Talk:Bad Elk v. United States

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bad Elk v. United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Nicely cited.
• "...discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." Shouldn't most become must?
• The article states that in 1999, "sixteen states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest..." Is there a more recent version?
  • Same thing with this line. "By 1999, twenty-three states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute."

Addressing:

• "...discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." Shouldn't most become must?

 Done Clarified most to show that it meant "most of the cases" citing Bad Elk.

• The article states that in 1999, "sixteen states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest..." Is there a more recent version?

 Done.

• • Same thing with this line. "By 1999, twenty-three states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute."

 Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Verdict

• I'll put it on hold for a week. Seeing as you've retired, I might put it on hold for a bit longer. Great article, by the way. buffbills7701 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Great job. The article passes.

Sourcing

This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google search result as a direct source. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Internet meme and myths section

I am moving this section here for discussion:

Internet meme and myths

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

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

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

References

Discussion

This section is WP:OR - specially WP:SYN, and doesn't belong in the article. If there were a secondary source that discussed the internet memes and discussed current law, that would be great, but as far as I can see there is not. Note - I also removed content on this from the lead, for now Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Reworded and re-inserted into the article. Try reading the refs this time. GregJackP Boomer! 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In your edits, You hung this all on the Cubby source from the Plummer article. The Cubby source does not mention Bad Elk. This is the problem with editing this way - there is no good secondary source that discusses the internet meme. Trying to force it in without that leads to endless trouble. At some point, some law school professor will probably write an article on all this. Then we can add content about it. Until then it is problematic with regard to every content policy WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. Maybe that law article already exists, but I looked and didn't find it. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP the content is not sourced per above. Please justify your re-insertion of this content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to justify it. You have to get consensus to remove it. Which, as far as I can tell, you don't have. That's the whole purpose of WP:BRD. You boldly removed material. I reverted. Now it gets discussed. If you will look at the article, Cubby is cited to support the false quote in Plummer, which is mentioned in the material that was added. Nowhere was it claimed that Cubby mentioned Bad Elk, nor does it need to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

if you restore it, you need to answer for it, yes. Please tell me:

• what is the source for "The case (which refers to Bad Elk) has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State"?
• What is the justification for giving this any WP:WEIGHT in the article?
• How is this not WP:OR?

The content if problematic in light of all three content policies. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Get consensus, then you can remove it. Right now you don't have consensus. It's sourced and I'm sick of your harassment on my talkpage and elsewhere.

-As to your questions, the most common misquote covers both cases, so it is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It's not anywhere close to WP:OR, which you would know if you understood the law, and this has been pointed out several times. Finally, because of your continuous harassment and bullshit claims of editing warring when someone implements WP:BRD, it is impossible to conduct further Lexis/Westlaw searches. That's because you don't understand corroborative editing, probably because you spend too much time in Alt-Med and other contentious areas.

-If you want to improve Wikipedia, you don't come in and demand answers. I don't have any problem telling you where to get off the bus, and someone who has 43K edits with only 2 articles created doesn't really impress me.

-I do not have to prove anything to you, and you are not the policy-demigod of Wiki. Where do you get off thinking that you can demand answers when others have told you that they don't agree with your interpretation of the policy? And to act unilaterally, without consensus? GregJackP Boomer! 02:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you restore deleted content, you have to defend it. Is pretty clear you are dug in here, so I am going to initiate DR. I'll provide notice here in a minute. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't have a problem opening up and AN/I on your continued harassment which is designed to prevent me from researching and looking to improve the article. Why don't you try creating content instead of harassing those who can create content? GregJackP Boomer! 04:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I too am getting a bit annoyed with Jytdog's incivility and failure to understand Wikipedia policy. Referring to my good-faith efforts at properly covering this legal issue with language like "generally, when editors go wrong in WP, they go wrong many ways at once" is nothing more than an attempt to anger me and bait me into responding in kind. I am also very much annoyed with Jytdog starting a discussion about the content of a page and then editing the page away from the stable, established version into his preferred version while the discussion is ongoing. WP:BRD may not be a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry i am kind of crabby tonight. but this is one policy-violating mess and GregJack is not providing any actual answers. So to DR we go. see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bad_Elk_v._United_States Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)