Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removal of tags

Yaf, your edit summary doesn't explain this[1] removal of tags. Please give a policy based explanation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Article has been globalized through removal of US-centric content in lede; hence, the need for the globalize tag has already been alleviated. Tagging the article with the {{POV}} label because you feel states right content has not been added is not appropriate. You are free to add properly cited content expressing states right content. But, POV bombing the article because someone else hasn't written this content is not appropriate. It is an improper use of the POV tagline. Other editors can't read your mind, to see what it is that you think ought to be added. As for tagging a section with the needs sources tagline, this is inappropriate, as the content in that section is already cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Please work with other editors, instead of advocating disruptive editing techniques, and please contribute cited, sourced material to the article. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This ignores the reality of your tactics. Engaging in a edit war with me over neutrality and these tag[2][3][4][5][6]. Reporting me for edit warring to get me blocked[7], followed by several dozen pro-gun POV skewing edits[8] during my block. Which you now defend. In the mean time, the tag warnings are appropriate. Instead of warring, can we try to collaborate to make the article neutral? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that a consensus of editors actively editing this article did not agree with your continued POV pushing. You then chose to edit war with the community, and you subsequently were blocked for 48 hours for a repeated offense of edit warring on this same particular article, in violation of WP:3RR. No other editors violated 3RR. Instead of resuming your edit warring with the community again, please try to work with other editors to avoid future blocks. You truly do have many vaid points, but it does you and the Wikipedia project no good when you edit war instead of working with other editors to reach consensus. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice that Yaf does not deny edit warring. Rather, he did not get reported for a violation of the WP:3RR policy for participation in the edit war. I am trying to cooperate to collaboratively edit this article. The consensus needs to be to about whether the article meets policy, not about the consensus of the personal POV of the involved editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Making an edit of an article that is WP:OWNed by another editor is not edit warring. Reverting edits of other editors, contrary to community consensus, and then getting blocked for 48 hours for repeated infractions of WP:3RR is, however, clearly edit warring. The problem here is not with an editor reporting a violation of WP:3RR, resulting in a 48 hour block for the POV warrior who has had edit problems with the same article before; rather, it is with the editor who actually engages in edit warring against community consensus. Don't shoot the messenger. Yaf (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the POV of the article (starting with the title) is demonstrably biased in favor of American gun-control proponents. Any deviation from this POV to an objectively more neutral and global treatment of the topic is shrilly condemned by you as anything but. Just because this article has long been biased in favor of the American gun-control proponent POV, and likely was originated by members of its camp (the original "definition" of the topic was cited to none other than Sarah Brady), does not mean that it cannot now be corrected and rendered more neutral and more globally representative of the issue. tc2011 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

globalize tag

The reason for the globalize tag, is that this encyclopedia is a global encyclopedia. Yet, this article shows bias contain approximately 95% Anglo-American content. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm sure i speak for all editors when i say that we will all appreciate your efforts, and look forward to your inclusion of high quality, well-sourced material in support of globalizing the article. do you have a rough timeline you can share for when you will have these problems fixed, so that you can remove the tags? Anastrophe (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Being that there is essentially no right to keep and bear arms outside of the Anglo-American world, this is not a disproportionate allocation of content. Would an article on growing tropical plants be remiss if it skipped discussing the growing of tropical plants in Antarctica? No. The use of the "Globalize" tag implies that there is no content about numerous countries. To the contrary, the article has considerable coverage outside the UK and the US, to the extent that the right to bear arms actually exists outside the UK and the US. This is an improper use of this tag for, at most, a missing paragraph or two. It is not bias, it is simply reflecting factual issues that the right to bear arms is primarily an Anglo-American construct, and today exists only in the US. Not many dictatorships ever permit this right to exist. Have removed tagline as it is inappropriate. Yaf (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

POV warning tag

The reason for the POV tag is that the balance has recently shifted[9] towards a "pro-gun" slant. A number of problems exist, but a big one is that there is inadequate representation of the POV that governments have the right to control 'bearing arms', and similarly there is zero coverage of the 'states right model', and excessive coverage of the 'individual rights model' of the US debate over bearing arms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm sure i speak for all editors when i say that we will all appreciate your efforts, and look forward to your inclusion of high quality, well-sourced material in support of this claimed POV that government has a right to control 'bearing arms' (worded correctly, 'the power to control bearing arms'), and in support of the 'states right model'. of course it goes without saying that per WP:NPOV, a claim of 'excessive coverage' of a POV is not license to delete that material, so there's a lot of work ahead for you to add the balancing material. do you have a rough timeline you can share for when you will have these problems fixed, so that you can remove the tags? Anastrophe (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an improper use of a POV tagline to complain about what isn't even in the article. Have removed this tagline. All editors are free to contribute cited, reliable, and verifiable sourced content. An editor tagging an article with the POV tagline, because the editor is too lazy to add material he feels is missing, is clearly exhibiting improper use of the tagline. The goal is to provide a neutral point of view, with cited content. If we tag all articles and we wait until an article is completely finished before removing such a tagline, then no article would ever be without the POV tagline. Lets reserve the use of the tagline to when there are issues with an article. WP is not a crystal ball. It is improper to assume that there will be problems when future content is added to an article. Have removed the tagline. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the recent trend has been to remove the American gun-control proponent POV and move toward a more neutral presentation of the topic. Until just recently, the "definition" section included two sentences, each of which was supported by citations of...publications of the Brady Campaign...authored by Sarah Brady. The very title of this article betrays the American gun-control proponent bias of this article. tc2011 (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

The "civilian use" subsection contains as its sourcing excessive usage of selective direct quotes from court documents, and primary political documents. This section could be improved through the use of independent third party reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm sure i speak for all editors when i say that we will all appreciate your efforts, and look forward to your inclusion of high quality material from independent third party reliable sources to improve the section. do you have a rough timeline you can share for when you will have these problems fixed, so that you can remove the tags? Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The timeline depends on whether you will cooperate, or continue your participation in the edit war[10][11][12][13][14][15]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the tagline. There are no Primary sources in dispute here (i.e., none are sources very close to the origin of the particular topic, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc.) The Right to bear arms dates to the Assize of Arms, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc. It is improper tagging to claim that the sources mentioned are in any way related to the origin of the particular topic. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

saltyboatr, your claim above is a knee-slapper on the hilarity scale. it is an editor's duty to revert unsourced assertions inserted into articles. none of the 'edit wars' you claim above comprised me removing any material at all that was sourced - it was me removing your POV-pushing into the article material without so much as a bad citation.

looking forward to arbcom. the above is a canonical example of the tendentious, disruptive methods this editor tries to employ. completely unacceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss the article and avoid the uncivil commentary about me? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

nothing uncivil in the above. i didn't call you an 'ass' or some other epithet. your methods are unacceptable behavior. your claim above is nonsense - a complete non-sequitur, that it was edit warring to revert your unsourced insertion of opinions into the article. it's also a standard diversion away from what you claimed is the issue - over reliance on primary sources. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf just reverted again[16]. (removing all three tags, misleading edit summary) This sure looks like edit warring to me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

not at all. the matters are being discussed here on the talk page. i agree with yaf's rationale for why the tags are being inappropriately used. you're wikilawyering content, which is unacceptable editor behavior. please stop. alternatively, add actual content to articles, rather than these constant disruptive tactics. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf just reverted again[17] with the edit summary "(rv; there are no Primary sources (i.e., none are sources very close to the origin of the particular topic, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc.))". The origin of the topic is not frozen in the 18th Century, as modern events are on topic too. And, obviously, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the Heller case is very close on topic here. Similar with the District 5 court cite, while not so central as Heller, also still close. And too for the US Senate which has authority to pass law, or hold hearings, which is very close on topic. In summary, Yaf's reason appears to violate WP:NOR policy. And why? Isn't it possible to just find a book source somewhere? Instead, Yaf insists on synthesizing directly from political and court documents. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would question your blanket characterization of reported appellate court opinions as primary sources. In articles about those cases (e.g., citing Roe v. Wade in Roe v. Wade) they are obviously primary sources, but the same can be said about the Encyclopedia Britannica. When the subject is the laws or legal principles analyzed, synthesized, and commented on by the court, an appellate court opinion can certainly be a secondary source. Plenty of Featured, Good, and A-class articles from WikiProject Law cite extensively to appellate court opinions (see Federalist No. 10, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Concurrent use registration, Copyright infringement, Fiduciary, and English criminal law). PubliusFL (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the cites again. For example, in the lead paragraph of the section in discussion:

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in ''[[United States v. Emerson]]'', the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] concluded in 2001 that:<ref name="isbn0-8223-3017-2">{{cite book |author=Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard |title=The militia and the right to arms, or, How the second amendment fell silent |publisher=Duke University Press |location=Durham, N.C |year=2002 |pages=Pg 19, Chapter 9 (pages 212-225) |isbn=0-8223-3017-2 }}</ref>

Since when did Merkel and Uviller become a primary source? Likewise, the other quotes are not directly related to the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, or any aother source that is very close to the origin of the particular topic, but involve appellate court opinions. Improving sources is always good, but the sources in this section are already secondary/tertiary. Yaf (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you limit your concern to simply the 18th Century 'origin'. Isn't it obvious that the Supreme Court is directly involved in updating the US legal definition of "Right to bear arms" at this very moment? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

They are currently involved, yes. However, isn't it obvious that no decision has come out of Heller/Parker yet from the Supreme Court? Hence, no books or scholarly papers on the future opinions coming out of this case have yet been written. If your complaint is about why such future content and citations aren't here yet, I fail to see why we are even discussing this. By WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yaf (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Crystal ball? The court cases you cite happened already, and the court documents are published already. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS has not published its decision on DC v Heller as of 2008-05-02. Please see the SCOTUS web page. Please don't inject misinformation into the discussion. tc2011 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, these District Court rulings, that Yaf is directly quoting, are active in the determination of what the "Right to bear arms" means legally in the USA right now. Therefore they violate WP:PSTS. Is finding book sourcing very hard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just fixed that error in the article. There are no District Court rulings cited, just opinions from Circuit Courts of Appeals, which is something completely different. District Courts are trial courts, while the Circuit Courts are appellate courts and therefore "one step removed" from the trial level. They review, analyze, and comment on the primary source trial record. PubliusFL (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The circuit court documents are also of WP:PSTS policy concern. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show us a pattern of circuit court publications being thrown out of less controversial Wikipedia articles? I call foul on you. Please don't continue to wikilawyer this article ever deeper into an American gun-control POV propaganda piece. tc2011 (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The U&M cite (which I added) simply identifies the name of the judge, which is OK. Your primary sourcing which I am questioning is the extensive direct quotes from the court documents. Could you answer my question in yellow above? Is finding mainstream sourcing that hard? We could avoid this dispute by just improving the quality of your sourcing. Is there a true need to go into a gray area of WP:PSTS like this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf just reverted again[18]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. See the original (as opposed to your duplicate) "Civilian use section" discussion topic. tc2011 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Where have they been addressed? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

True. See the parent to your comment here. Not to mention PubliusFL's comments above. SaltyBoatr, you err in labeling circuit court decisions as primary sources. The circuit court decisions themselves rely on primary sources...which makes them secondary sources, and quite appropriate for Wikipedia articles. tc2011 (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me the diff(s) please, I looked and I don't see it in 'the parent to your comment' above like you say. Also, PubliusFL is describing the difference between a Circuit and a District court which is another thing altogether. The circuit courts are presently playing a direct role having ruled and defined a legal 'individual right to bear arms' with Emerson and Parker, (which was granted cert by the SCOTUS as Heller). This makes the circuit court documents primary sources. Is the Civilian use definition not available in any true secondary source? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See the original (as opposed to your duplicate) "Civilian use section" discussion topic. Just because you don't like the fact that these are valid secondary sources for Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that they aren't. Also, just because a secondary source is cited by another secondary source doesn't make the first secondary source a primary source. I'd say that you've never done literature research, but I think you're really just being disingenuous. Anyhow... Take a look at the circuit court decision, you should be able to see that it's rife with citations of primary sources. These courts are interpreting the right by citing primary sources, and are valid secondary sources for Wikipedia articles. Contrary to popular belief, the courts do not create law and rights out of thin air, but rather interpret and clarify them. The courts are also NPOV. Perhaps you would rather cite Sarah Brady in the civilian use section? Or perhaps you would like to cite Michael Bellisle? I hear he's done some research on the civilian use of firearms. tc2011 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention diff's. I looked, again, and found this diff. In short, what harm is there is improving the cites? This edit war is over a primary sources tag is about if we can improve the quality of cites, which seems a silly thing to oppose. Can't you you find a law review article, or some book published by a mainstream publishing house? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to add such sources if you wish, if you can find equally objective and well-sourced analyses and interpretations of the Right. Others have added these appropriate NPOV secondary sources that don't appear to fit your agenda... Please stop warring with the "Primary Sources" tag, as it is completely inappropriate to call these sources primary just because they don't fit your apparent American gun-control proponent POV. tc2011 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because these courts are currently "interpreting" the right to bear arms they do indeed qualify as primary sources for this topic. They are presently directly involved in making history about this topic. Read the tag please before reverting again it says ... sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, sources that address the topic of the article are not generally sufficient for a Wikipedia article? This is beyond ridiculous. Is there a Wikipedia pattern of rejecting court documents as sources for less controversial subjects? If you can demonstrate that there is, then fine. Otherwise, it seems you are just raising any objection you possibly can to push an American gun-control proponent POV in this controversial subject. tc2011 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Before the district v. circuit court issue, see my comment from 1 May about appellate court opinions as secondary sources. PubliusFL (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the primary sources tagline. There are no Primary sources in dispute here (i.e., none are sources very close to the origin of the particular topic, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc.) The Right to bear arms dates to the Assize of Arms, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc. It is OR to speculate what the Supreme Court will do, or is doing, behind its closed doors. Stating more secondary sources are needed is not proper use of taglines, either. All articles could likely benefit from additional sourcing, but we don't go around tagging every paragraph in Wikipedia, do we? Editors are free to add more sources at any time. Putting a tagline here is not necessary. Yaf (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, please take a moment to address my concern about that these courts are presently directly involved in making history about this topic. You say 'no dispute here', but I have identified a real issue which you evade (or dispute). Therefore, there is a dispute here, and the tag is warranted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the courts are interpreting the right, much as an academic would, by citing primary and other secondary sources. The courts are only "making history" to someone who takes a biased approach to the Right and who seeks to warp this discussion to the American gun-control proponent POV. These documents are appropriate secondary sources for this article. I challenge you, since you seem so fond of "diffs," to establish a Wikipedia pattern of rejecting court documents as inappropriate sources for less controversial topics. It strikes me that you are only raising these unwarranted objections because of your apparent American gun-control proponent agenda. If you wish to add other sources, the onus is on you. I would remove the "primary sources" tag, but you clearly are not interested in contributing anything meaningful to this section of the article (otherwise you would add additional sources) or recognizing the reality that these are appropriate secondary sources, and you will just edit war the tag back in. tc2011 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr's use of the "primary sources" tag was completely inappropriate. Though the onus was on SaltyBoatr to add additional citations, I have contributed a source to the relevant section that should (but won't, as we all know) satisfy SaltyBoatr's concerns. I have removed the inappropriately inserted tag. tc2011 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tc2011 recent edit[19] describes a "right to have arms". That is a much different thing that a right to bear arms. Considering that the two word term "bear arms" historically (by a vast preponderance) has had a military (not civilian) connotation.

If you guys cannot find high quality scholarly sourcing for that 'civilian use' section, it appears to readers as original research and not neutral. I don't question that certain judges who do not practice stare decisis and certain politicians have interpreted a 'civilian use' of 'bear arms' and in the last decade are active changing the history US judicial precedence about the topic of 'bearing arms'. The challenge to you is to find third party scholarly sourcing for this POV concept of 'civilian use'. Your court and political sources are active in the topic, and are not third party. This question stands independent of my personal POV. Lacking better quality sourcing, I favor removing that section altogether per WP:NOR policy.

Instead of edit warring over the tag[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27], cannot you just find some good quality third party sourcing for your idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources. The secondary/tertiary sources for the civilian usage section meet this requirement. That said, it is also encouraged to add additional sources where an editor feels that they are needed. However, it is not required that only "scholarly" sources be used. That is an improper interpretation or reading of Wikipedia rules. Reliable and verifiable sources are what is absolutely required. Have removed the tagline, as there are no non-reliable or non-verifiable sources or primary sources in the disputed civilian definition section. Yaf (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your personal American gun-control proponent POV suggests removing the entire "civilian usage" section because the American gun-control proponent wishes to eliminate "civilian usage" from the discussion. Let me remind you that right to keep and bear arms redirects to this article. Do you agree that right to keep and bear arms should not redirect to this article, which you want to address only the military definition of bearing arms? tc2011 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you justify your denial that the US courts are active in this topic now? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is OR to speculate what the Supreme Court will do, or is doing, behind its closed doors. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All articles could likely benefit from additional sourcing, but we don't go around tagging every paragraph in Wikipedia, do we? Editors are free to add more sources at any time. Putting a tagline here is not necessary. You are free to add more sources + content, of course. Yaf (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your evasiveness is not so clever. We are talking of historical circuit courts, past tense, not the SCOTUS. Try again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Civilian definitions section

Yaf reverted again[28] with the edit summary (rm tagline; none of the sources are primary sources. Consensus on talk page is to remove this tagline. Additional sources may be added, of course.)". Yaf please explain how denial of my minority position is 'consensus'?

Per WP:Consensus "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. As wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the objective of this interaction is to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject." As there is not agreement, how is their consensus? You repeatedly shout me down, and call it consensus. Please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation -- In practice, “Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.“ Likewise, “minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. ... Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority).” Hence, consensus is reached when the most persons have been satisfied. At the present time, you are the only editor objecting to the consensus among all other active editors regarding a balanced presentation of military and civilian definitions both being included in the article. As most of the editors (all but you, that is) agree the present presentation is balanced, presenting both collective/militia and individual rights definitions, this is a valid consensus. Additionally, you have not identified any rational reason why, according to Wikipedia policies, reliable and verifiable secondary and tertiary sources that "you don't like" cannot be used. Simply having one lone editor say "I don't like it" in regards to including individual rights/civilian definitions, this is not a reason for deletion or censorship of properly cited and balanced Wikipedia content, cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Consensus does not require 100% agreement. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to shout me down please. "deletion or censorship" Huh? I am asking for better sourcing, not deletion or censorship. You have never answered why you cannot find 'book' sourcing. You have evaded my central point which is the circuit court decisions which you use as your only source are "... sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." Those circuit courts are at the least, too close to 'primary' in that those two court documents you quote, Emerson and Parker, have redefined the topic 'bear arms' in modern US jurisprudence. You advocate for "an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical." Isn't finding solid WP:RS third party book sources practical? We wouldn't even need to discuss this then. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources listed are associated with a right to keep and bear arms, or a right to bear arms. These rights spring forth from God as God-given rights, spring forth from Common Law practice, as well as are recognized and protected from infringement in the US Constitution, among similar primary documents. No primary sources are cited in the Civilian Definition section. There are no Bible quotes, no Torah quotes, no Koran quotes. There are likewise no quotes from the US Constitution or the English Bill of Rights, for example. Appeal courts interpret primary documents, through the appeal process for cases that come up from lower courts. U&M is also cited. Again, none of the cited sources are primary sources; all of the cited sources are secondary or tertiary. If you feel there is a need for additional cites, that is fine; you or any other editor are always free to add additional citations. Wikipedia should be cited well, with reliable and verifiable sources. As for the Emerson case, it did not grant or even redefine the right to keep and bear arms; it only interpreted the right relative to a primary source (namely, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution). As for Parker, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this case, although certiorari has been granted and arguments were presented a few weeks ago. A final SCOTUS decision is expected by June. Wikipedia does not require edits or choices of cited sources to conform to User:SaltyBoatr's rules, but rather to Wikipedia's rules. If you would accept the need to include all major viewpoints with reliable and verifiable cites, instead of always pushing a gun-control POV and Wikilawyering for censorship of individual rights points of view, none of this would be occurring. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, it would OK with you to delete the discussion of Emerson and Parker in the "Modern Commentary" section of this article, right? The article gives coverage to Emerson and Parker court cases, and therefore these two court rulings which you directly quote are 'primary' in the context of this article's topic. You didn't answer my question (again): Why not just avoid this dispute by finding reliable third party book sourcing? Is there some reason for your avoidance of that alternate route to resolution? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, all modern commentary on the right to bear arms, including the most scholarly sources imaginable, becomes "primary sources" by being discussed in the "modern commentary" section, which gives coverage to just such sources. PubliusFL (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Thank you, SaltyBoatr, for reinserting the POV tag, since the American gun-control proponent POV of the title and this article has not been adequately addressed. I suggest changing the title to "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," since that language is NPOV, historical, more global, and more inclusive than the current title that has been popularized by American gun-control proponents. In order to placate the gun-control bias of a certain editor, it has been suggested that the title be changed to "Right to Arms." Though this latter suggestion does not accurately address the topic and content of the article, it is a step toward neutrality away from the American gun-control POV of the article. tc2011 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to not comprehend two concepts, 1) That our duty is to edit the article to the POV balance found in reliable sources, to understand the POV which may not be our own, and to set aside the influences of our own personal POV. 2) That the encyclopedia is to be written from a global perspective, and that 'keep and' is USA centric, while 'right to bear arms' has a global perspective. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who does not comprehend your first point. You simply discount reliable sources, for arbitrary and heavily wikilawyered reasons, that do not meet your standards of being sufficiently biased toward an American gun-control proponent POV. The subject of possession ("keep") of arms in the subject Right is global. I'm sorry this fact does not fit into your agenda. But so that we can move toward a resolution... Is right to arms an acceptable alternative title for you? Do you agree that right to keep and bear arms should not redirect to this article? tc2011 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article should not give excess representation of the "American gun-control" point of view. It should give a balanced coverage, per WP:UNDUE.

No. I think that the topic of a right to "bear arms" has a obvious notability to justify an article on this topic in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Presently, the article has a very heavy bias in favor of the American gun-control proponent POV. Let me remind you that, until very recently, the "definition" section of this article contained two sentences, each sourced to a publication of the Brady Campaign and authored by Sarah Brady herself. The current title and much of the remaining article (except, perhaps, the "civilian usage" section to which you have of course objected in toto) is a reflection of the view popularized by her organization. You conveniently ignore the global references to possession in reference to the Right. Please clarify: should right to keep and bear arms no longer redirect to right to bear arms and should this constitute a separate article? From your objections to "keep and," you seem to indicate that these are two separate rights. tc2011 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article to address POV issues and NPOV dispute with the article

The current title, "Right to bear arms" has been identified as advocating a US gun control POV. Similarly, the "Right to keep and bear arms", as a potential title for the article, has been identified as advocating a US gun rights POV. Although "Right to keep and bear arms" is valid for the US and even Canada, there are English speaking locations/places where it doesn't apply. To address the POV issues identified with the article, what is the consensus on moving the article to "Right to arms", with "Right to keep and bear arms", "Right to bear arms", and "RKBA" all being identified as synonyms for this right in the lede, similar to what is there already? This move of the article could address the current POV tagline issue, but obviously needs to develop supporting consensus before being implemented. Comments? Yaf (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although "right to keep and bear arms" is NPOV, notable, historical, a widely (and globally) recognized description of the topic that addresses the global issues of possession and use of arms addressed in the article[29] and thus is an extremely appropriate title for this Wikipedia article, "right to arms" may be acceptable. Another editor has indicated that this article should only be about the military definition[30], which could work (ignoring for a moment American gun-control proponent POV problems) if right to keep and bear arms were its own article, because the Right clearly has a notable and global "possession" component. However, I think we all know that if a separate article were started, there would be an immediate movement to merge. So... if the current article is to address the global issue of possession, which it logically and historically must and currently does, the title should do what titles are supposed to do and represent the article that follows it without ideological deletions or cherry picking of less notable sources. But...in order to develop consensus and move away from the current memory-holing of possession and its accompanying American gun-control proponent bias, I believe right to arms could be an acceptable re-titling. tc2011 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have moved article to "Right to arms", and have gone through the article, addressing the POV issues. If there are any issues remaining, please re-tag the article and identify on the talk page what the remaining issue(s) is(are). Thanks. Yaf (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified some points and noted certain beliefs were controversial, and corrected some unsourced POV statements. More remain. I noticed at least one source was simply a newspaper editorial. Surely this is not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article? I've left it in place for now. tc2011 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Yaf moved the article, but that the term "right to arms" is the more obscure having 92k ghits] versus the article title 'right to bear arms' with with 902k ghits. This appears to be going against the zeitgeist by 10:1. Is there a rational for this? Worse, the term 'right to arms' historically pertains to heraldry[31]. What is the encyclopedic benefit of this confusion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The "right to bear arms" is a descriptive term reflecting the POV of the gun control crowd supporting a militia/collective only right interpretation. The "right to keep and bear arms" is a more neutral title, being part of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but reflects a POV of the gun rights crowd, implying an individual right as well as a militia right. "Right to arms" is a more neutral title than either, per the previous discussion. Hence, the reason for the title change was to improve NPOV. Yaf (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, you speak of 'United States...POV' and remove the globalize tag? Which is it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf reverted again[32], can we resolve this disagreement without edit war? Seriously, approximately 90%+ of the article is US-anglo centric. Can there be any question about the lack of global balance? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the right to keep and bear arms originated under an English Common Law history, is there any question that this topic is decidedly likely going to contain much more content on jurisdictions that are based on English Common Law than on areas where there is no such history? Most countries do not have a right to keep and bear arms. Nonetheless, there is global content in the article covering areas that are not of this judicial history, which does constitute global balance. It is worth noting that global balance does not imply actual balance down to the number of words in each section; rather, it implies a balance according to cited sources in accord with what the cited sources say. Writing an article on a right to free speech would likewise not have much content on free speech under dictatorships, either. But, would it be fair to question the global balance of such an article because it contains no mention of a right to free speech in, say, Cuba, or, perhaps more current in terms of current events, China? If you feel there is a lack of content for countries not presently mentioned, you are free to add such content with properly cited sources, of course, as is any editor. But advocating censorship of properly cited content is not the right way to address perceived imbalances with the article.Yaf (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time, why do you engage an edit war to remove the tag? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean your edit war to keep the tag in? If you have any non-American-gun-control-POV information to improve the NPOV and global quality of this article, by all means, contribute it. Yaf has adequately addressed the "global" tag concerns, and has properly removed that tag. tc2011 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, lets be candid, there is no such thing as a single isolated editor engaging in an edit war. The opposite of edit war is collaboration and seeking consensus. Your encouragement to 'contribute it', is hollow and coy, ignoring the recent campaign by Yaf and other pro-gun editors to get me banned when I make contributions to Project Firearms articles. This pattern of a consortium of editors editing an American pro-gun political perspective into Wikipedia is a form of systemic bias to 'pro-gun politics' and 'US centric' content. You mention your opposition to "non-American-gun-control-POV", which reveals that you view this article as a battleground in a "American-gun-rights" POV war. We, as editors, have a duty to avoid POV war, but rather we have a duty to edit neutrally, and globally. Agreed? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No campaign has been conducted against any editor for making contributions to Project Firearms articles. However, administrative actions against edit warring by editors unable to follow Wikipedia rules (regarding WP:3RR, etc.) are commonly executed against disruptive editors to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Inclusion of all major viewpoints in articles, with properly cited sources, is highly encouraged by all Wikipedia editors. On the other hand, edit warring by a lone editor, who continually insists on censorship of major points of view that are properly cited, against the larger Wikipedia community, is regarded as disruptive, and usually results in progressively longer and longer blocks for continued edit warring by the one disruptive editor. If a disruptive editor then sees reports of his violations of WP:3RR as attempting to get him banned, this is a misreading of Wikipedia policy. Neutral editing does not mean censorship is permitted of all content that a disruptive editor finds offensive. Wikipedia is not censored. All major points of view, with proper cites, should be included in articles. Equating "editing neutrally and globally" to mean censorship is likewise a gross misreading of Wikipedia policies. Yaf (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves. On May 6th you reported me for WP:3RR, with a false claim that this edit was a revert, which resulted in my ban. On May 4th you campaigned to WikiProject Firearms[33] for support of your attempt to get me banned, which you filed in your May 4th appeal[34] to the Arbitration Committee. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Freedom to bear arms" in lead sentence is not global.

The phrase, in bold letters in the opening sentence "freedom to bear arms" seems wildly POV, and out of place in a global article. What is the sourcing for that this is a global concept? Similar, "keep and bear" is decidedly not a global concept. Provide sourcing please to demonstrate the "keep and bear" is global. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Freedom to bear arms" is a commonly used legal term for this right. See the 5th Circuit's use of this wording in context here. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution similarly uses a "keep and bear arms" wording. All of the identified synonyms are thus well represented in practice and are in common use where a right to arms exists. As for a right to arms being a global right, it is decidedly not. It is a right that is still, or, in some cases, was, protected or recognized among many countries with an English Common Law history, but is not a right that is commonly protected or recognized among dictatorships and totalitarian Governments, for example. Advocating censorship of Wikipedia content regarding rights protected under the United States Constitution, under a pretext that such rights are somehow not global, is a wild misreading and abuse of Wikipedia policies. "Globalize" does not mean "delete". Neither does "globalize" mean censorship on Wikipedia of text simply because one editor "doesn't like it". Yaf (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, what the...? Your proof of a 'commonly used legal term' offered in your 5th Circuit pdf link does not include the phrase "freedom to bear arms". This is outrageous logic, an egregious violation of WP:SYN and POV pushing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at footnote no. 1 on page 2 here, in the right hand column. The terminology is clearly there. Your refusal to read cites, or to accept content contrary to your extreme POV, is becoming legendary. Yaf (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The footnoted wording given is actually "freedom to possess firearms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. The footnote no. 1 on page 2 here, in the right hand column, reads as follows, “We need not decide whether the Second Amendment's boundaries are properly defined through strict scrutiny analysis, though it remains certain that the federal government may not restrain the freedom to bear arms based on mere whimsy or convenience. See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 261.” It clearly says "freedom to bear arms". Please stop your POV pushing and start reading cites. Yaf (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I add a 'USA, not global, qualifier to that sentence then? Or will that get me banned again? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

explanation of revert

User:SQL, in good faith I suspect, made these edits (see diff). The 'some' word implies that there is peer reviewed research to the contrary, and I don' think that there is any peer reviewed research to the contrary. That is probably why Yaf has to resort to directly quoting from Circuit Court rulings, because there is no peer reviewed sourcing of that idea. Also, the political document of Orin Hatch clearly has political implications, and the fact that this politician is a well known pro-gun proponent is both WP:V and necessary to give the reader a understanding of the POV weight of his statement. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither word is particularly spectacular there, actually, but, 'some' is more neutral than 'many'. We should explore re-wording that sentence, to a more neutral version.

Regarding the Senator's "title", it really seems out of place to me, and, somewhat WP:SYN. In looking over it again, there's a bit in there as well, about Sarah Brady, that should similarly go as well, probably (although, that's what she's known for, whereas the other person is a legislator). Anyhow, hope some of this helps clear a bit of this up. SQL^{Query me!} 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would favor replacing the word "many" with the word "all". Also, I would favor removing the political quote from Orin Hatch as it being a political claim, and not a encyclopedic 'fact'. I am not convinced that political documents meet the "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard required by policy WP:SOURCES. I don't object to the idea presented, but just object to the vagary of the sourcing and would prefer to see a higher WP:V quality, for instance a scholarly book or some such. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only one problem. "All" is factually incorrect. There are numerous well-respected books and articles by other historians that would counter this false claim (by Cramer, Hardy, etc.). "Some" is clearly more factual than "All", and "Some" is more neutral than even "Many". Yaf (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Give the full citations please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations given. This issue is resolved. tc2011 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for citing Clayton's new paper. He does good work. BTW, I ordered a copy of his concealed carry book, earlier today. Should have it in 3 or 4 days. Yaf (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Smoothing of Awkward Edits

Recently, 4 bizarrely repetitive, superfluous, and awkward edits:

• "in government documents"
• "because the studies were limited to just government documents"
• "For the case of non-government documents"
• "[beyond government documents]"

These edits were superfluous because the distinction was already laid out in the article, and made the article wording incredibly awkward. I've attempted to improve the clarity and flow of the text while retaining its meaning. tc2011 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of your removal of the neutralizing wording, (and footnote) I have added back the POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the POV tagline; current text is more neutral, and is less bizarrely repetitive than the insertions that were removed previously by tc2011. If there are POV issues, please identify what they are and they can be fixed. Tagging every gun-related political article and then never identifying or fixing the POV "issues" (if they even do exist) is not conducive to improving Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did not delete the footnote (it was simply a duplicate), as is speciously charged, nor did I remove the meaning of these edits. Their meaning (minus the bizarre repetition) was retained, and the citation is still in place. --tc2011 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over POV tag.

Yaf appears to dispute that there is a POV dispute[35]. Yaf do you dispute that there is a POV dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please specifically identify the text that you're disputing, explain your problem, and suggest an alternative on this talk page. Vague accusations of POV only serve to disrupt and are not helping to move this conversation forward. --tc2011 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been explained over and over see above. Specifically, I see the push away from the historical meaning of "bear arms" towards a individual right meaning. The shift is out of balance of the reliable sources which violates policy WP:UNDUE. Also, the blur of the decidedly USA local as it it were a universal global issue is inappropriately framing the issue as favoring gun rights globally. Indeed, gun rights globally is uncommon, rather most of the world including the UK has chosen to democratically legislate severe gun control. As to specific text, there are many problems, one recent "specific" is your removal of the fact that Cramer clearly states that "usage of the expression "bear arms" in government documents referred overwhelmingly to the profession of military service." Also, the Declaration of Independence inclusion of the term 'bear arms' for conscripted sailer's (when these deck hands did not even get to touch gun powder) is well documented by reliable secondary sourcing. Instead of adding sourcing, you deleted it. Your deletion of that passage causes undue POV shift off balance. The renaming of the article, which Yaf did during my block, a block which resulted after Yaf falsely reported my constructive edit as if it was a revert, has improperly shifted the POV off a neutral balance point. Remember the balance point is to be determined by the weight found in the reliable sourcing, not the weight of opinions of the involved editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The only push here has been to suppress or twist reliable sources that balance the article's systemic bias of researchers who focus solely on government documents, particularly of the United States, in portraying the historical meaning of a phrase that was actually in wider English usage. You attribute the quotation "usage of the expression "bear arms" in government documents referred overwhelmingly to the profession of military service" to Cramer, but that text does not appear in the source. Cramer does in fact use the term "overwhelmingly" when characterizing the claims of researchers suffering from selection bias, but you have twisted and misrepresented his words. What Cramer actually says is, "If you look in databases consisting almost entirely of government documents, it should not be a surprise that most of the uses will be governmental in nature." What you are doing here is fundamentally dishonest and deceitful. Just because the section/article to date has been systemically biased and only contained sources from a narrow and non-neutral POV does not mean it should remain so to suit the interests of an involved editor. Regarding your 3 blocks[36]...just a guess, but it seems you are engaging in a variety of disruptive and counter-productive tactics, multiple reverts being one of them. Regarding your primary source/OR, see above Use of True Primary Texts and "Bear Arms" v. "Bear Arms Against". The quotation you keep reinserting doesn't even address the definition of bear arms, rather, it addresses the definition of bear arms against.

The reasons given for inserting the POV tag appear to be based on dishonest representations of reliable sources, and its insertion serves to maintain the systemically biased history of this article. This is an improper use of the POV tag, therefore I suggest that it be removed. --tc2011 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest? We have some work to do, if we hope to ever understand and tolerate each other as co-editors. Presently we disagree at the most fundamental level, which is that we disagree that we have a dispute. (Wow. Read the tag.) Quoted from the tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Yet, you insist on removing the tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my suggestion that the POV tag shouldn't be used as a disruptive tactic to maintain a biased/unbalanced status quo as "insistence on removing the tag." I trust that you are not implying I have removed the POV tag. --tc2011 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of True Primary Texts

Why a certain editor insists upon edit warring a true primary text (the Declaration of Independence) back into the article, and at the same time decries secondary sources (court publications, which cite primary and other secondary sources) as original research is beyond me. In any event, the relevant original research should be excised. tc2011 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The original research analysis of the text of the Declaration of Independence as it relates to the definition of bear arms against is unsourced (and does not address the definition of bear arms). SaltyBoatr has suggested instead of removing this apparent original research that *I* should dig up a citation for this particular analysis ("Instead of adding sourcing, you deleted it."),[37] though I have no idea who originally included this, and do not know whence it was obtained, or even that it was obtained from anywhere. This is ridiculous. If someone has a citation, please include it, otherwise this original research will be removed. --tc2011 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It was put in by editor BruceHallman here. No reference was ever included or given. It is original research; it interprets a primary source; it should be removed. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried finding a source for this interpretation of this primary source (the United States Declaration of Independence) because the editor that insists on inserting this original research refused to do so, but was unable to find any. If someone else has a relevant source, feel free to add it and put the interpretation back into the article. --tc2011 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you were ask for sourcing, versus deleting the passage. I recall reading this sourcing in a book, but the exact book escapes my memory at the moment. This sourcing also is found in the amicus brief to the Emerson case from the Potowmack Institute[38] quote:

""Bearing Arms" in Naval Service. Perhaps the most revealing use of "bear arms" as a figurative expression of military duty concerning service with the Continental or state navies or service aboard privateers. This type of military service, on the high seas or coastal waters as a pilot or seaman— or as an impressed sailor on a British warship— was just as much "arms bearing" in 18th century linguistic practice as was service in the militia. And there is no ambiguity of meaning. Sailors did not "carry" weapons as a normal part of their duties. Rather, they manned the sails or performed other non-armed jobs aboard ship. ... This usage is captured most persuasively in the clause of the Declaration of Independence..."

Do you still have objections to restoring this passage which you deleted? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you don't cite the book you think you remember reading it in, it depends on if court documents are acceptable sources for Wikipedia, doesn't it? --tc2011 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your answer to your question? Please respond, as I would like that passage restored ASAP, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying court documents are acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles? --tc2011 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of POV Disputes and Proposed Solutions

• That the article has a long-standing American gun control proponent POV.

• Solution: Work against gaming the system to disrupt changes to the article.

• That the article gives WP:UNDUE to non American gun control POVs.

• Solution: Provide citation from verifiable sources that all verifiable sources support the American gun control proponent POV.

• That the article gives WP:UNDUE to the American gun control proponent POV. An editor claims that "all"[39] verifiable sources support the militia-only definition of "bear arms," yet there is no substantiated evidence[40] that all, or even a majority, of verifiable sources take this view. The only evidence cited so far is that an editor claims "The 'some' word implies that there is peer reviewed research to the contrary, and I don' think that there is any peer reviewed research to the contrary."[41] This is claimed even after peer-reviewed citations are given in addition to other verifiable sources to the contrary.

• Solution: Provide content and citations from balanced and verifiable sources.

Which gives rise to the next POV dispute...

• That the article suffers from systemic bias of the American gun control proponent POV demographic, and has consequently incorporated sources primarily from that POV.

• Solution: Provide content and citations from balanced and verifiable sources.

• That the article has a USA focus and thus is not global.

• Solution: Provide additional sources describing the international right to arms.

--tc2011 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another extreme POV push has been inserted by User:SaltyBoatr: "However, while the researchers Cramer and Olson confirm that the term 'bear arms' in government documents overwhelmingly involved usages related to military service, when the study was expanded to non-governmental documents, some non-military usages were found:". This is a totally false piece of Original Research, that turns the findings of Cramer & Olson to the exact opposite of what is actually contained in their paper. Cramer and Olson actually state that U&M found overwhelmingly military service definitions in the Government documents that they cited, due to selective bias in the selection of the documents that they cite, and that extensive non-military usages were found when extending beyond the select set of only the Government documents that U&M cite. This statement needs to be removed and reverted back to the older, neutral wording. Rather than reverting, SaltyBoatr needs to revert this himself. Otherwise, it is just one more example of extreme POV pushing, counter to what the source actually says. Yaf (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the text that you have added does misrepresent and twist the authors' meaning, as you did here, to conform to the unverifiable POV that "all"[42] verifiable sources support a militia-only definition of 'bear arms.'[43] Please revert so as not to further jeopardize the NPOV of this article, and to avoid edit warring. --tc2011 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Author's meaning? Pardon me, Cramer and Olson, at best, claim "a number" of individual rights uses. They do not quantify what "a number" means. I have read the research on this, and "a number" actually means a small handful out of many hundreds of uses. My edit is solidly based on the Cramer and Olson sourcing, and no revert is needed. Indeed, your complaint is upon the figurative Cramer and Olson "author's meaning" in your imagination. Mine is based on a literal reading of their words. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation does not "reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)."[44] Not at all. --tc2011 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the opposite. These authors state bluntly, direct quote: "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts." They go on and elaborate what they mean by "almost entirely" by citing a few examples which they claim to be exceptions. This is fact, not interpretation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you ignore the fact that this is part of the source's criticism of "previous scholarly examination." The source is not confirming previous conclusions. --tc2011 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A "literal reading" taken out of context. The next sentence in Cramer & Olson regarding their opinion of U&M's previous "scholarly examination" is "But this is perhaps reflective of a selection bias problem." Cramer & Olson are thus countering the claim of U&M, contrary to what you inserted. Hence, what is missing is neutrality, context, and conformance to what the Cramer and Olson paper actually says, not what you you have read elsewhere and interpreted incorrectly, contrary to what their paper says. Your OR needs to be removed from the article, and the article needs to be reverted to the neutral statement that was there before. This needs to be done immediately. Yaf (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How have I taken anything out of context? Cramer is simply stating that there are exceptions to the prior scholarly finding that there are hundreds of 'military use' examples. Cramer a very few exceptions which he describes simply as "a number". In my opinion, Cramer is guilty of shoddy scholarship by not quantifying that number, but it is clear that it is a very small number which should be given appropriate weight. Have you read the Heller amicus brief[45] on this topic? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is ironic that Cramer criticizes the prior scholarly findings for systemic bias, but rather than doing a statistical analysis to control for effects of systemic bias, Cramer instead proceeds to 'cherry pick' usages favoring his 'individual rights' point of view. Cramer's cherry picking of data is also a form of systemic bias. Why should this article give equal weight to Cramer's shoddy scholarship? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this revert edit[46] to be part of a long term edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has already been warned on this by an Admin, here. Yaf (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, It is you, not me, who did the revert[47]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address the identified concerns, and moved the criticism of U&M to the second paragraph, letting U&M have their say in the first paragraph. Comments? Yaf (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to the "However" and I object to the "unilateral", as it is not unilateral (did you read that Heller amicus brief[http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacProfessorsOfLinguistics.pdf?). I also object to the selective quotation from the Cramer document as it obscures the point that Cramer believes that "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts." You are blurring that a few exceptions somehow carry more weight than the preponderance is 'almost entirely' military uses. This is blatant POV push. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you twist the meaning of Cramer & Olson to exactly opposite what their conclusion actually is. The selective quotation you favor is immediately followed by a sentence that is a criticism of U&M's previous "scholarly examination" and that states "But this is perhaps reflective of a selection bias problem." Please look at an Admin's comment on this very topic and discussion, here. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "unilateral" appears wrong. I see that multiple scholars have found that the term "bear arms" meant to serve military service. Indeed, it is the Cramer and Olson paper that appears unilateral. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Unilateral" is an appropriate word here, as it describes a conclusion "of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject; one-sided."[48] --tc2011 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about how to bring neutrality back to the article. Your answer serves to defend a pro-gun wording. Is your intent to bring neutrality? Or is your intent to defend a pro-gun point of view?

Also, I ask, is the neutrality of the article determined by the balance point of the personal opinions and of the energetic editors? Or, is the neutrality balance point determined by the balance found in reliable sourcing? I observe, that in Wikipedia, there is a phenomena that energetic editors tending to want to advance a pro-firearms point of view. This is a pervasive problem of systemic bias in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Move back to "Right to bear arms"

"Right to bear arms" seems to be the most common term for this. Yaf says it has gun control connotations and that "...keep and bear arms" has gun rights connotations. That may be slightly true, but I would strongly prefer either title over "right to arms," which is a much, much more uncommon term. Per WP:NAME I think we should move back.

For what it's worth, I also agree that this article is somewhat biased in favor of pro-gun control legal analysis. Still, it should be moved back to the most commonly-understood title. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Bear Arms" v. "Bear Arms Against"

The phrase bear arms against cannot be said to be synonymous with "bear arms," as the article previously implied. I have corrected this, but wonder if the O.E.D. definition of that phrase should even be in the article. tc2011 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "bear arms against," as defined by the O.E.D., is an English idiom distinct from "bear arms." As such, its inclusion only seems to clutter the article and set the stage for some original research.[49] Does anyone object to its removal? --tc2011 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Where does the OED say this is "an English idiom distinct from "bear arms". It appears you are using WP:SYN here and I object. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The definitions for "bear arms" and "bear arms against" are listed under completely different headings in the OED. --tc2011 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "bear arms"

Seems to be a lot of OR going on above, and I don't care to read through it. Some sources seem to think that the argument (attributed here to Brady) that "bear arms" refers only to military use is an exaggeration—at least during the time of ratification. The argument was popular in the 1970's, but secondary sources now suggest that the original understanding of the term sometimes encompasses non-military service. Dennis, 29 Akron L. Rev. 57, Koppel, 68 Alb. L. Rev. 305 (yeah, hardly unbiased sources, I know). The Dennis article cites to Halbrook, "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to 'Bear Arms'", 49 LAW AND CONTEMP. PROBS. 151 (1986), which appears to have convinced at least one pro-gun control professor (Kates) that "bear arms" historically encompassed personal use. Kates's reply, just before Halbrook's article on JSTOR, says "My Michigan article took the position that the right to bear arms off one's own premises...extended only to individuals carrying them in the course of militia service. ...I must concede that [Professor Halbrook's] evidence invalidates my position." It continues, "Nothing in Professor Halbrook's linguistic evidence...gainsays the fact that, from early common law, the right to carry [was not absolute]" p.149.

We have better sources available as well. In 2004 the Rhode Island Supreme Court decided that "bear arms" connotates military service, although they cite a lot of precedent on both sides of the issue. See Mosby v. Devine, A.2d 1031, online slip opinion here. Justice Flanders submitted a very long dissent heavily laden in footnotes (starting on page 30 of the slip opinion).

In short, there's a lot of work on this specific issue, and the current note is inadequate and possibly misleading. Kates, for example, has apparently backed away from his interpretation, and citing another author to convey his views is ridiculous. I think the whole thing should be scrapped and rebuilt. The OED passage in particular strikes me as the dictionary-definition of synthesis. See WP:SYN.

Why, for that matter, does it make sense to bifurcate the definition sections on this point? For those who complain about the article being Yankee-centric, these two sections are very long meanderings about the meaning of two words in U.S. documents. This should be a couple of paragraphs in the article. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh opinion and insight. I am a bit apprehensive that you may or may not be able to separate your personal opinion from your editorial duty to edit based on the opinion balance found in the reliable sources. This comes from my observation that all the sourcing you cite, seems to be from a 'pro-gun' slant. I would hope that you are able to read the sources, both with which you agree and disagree. In the recent past, this article has had the problem of personal POV pushing.

Regarding your concern that the Oxford English Dictionary definition is WP:OR, it is not. There are several reliable sources that analyze the meaning of 'bear arms' through a reading of the Oxford English Dictionary, like here here and here.

Also, I support the article name "Right to Bear Arms" for the same WP:NAME reasoning your give. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would assume more good faith upon the part of admins like CHL. His editing history does not suggest any kind of preoccupation with this topic, unlike that of some other editors here, and he was completely open about the POV of the sources he put forth and the reason he cited them. The sourcing you cite (Yassky, Crooker, and Silveira v. Lockyer) on the OED issue all has a definite anti-gun slant, and unlike CHL you did not disclose that fact. So do you question your own ability to separate your personal opinion from your editorial duties?

Both of you make good points about the OED: it's not OR, but it probably should be cited to a reliable source for the analysis, like the Yassky article. I think the WP:NAME point is a good one, too -- maybe this article should be moved back to its old name.

Incidentally, the third of your "reliable sources" is the 9th Circuit opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer. So, do you now take the position that appellate court opinions can be reliable sources? PubliusFL (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken. The third ref is a book, ISBN:1425925804, not an appellate court document. Also, it is remarkable that you view the Oxford English Dictionary as anti-gun, and it reveals the depth of the POV battle surrounding the editing this article. And thirdly, now there are three of us now that favor moving this article back to its old name. Certainly, I will try to maintain WP:AGF, but when I see only pro-gun sources in Luke's citations, I am asking a fair question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't characterize the OED as anti-gun, I characterized the three sources you pointed to ("There are several reliable sources that analyze the meaning of 'bear arms' through a reading of the Oxford English Dictionary, like here here and here") as anti-gun. I explicitly stated the sources I was talking about in parentheses ("Yassky, Crooker, and Silveira v. Lockyer"), so there is no excuse for trying to make it look like I was accusing the OED of bias. Regarding the third ref, it is true that the text is found in a book, but nonetheless it is a verbatim reprinting of the Silveira v. Lockyer opinion. PubliusFL (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the renaming of the article to Right to keep and bear arms, as it is the wording used in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as many other international documents. Right to bear arms, though, is decidedly an anti-gun wording. The reason for the current wording is to avoid taking either side in the pro-gun and anti-gun camps. It is why the the consensus was reached previously, to name the article Right to arms. Yaf (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would favor either title over the current one. I'm not sure why "right to bear arms" has an anti-gun slant. I'm new to this particular subtopic, but I've not seen it described that way.

SaltyBoatr: I don't have an agenda here, but I found the exchange between Professors Kates and Halbrook very enlightening. As is the opinion in the Rhode Island case. Both of these are debates, not one-sided sources. I prefer them to the current lead becuase they actually address each other's arguments whereas the sources now cited are talking past each other (i.e., "bear arms" in the PA constitution is mixed in with Latin analysis and the OED). I find this jumbled intro to be synthetic. There's no reason to separate the sections; it's not helpful.

Instead, let's concisely lay out each position and represent the academic dialog that actually exists in the literature.

Also, SaltyBoayr, I would appreciate if you drop the paranoia. I'm not a POV warrior on this topic. Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke. Thanks, I am willing, mutually, to "drop the paranoia". Do you offer similar advice to Yaf and Publius, who (see above) both are framing the task of editing this article as a pro-gun/anti-gun POV battle? It is a little curious that you see paranoia in me, but not those two. I emphatically support your advice to "represent the academic dialog that actually exists in the literature". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I'm not sure what you were reading, but my comments were a direct response to you, trying to point out how the insinuations you were making about Cool Hand Luke applied just as much to you. I wasn't doing any framing, I was explaining the consequences of the framing that you had applied. PubliusFL (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr: their first messages to me did not say "I am a bit apprehensive that you may or may not be able to separate your personal opinion from your editorial duty." I have no strong personal opinion on this topic, so your message was quite paranoid. You didn't even look at the sources I found most intriguing. I have some U.S. legal education, some knowledge about guns, but no strong opinion about gun rights. In fact, I think the collective rights argument seems a bit stronger to me. Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see POV framing in PubliusFL comment "anti-gun slant" on 21:34 30 May 2008 (UTC) and in the majority of Yaf's comments, most recently "anti-gun wording" on 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC). In any case, sorry for asking. I am happy to accept and welcome Cool Hand Luke at his word. And actually I did look at your sources. I see that the Kopel article, pages 124-126 are very much 'on topic', though David Kopel does not represent a neutral point of view, but even Kopel acknowledges "The majority adopted the theory...that the phrase 'bear arms' has an exclusive military meaning". My opinion of the Anthony Dennis article found on guncite.com is that it is a polemic with an agenda which we should use only with caution. I hadn't read the Halbrook article on JSTOR, because it is subscription access only, but I just looked through a library card account, and see that it is also a polemic, yet very much worthwhile per WP:RS. Your three sources, Kopel, Dennis and Halbrook, all are written from a solid 'individual rights' POV advocacy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

...All published by law professors in law journals. And the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, which you're too busy to look at. Note again that the Halbrook piece is one of two: a debate. Note again that unlike you, I noted that the sources were biased. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Does being a law professor mean they are not polemic? I advise we favor the work of history professors, over law professors. Also, I disagree that court documents meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:PSTS. And, pardon me, I am quite aware of when sources are biased. Don't be fooled by the smearing of my reputation. In the eyes of a pro-gun ideologue, my arguments for a neutral article appear to be 'anti-gun'. I am not anti-gun, I am simply interested in the article having a neutral point of view as measured by the balance of the reliable sourcing, and not measured by the balance of opinions of the interested editors. There is a disproportion attraction of 'pro-gun' POV editors to this article which results in systemic bias. Human nature is such that it is difficult for editors to separate a true neutral point of view from their own personal point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is smearing your reputation, SaltyBoatr, your actions[50][51] and block log speak for themselves. --tc2011 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that you engage in innuendo and avoid my concern about systemic bias. Is it more important to shift the question to a person than the neutral balance point of the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really not see that my wording was an intentional mirroring of your own language, "'pro-gun' slant," in the immediately preceding comment (16:29, 30 May 2008)? I based my wording directly on your own. So if I was engaged in POV framing, so were you. PubliusFL (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And, consensus appears to have changed, can we move the article back to its former name? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it would be proper to move back to "right to bear arms," per previous discussions. Consensus does not appear to have changed, anyhow. May I remind everyone that, prior to the move, the "definition" of the article topic was sourced to Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign, adopting her terminology. It was noted that "right to keep and bear arms" would have been the more appropriate title, since it (1) succinctly addressed the global characteristics of the right (possession and use), (2) addressed the actual content of the article, (3) borrowed language from the most widely recognized historical and NPOV document regarding the right (as opposed to more obscure and/or POV documents). Although "right to arms" is a less artful title than "right to keep and bear arms," it clearly enables interested readers to find the article, and effectively eliminates POV concerns in the title. --tc2011 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I count three editors favoring the move back, and two opposed. The consensus appears to have changed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I favor changing the article title to Right to keep and bear arms. If this is not appropriate due to concerns over balancing POV concerns (this was the reason that the original consensus was made to name the article Right to arms, by the way, instead of the more common Right to keep and bear arms), then Right to arms should be retained. Right to bear arms is decidedly an anti-gun title, being that it is the title that is used by anti-gun organizations opposed to an individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, through removing the "keep" portion of the Second Amendment wording while focusing on the "militia" content of the Second Amendment wording. Yaf (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not favor moving the article back to Right to bear arms. Like Yaf, I think that Right to keep and bear arms is more appropriate, but I honestly don't think there is a snowball's chance that it will be moved there. In the meantime, it should stay where it is. --Hamitr (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, do we have consensus for "Right to keep and bear arms"? That's also a much better name. As I said, I would favor either, but right to arms should not stand per WP:NAME. It's a relatively small minority use. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, can someone provide a source showing that "right to bear arms" is POV? It's used by gun rights advocates all the time—both in short hand, and on full reference. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Right to bear arms is not generally used by all gun rights advocates. Although this is clearly not an unbiased source, Section 5 (and to a lesser extent, Section 6) of the following text does make a POV case about the Right to bear arms wording. If others agree with changing the title to Right to keep and bear arms, then we should change the title to Right to keep and bear arms, as it is clearly the most common wording. Yaf (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Google and Lexis-Nexis (U.S. law reviews, combined) "clearly" show that right to bear arms is the most common wording. I get that you don't like Brady's shtick, but lots of gun rights advocates are fine with the term. See, for example, Eugene Volokh and Dave Kopel. The fact that Brady made a bad argument is not a good enough reason to violate WP:NAME.

That said, if there's consensus for "Right to keep and bear arms," we should move it immediately. As far as I can tell, only one person opposes it. It's not used quite as frequently as "right to bear arms," but it's used nearly as often. "Right to arms" is not. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the global right to bear arms, and the 'right to keep and bear arms' which is US centric and related to the US Second Amendment. I wouldn't oppose an article split, one for the global topic, and another for the USA topic. 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The title "right to keep and bear arms" more accurately represents the global nature of the right in question.[52][53] I think we all know that launching a separate article would result, appropriately, in an immediate merge. What you suggest, SaltyBoatr, would have the article going in circles, and accomplish nothing but disruption. --tc2011 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a solution that I like. The specific language "right to keep and bear arms" does evoke the U.S. 2nd Amendment, which has its own article. "Right to bear arms," however, does imply an anti-gun POV because it plays into the contention that the phrase "bear arms," by itself, refers to military service. The English Bill of Rights says "have arms," and Blackstone talks about "having arms" or "having and using arms." PubliusFL (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what led the original move to right to arms. However, I tend to agree with Cool Hand Luke that right to arms is an inferior title. Right to keep and bear arms, however, is objectively the more appropriate title per WP:NAME, because:

• it succinctly encompasses the major and global elements of the issue (possession and use), (Use of "and")
• it is taken from the most notable and globally recognized English language document dealing with the issue,
• it is taken from an historical document, and as such is objectively NPOV,
• it succinctly and more completely describes the actual content of the article,
• it is more artfully descriptive than the current title, and, of course,
• it is in popular use.

So... This is where we're at. --tc2011 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is far from global, your Anglo-American bias ignores 90% of the world. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an English language article, so...we use English words to describe the issues. Do you have citations to the original language (Spanish, Chinese, etc.)[54][55] documents that describe the global elements of possession and use? I'd be happy to see you include those other original languages, if that's in line with Wikipedia norms. --tc2011 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

PubliusFL, I share your concern about US-centricness. The article is quite focussed on the USA, as witnessed by the lengthy exposition about the meaning of individual words in the Second Amendment. I would like to know what the term for this concept is in other anglo countries, but as near as I can tell, the international term is "right to bear arms," and the Yankee "Right to keep and bear arms" is clearly identifiable, as suggested by WP:NAME. I think that "Right to arms" actually has other implications elsewhere. For example, this search of .uk domains shows that the term "right to arms" more commonly refers to one's right to display family coats of arms in Britain. In other words, the one justification for this name (that it's "international") actually tells us that "right to arms" is an unacceptable title. Unless someone has a good objection, I'll move it myself within 24 hours.

Tc2011 has concisely laid out the case per WP:NAME. Again, I would favor either, and I do prefer "right to bear arms," but the status quo is unacceptable by our policies. Cool Hand Luke 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Right to keep and bear arms is not a US-only label. See for example, http://www.rkba.ca/, a website in Canada. Likewise, the "keep and bear arms" terminology is also used in England and Australia. On the other hand, the Right to bear arms terminology is largely a modern, gun-control-preferred terminology used only in the US, created specifically to stress the collective or militia-only interpretation of the Second Amendment. Although a Google search does show Right to bear arms is currently slightly more common than Right to keep and bear arms, closer examination of the search results shows many hits among US-based gun-control-oriented websites. Among significant sections of the search results, there is considerable rancor associated with the terminology Right to bear arms, primarily for its tacit support of gun-control by its very name. This article should not be used to push such a POV. Prior to the rise of gun control in the 20th Century, there is is no significant usage of the term Right to bear arms, although Freedom to bear arms was commonly used. Freedom to bear arms is more appropriate than Right to bear arms, but Right to keep and bear arms is the more historically common and more historically neutral term, with considerable international usage. Freedom to bear arms was primarily used only in the US. Taking the Brady shtick as an official name, couched in vague Wikipedia policy terms, is not a neutral approach to naming the article. This article should not take their position, but should take a neutral approach to selecting the title, choosing a term with significant international usage. Right to keep and bear arms meets these criteria. Yaf (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All your 'proof' is Anglo. Sorry, the "keep and" is decidedly US centric, or at the least Anglo centric. Moving to 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' would entail splitting the article into Anglo and non-Anglo versions. We must not move the article and ignore the 90% of the world which is not Anglo. Of all the suggestions, Right to Bear Arms is the best. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Verbatim "keep" is only Anglo insofar as it's the English language. English language Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in English. This is getting ridiculous. Of course we're not going to find "keep" verbatim in Spanish, Chinese, etc.,[56][57] just as we will not find "bear" or any other word of the various suggested titles. The meaning, however, is what's important, and that is "keep" and "bear" accurately, NPOViewly, succinctly, and completely address the global aspects of possession and use of arms which are both intrinsic to the topic of this article. --tc2011 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have just touched on the nut of this dispute. You prefer to separate the words "bear" from "arms", knowing full well that the two word term "bear arms" has historical meaning you hope to suppress, which is different from the modern meaning "bear" (to carry) "arms". Similar, you seek to emphasis "keep" because of your agenda, which is to advance the theory that "keep" means individually possess. Of course, this is but one POV, whcih you incessantly seek to advance. I am arguing that your POV is but one POV, and needs to be counterbalanced to comply with WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem I see: If, by your own contention, the phrase "bear arms" has a historical meaning relating to military service rather than possession of arms and must be analyzed as a whole, then using the title "right to bear arms" for this article does not adequately cover the English tradition, which speaks of "having" or "having and using" arms (see the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone). It also does not adequately cover the right contained in the Mexican constitution, which speaks of a "derecho a poseer armas" ("right to possess arms"). It sounds like you are advocating a title that you intend not to cover individual possession of arms, which would obviously not be global considering these English and Mexican examples. I guess it boils down to this: what does the historical meaning of the phrase "bear arms," which you state is different from the modern meaning of the phrase, have to do with those global examples of arms-related rights that never used that particular phrase? PubliusFL (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also point to the Thomas Jefferson game bill speaking of 'shall bear a gun' mentioned in Cool Hand Luke's Anthony Dennis article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your highly nuanced question, it hits the nail on the head. Indeed, we face this dilemma, walking a line between the modern 'having arms' concept and the antiquated military service based concept. Therefore, I favor coverage of the topic as it has evolved over time trending from the 17th and 18th Century where the predominate understanding (with some exceptions) was 'military service', trending towards the modern understanding where the concept is viewed broadly as the 'having arms' concept. I acknowledge the spectrum of understandings, as clearly, the concept has evolved over time. Can we avoid having this article be a battlefront in modern gun politics, and instead try to represent the full spectrum of the trend of thought? The biggest reason I favor Right to bear arms is the main WP:NAME premise: What the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One difficulty with your progression from the 17th-18th century with "military service" to a modern understanding with "having arms" is that the principal document using the "having arms" language (the English Bill of Rights of 1689) predates the principal document using the "bear arms" language (the U.S. Bill of Rights) by more than a century. If this article were primarily about the 17th-18th century English right, it seems pretty clear that Right to have arms would be the best title. If it were primarily about the U.S. federal right, it seems pretty clear that Right to keep and bear arms would be the best title. U.S. state constitutions vary between "right to keep and bear arms" (30 states) and "right to bear arms" (13 states), with Montana as the oddball ("right to keep or bear arms"). I'm lost about the best course of action. All titles that have been proposed seem equally unsatisfactory to me. Looking at the bright side, I suppose that makes them equally satisfactory. PubliusFL (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary dates the term 'bear arms' to Arber's English Garner circa 1568, much earlier than the 'principle document' you identify as the Bill of Rights. I think that part of the ambiguity problem is that firearms were used both for hunting and for militia use. I recall reading, per Joyce Lee Malcolm, a part of the reason for the English Bill of Rights stems from the tensions over game laws enacted to restrict militia firearms used for poaching game on royal lands. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point of view on this is contained in an editorial by Halbrook, that is here. It makes the case that, at least at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, "bear" meant "carry". He also makes several other points germane to this discussion. It's worth a read. Yaf (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as seen in the Anthony Dennis article when Thomas Jefferson meant "carry a firearm" he wrote "bear a gun" and consistent with the vernacular when he meant to serve military service he used the two word term "bear arms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but is the 1568 source in reference to a right? I ask because this article isn't about "bearing arms" per se, but about a right relating to bearing arms (whatever that may mean in this context), or possessing arms, or some combination of the two. What the phrase "bear arms" means in other contexts may be relevant but isn't necessarily so, especially when the document dating back closest to that time which does deal with a relevant "right" (the English Bill of Rights of 1689) does not use the phrase "bear arms." PubliusFL (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think it was a reference to a right. Regardless your objection presently appears moot after the page move. My question now, is why does the 1689 English Bill of Rights 'having arms' pertain to 'keep and bear arms'? I think the global article content now needs to be moved into a new split out article. The article topic now is US based, and the global content (everything except the keep and material is presently off topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Have" and "keep" pertain to the possession of arms, which is a global aspect of the right (as has been noted ad nauseum) that a certain editor's American gun-control POV pushing seeks to excise from the discussion.[58][59][60] --tc2011 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not pushing a gun-control POV. I am asking for neutrality balance. There is prominent POV that "Keep and bear arms" means the maintenance (and arming) of a well regulated militia versus the possession of individual guns. Do you deny that this alternate POV exists? The POV balance was improperly skewed by the recent page move. The choice of the verbatim wording of the Second Amendment for the article title (omitting the first thirteen words) has been identified in reliable sourcing (see Hemenway book) a reflection of the influences of a pro-gun POV campaign. I don't seek to excise your pro-gun POV, only to give it neutral balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the article

I've moved the title off of "right to arms" which is a poor title because it's uncommonly used and has a different meaning—particularly in Britain. However, I don't consider the issue closed, and if any would like to see the article moved back to Right to bear arms, you might consider starting an WP:RFC on the subject. This title is acceptable enough to me that I can live with it per, but I would not oppose moving it back. Cool Hand Luke 03:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do with the section on the United Kingdom and the Civil Law/Roman Law, Religious Law and Chinese Law sections, which are now off topic? Split the article into a global and a US based article? Certainly, there is a huge difference between the global right(s) to arms and the US right to arms, perhaps such a split with disambiguation links makes sense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not off-topic, since the issues of possession and use indicated by the new title are global. See the article. --tc2011 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you hold that "keep" in that context means possession of firearms. But that it just one POV. Can you please acknowledge that other POV's than your own exist, and that Wikipedia must accommodate? Right to Bear Arms seems a neutral compromise between the various POV's. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)