Talk:United States Bill of Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleUnited States Bill of Rights is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleUnited States Bill of Rights has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 24, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
March 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 26, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 27, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
June 30, 2011WikiProject peer reviewCollaborated
July 30, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 20, 2004, December 15, 2004, December 15, 2005, December 15, 2006, December 15, 2007, December 15, 2008, December 15, 2009, December 15, 2010, and December 15, 2012.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017[edit]

Change "The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)." to remove the word libel. Libel is a form of defamation so having the word libel is redundant and unnecessary. Thank you. 2600:1017:B11B:F83C:B1FB:F6DD:9919:5939 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone reverted me and instigated a discussion. I agree that doesn't make a ton of sense and, when that phrase is used again in the lede at the case's article, its source doesn't provide any reason for mentioning both as if they're distinct concepts. Maybe it could say "defamation in general and libel suits specifically" since Sullivan was about libel. CityOfSilver 06:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Subsection Crafting Amendments has erroneously transcribed text from the source document[edit]

Under the Crafting Amendments subsection, the proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution James Madison authored are show to modify Article II in many places where it was indeed Article I. When the source for this information is opened (currently footnote 49), the text on that webpage clearly shows that the ones in question were intended for Article I of the Constitution. The current link to that webpage is [1]. I believe this was just an honest mistake during transcribing. Considering this article is classified as a "good article," I thought this honest mistake should be corrected to preserve that integrity. Thank you so much for taking this into consideration. (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed—Thanks for pointing this out. Drdpw (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

27th amendment[edit]

At the top of the article it says that the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the constitution. I noticed that nowhere at the beginning of the article that the 27th amendment was part of the Bill of Rights but was not ratified until 1992. Should somone had a clause at the beginning of the article that the 27th amendment is technically part of the Bill of Rights but was not ratified until 1992 along with another amendment relating to the House of Reps still pending amongst the states?

No, there's no need for such a clause, as the introduction presently states the relationship between the 27th Amendment (that of the the yet unratified amendment as well) and the 1st–10th Amendments accurately. America's "collective consciousness" regarding personal freedoms and rights, and regarding the scope of the government's power is shaped by Amendments I through 10—The Bill of Rights; Article the First and Article the Second missed their opportunity to be a part of the Bill of Rights when they were not ratified in the early 1790s. This didn't change in 1992 when the latter became the 27th Amendment. It's not thought of as being part of the Bill of Rights by the general public. As a result, while it was submitted to the states as part of the proposed Bill of Rights, it was not ratified with Article the ThirdArticle the Twelfth, and so is not part of the Bill of Rights. Drdpw (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018[edit]

In the Second Amendment section it says :

"In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), ..."

But in the linked article :

It says the year was 1876.

I've had a look on other sites, and some say 1875 and others 1876. On the linked Wikipedia page here :

and a bit further down, it even references both dates. I'm guessing that the case probably started in 1875 and was resolved in 1876. Given the prevelance of both dates, it might be useful to clarify the fact that both dates are used. Maccaday (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done changed it to 1876, going off of the Library of Congress document:

It seems it was argued in 1875, decided in 1876, and the decision is what's important Cannolis (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)