pretty much. Suggest waiting a couple of days for other input. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GreekParadise, I mean this is a matter of fact (not nasty) way, but I see your statements as an assertion that failure to add some creative contrived spin constitutes POV. Until recent decades the core question was never even directly addressed by higher level courts, much less having been determined by them to be collective rights model. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I don't mean to be nasty either. I know you think that what you say is true, but I think you are simply mistaken. What is your source? There are at least nine cases that say you are wrong, and I have cited many of them. I have also cited the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times, and the Library of Congress. Perhaps the most scholarly work is the CRS, which makes clear that from 1942-2000, the collective view was the ONLY view EVER upheld in US Federal Court. And it's the reason no case prior to Heller struck down a law as unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Part of the CRS article even criticizes the federal courts' reading of Miller from 1942-2000, so you may want to cite that part of the CRS article to argue the courts were wrong for those 60 years. But criticism notwithstanding, it was the law, not some "creative contrived spin." I can find hundreds of sources that say it was the law. I agree there was no Supreme Court case that addressed the Second Amendment between Miller (1939) and Heller (2008) but that's a different claim from no "higher level courts" found the collective version to be the law. Can you find me a single reliable source that agrees with what you say was the law? A single "individual case" ever found in any US federal or state court before 2000? Why do you think conservative Chief Justice Burger, the Justice Departments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (initially) and every single President prior to George W. Bush that considered the matter all accepted without question the collective view. It's because it was the prevailing view in American Law (and the sole view of the courts) until the 21st Century. Please research my sources. I know you think you are right on this, but perhaps upon reading the CRS article and the NYT article you will change your mind. Have you read them yet?GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I know I can be wordy -- sorry -- so let me summarize what I wrote above:

1) I request that anyone who disputes what I've written provide a reliable source with a contrary view.

2) I ask that anyone who disputes what I've written read the CRS and NYT articles I've provided before contesting this issue further.GreekParadise (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been twelve days. No further comment. Grahamboat and Kvng have expressed support for revising the lede in the manner I did above (and Celestra did as well, at least for the idea that it be revised). And North8000, the only holdout, has not yet provided a single reliable source with a contrary view to that expressed by the Congressional Research Service, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter, and the Library of Congress (all of which I consider reliable). That's as much a consensus as is possible on wikipedia. Unless I receive further commentary by Monday, I will make the change as above with Grahamboat's change (adding citations of course).GreekParadise (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times used frequently in wikipedia a reliable source?

Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times (biography here: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html and on wikipedia: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/bio-liptak.html was considered a reliable source for his reporting on the McDonald decision (see footnote 4) but his front-page story (not an op-ed) was deemed unreliable by a couple of editors here for his reporting on pre-Heller case law. I submit that Liptak IS a reliable source for all his reporting and that I may add information from his front-page story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html, just as it already has been added in footnote 89 here (not by me): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms. Does anyone still dispute his reliability? Presuming he is good enough (and unless someone continues to argue for the contrary), I will proceed to cite this very important article in this entry.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. Trying to put a far reaching assertion/opinion from an op ed in as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia IMHO misses the mark by several levels. This is a different question from wp:rs which both his articles and most articles in NRA publications may meet. But nobody is claiming "POV" for failure to use an NRA op ed for the lead. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A front page story by a reporter is not an op ed. Unless you have some source claiming it is an op-ed, I will ask you to please refrain from this characterization. It is no more an op-ed than the article cited by the same reporter in footnote 4.GreekParadise (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, but setting that aside that is only one of invalid layers in the construction needed to support what you are promoting doing. (Please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter.) The layers are:

• Wanting to present a broad (mis)characterization in contested area as fact in the voice of wikipedia
• Faulty, as detailed above. Interpreting a lack of a finding of the opposite (during the period where the core question didn't matter much) as being a finding.
• Use of a cherry picked piece
• Use of an op ed piece
• Wanted to put it into the lead versus the body, a direct violation of what the lead should be

Again, please take my brevity (including directness) as mere brevity, not as the roughness that it appears to be, because I do not intend the latter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

North, the lede is currently cherry picked. It cites only one interpretation of the Second Amendment (the Heller case) in the lede and wants to end it there, rather than putting Heller in its historical context as the most recent interpretation of the federal courts, contrasting with the long-running contrary interpretation that existed for more than sixty years prior (and, for McDonald, more than 130 years prior). If you want to take the Heller and McDonald decisions completely out of the lede, and just have the first two sentences, ending with 1791, that is justifiable and NPOV but I believe quite sparse. But once you put in the most recent interpretation, I think you have to briefly include the ones that existed for many decades, and as many as 130 years prior, as well. The judiciary's interpretation of the Second Amendment did not begin in 2008, and this is, after all, an entry on the Second Amendment and not on the Heller decision. In my bolded compromise, I put far more focus on Heller and McDonald then under the interpretations in the centuries precedent. All I ask is for one small sentence and one small portion of a sentence to put the Heller and McDonald decisions in their proper context. They were landmark decisions, but they would not have been landmark if they had merely restated current law. Again, I note that the wikipedia entry on Brown v. Board of Education mentions Plessy v. Ferguson (the case it overturned) in the second sentence of the lede. GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs sound like an op-ed, but, if you read beyond that, you see that's not where it goes. The Times does not label it an op-ed. It cannot be discounted in this way.

The lead lacks any discussion of the interpretation of the Amendment prior to Heller. Introduction of a bit of this material in the lead would be very welcome. And would be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RECENT. -—Kvng 13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kvng, do you support revising the lead as per what I have written in bold above (adding citations of course, including the NYT article and others I have cited, such as the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress, to back up every word written)? GreekParadise (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we keep lede change discussions in the Possible revisions in lead section. Grahamboat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion only in enough detail to understand that the solution is not there yet. It looked like User:Celestra had a good plan but it hasn't been executed. I will see if I can find some time to make a more significant contribution to that discussion a little later. -—Kvng 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2013

On the second amendment to the United States Constitution page, it was recently changed from: "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

to: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1].

With [1] pointing to http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Reading that article, there is alot of text that the author or someone else added to the original words, as shown by brackets [] in many places of the article. To me the article is biased, just reading through it i can see how the meaning of what's being said changes from slave patrol militias being a possibility, to trying to say it definitely was a reason. This possible reason has been listed with the other purposes under "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section for some time now, and i see no reason it should be specifically listed at the start of the article.

There is no reason "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states" should be listed at the start of the article separate from the other 'purposes' listed later on the page. Especially not in it's current form at the start of the article worded in a fashion that attempts to positively exert it as a purpose, when it is allegedly one of the purposes early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important.

I hereby request the removal of "in order to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states [1]." from the first sentence, for the above reasons, and on grounds of no one particular 'purpose' should be listed separately whether alleged or positively known to be one of the 'purposes' that the "early English settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important".

Not to mention several sources that say it was a 'purpose' are not hard facts sources, hence why it is in the list with the rest of the 'purposes' lower on the page as "suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts"

XXxDSMer (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That set of edits had an immense list of problems...reverted. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with North. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer to what constitutes the "malitia" is easy. At the Virginia convention to consider ratification of the Constitution this was directly addressed. A member of the convention asked George Mason, CO-AUTHOR of the second amendment what was meant or the meaning of "the mailitia". Mr. Mason replied, "The malitia is all of the people". Actually, I really dont believe the Supreme Court of the US has any business considering 2nd ammendment issues. Any ruling they issue should be on a "Summary" basis. In other words, no hearing or testimony needed as the 2nd ammendment is "settled law". I believe it was settled by George Mason's statement in the Virginia legislature. No one currently alive can dispute that meaning. I believe the co-author of the 2nd stated exactly what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.160.82 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC

There's been some question above about the reliability of the Providence Foundation as a source on the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights.

After it started to get heated, everyone kind of backed off for a bit. I think we've all had time to collect ourselves, though, so I thought I'd open it back up and see what happens. Any additional input would be appreciated. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Just to be clear, the question here is whether the Providence Foundation is a reliable source of information about the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights.

• I think that the question phrased here is both ambiguous (do you mean meeting wp:rs criteria, do you mean actually reliable, and do you mean so authoritative that their opinion on a broad topic can be stated as fact.) and also only one of the several questions blended into that discussion. The others included particular content questions. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• RfC comment. Ugh. I came here from the RfC notice, and I'm not going to watch discussion after I comment here. I don't know what all the discussions have been, and I don't want to know. I'm going to confine myself to a very narrow question, one that I think Bdb484 has asked: whether or not the Providence Foundation website is a reliable source about "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". No, it is not a reliable source for that. Reliable sources would be academic historians writing about the Framers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC comment. Agree with Tryptofish. The Providence Foundation web site is not a reliable source for this aspect of topic. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, gang. There were obviously lots of other elements to the debate, but Tryptofish was able to narrow it down to the only matter that I'm requesting comment on here -- an assessment of whether it's appropriate to use Providence as it's being used in the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have to concur with the treatment by Tryptofish. Just looking at the mission statement of the Providence Foundation makes it quite clear that they are not undertaking to disinterestedly document or investigate the motives, principles, and beliefs of the framers of the US Constitution, but rather promote and support a Christian worldview. From their website, the mission statement begins:

  The Providence Foundation is a Christian educational organization whose mission is to train and network leaders to transform their culture for Christ, and to teach all citizens how to disciple nations.

  While the Providence Foundation is doubtless entitled to its own view and mission, this makes them clearly inappropriate as a reliable historical source. They may indeed be a reliable source for their own POV, which is not really a fringe one, but certainly not as regards "the motives and beliefs of the Framers with respect to Second Amendment rights". siafu (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment Please format RfC as simple questions that don't require those engaging to read vast debates... If what's at stake here is Providence Foundation as WP:RS. Then, clearly, no, it's not. Not by a long way. It promotes an outright, declared POV. --Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC Comment Not reliable. Clear POV.GreekParadise (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)