Welcome to mediation. What I would like the parties to so is give me a summary of what is going on with this article, what the problems are from their view, and what they hope to get out of this process. Remember that the issues to be mediated are: Resolve differences in opinion regarding NPOV/POV issues, and: Resolve differences in opinion whether or not to use cited historical facts in writing article. Any conduct matters are tossed aside during this process. Upon all four parties writing their statements, I will continue with mediation. Wizardman 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article such as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, based upon an historical amendment to the US Constitution, should contain properly-cited and relevant historical information, including historical commentary discussing the creation, meaning, and even changes of interpretation of the meaning of this amendment. Yet, the inclusion or editing of such content within the article has been a significant point of contention with regards to writing this article. The primary point of contention is that the use of such historical data may favor a "pro-gun" or "individual rights" bias, in that the inclusion of such content may favor what is known as strict constructionism, also known as originalism and textualism, rather than favoring a different method of interpretation and exposition known as contextualism and the Living Constitution that may instead favor a "collective right" or "gun control" bias. The need for the article to contain representative proportions of all methods of interpretation and points of view, in order to be neutrally written, is certainly a tacit thread that should be underlying the writing of the article.
Yet, the building of this "house of timbers" has not proceeded uniformly "among all its rooms", through being an iterative work of small additions here and there, as time permits each editor to make his or her contributions. Obviously, this "house of timbers" has seen more content added on the historical content rather than on more recent interpretations of the amendment. This, however, is to be expected, for this amendment dates to 1791, and the historical interpretations have a 200 year head start in the race to writing this article over some of the more modern interpretations. Such an imbalance, however, should not be interpreted as indicating "systemic bias". Rather, it should be interpreted as providing an opportunity to contribute balancing content.
Another point of contention has been the necessity for including State interpretations as well as Federal interpretations of the Second Amendment. Further confusing this issue is that the Second Amendment itself was crafted from the then extant state constitutional provisions protecting the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, the exact phrasings of which were used to draft quickly the Second Amendment wording, rather than starting from scratch, while drafting the Second Amendment. As it turns out, without much surprise, the first commentary on the Second Amendment was among the many states, as they struggled to reconcile its meaning with their own state constitutions. It was this early commentary, from judicial decisions at the state level, that largely framed the two major points of view regarding the Second Amendment that exist even to this day. In Bliss (1822 KY), an absolute individual right was interpreted for the meaning of the Second Amendment, further advanced by state additions to the basic right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment through Kentucky's own further-reaching constitutional protections. In Buzzard (1842 AR), the right that the Second Amendment protected was seen as being a "collective right", yet still with provisions for the interpretation of an individual right when "upon a journey". It was not until 1905 and 1915 that further state level interpretations were made of a "collective right". These details are needed by readers of this article, to understand the modern dichotomy that exists today between the two major interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Today, the meaning of the Second Amendment is before the Supreme Court in Heller/Parker. Hearings are scheduled for March 18th, 2008, to last 75 minutes, with 30 minutes reserved for advocates for each side, along with 15 minutes reserved for the Department of Justice (the Government's position) to present competing arguments. A final decision is expected later this summer. Upon this decision, considerable re-writing of this article is likely to be needed. It is important that we resolve the points of contention regarding this article, to provide readers with a useful understanding of the Second Amendment.
Hence, as editors of this important article, we owe our readers the necessary content to understand the historical creation, meanings, interpretations, and evolving views regarding the Second Amendment. The key is not to delete one point of view, but rather to present all points of view. It is this point that fundamentally is before us today, in this POV dispute, regarding how best to write an article on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question has a deficit of well-sourced material in support of the 'collective rights' interpretation of the amendment. user saltyboatr sees NPOV as a license to delete well-sourced and properly cited material concerning the 'individual rights' interpretation from the article, and to block other editors from contributing to the article, rather than an opportunity for him to add representative material in support of the collective rights interpretation. This is a violation of the spirit of NPOV. his claims of 'undue weight' ring hollow. it is incumbent upon an editor claiming undue weight to actually demonstrate that weight is not proportional. simply saying "there's too much of this POV" does not a valid claim make. the majority of the article is consumed in historical arguments and examples, which is appropriate for this particular article because - of all the amendments - it is the most heavily contested, thus the history provides a basis for understanding the various interpretations. adding historical content is relatively straightforward, as the history is well-established. the article is weighted towards the 'individual rights' interpretation simply because the historical record largely pertains to that POV. simply claiming "there's too much of this POV" in relation to the historical record smacks of revisionism, much like requesting that a history of the US southern states not discuss slavery "too much" as it's unpleasant to contemplate.
all that said however, the issue boils down to this: if saltyboatr believes a particular POV is underrepresented, then it is his privilege and responsibility to add high quality, well-sourced/properly cited material in support of the POV that is underrepresented. it is not his privilege or responsibility to demand that other editors be prevented from contributing to the article simply because their edits do not support his POV. it is not his privilege or responsibility to demand that well-sourced/properly cited material be removed from the article because it does not support his POV. each time possible offers of compromise have arisen, the target has been shifted. any time it is suggested that he should add material in support of his position, the problem becomes "the article is too long". the article is indeed long, but seriously, we are not going to run out of paper here. this is an electronic encyclopedia. being 'too long' is not an excuse to remove material that has a POV you disagree with.
Skipping the details[1] for the moment, and focusing on the core of the disagreement: Presently, there are four editors actively involved in editing this article, each of us brings our personal point of view bias. And, it goes without saying that this article is lightening rod for strong opinions.
I see from WP:WEIGHT, that "...the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It doesn't say: In proportion to the balance of the viewpoints of the involved editors.
This Second Amendment article has a problem of systemic bias. Editors who hold a strong belief in the values of 'a right to bear arms', tend disproportionately to be attracted to edit this article. And, editors with the strongest of views, tend to edit most strongly. Human nature causes a tendency to want to give personal viewpoint a heavier weight, a tendency which is hard to avoid. Yet, we must avoid that tendency to achieve a in proportion to the prominencePOV balance point.
That is the broad view, but the narrow specific view is a dispute over Yaf's edit of Feb27th. I challenged that edit. Objecting to 1) The shift of POV balance caused by the edit, 2) That the edit was not on topic, and 3) I challenged the sourcing per WP:V. I asked that the edit be discussed on the talk page, to work out the differences, prior to insertion in the article and was refused. Faced with this refusal, and to avoid an edit war, I asked for page protection with the hope of being able to work out our differences. Thank you for volunteering to mediate this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr believes that there is a POV problem with the article and believes the article is too long. He is the only editor who claims that these problems exist. Anytime the article has been edited in more than the most minor of ways, SaltyBoatr charges that such an edit is some sort of violation of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Effectively, SaltyBoatr acts as if he owns that article. The other editors involved in this dispute (including myself) believe SaltyBoatr is abusing those policies and guidelines. Editors should be able to edit an article without having to worry about another editor's rigid interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and his strict enforcement of those interpretations. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This [2] is yet another example of the aggressive and argumentative wikilawyering that has made trying to improve this (or any other related) article nothing more than an exercise in frustration for the past two years. One user is attempting to have a veto over all changes made or proposed. - Hoplon (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this need to a discussion about me? (Yet again.) Cannot we discuss the article instead? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything in general that I'm noticing in regards to this case, I'll post it here, in hopes that it may help lead to compromise or other ideas. You're free to reply to my points, but if any thoughts you guys may have should go in a separate section. Wizardman 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that seems to be a part of contention is the article's length. The article with the revision is 115.6kb, without the text it's 109kb. As a result, there is talk about the article becoming too long. In the future there will most likely be a point where we'll have to take a part of the article and turn it into a separate article. This, however, should be a separate discussion to take place after this one, and for this particular mediation case, I don't think that we should be looking at length as an issue in and of itself. Maybe the article is too long, but the 6-odd kb we're discussing won't make or break the article being "too long". Hopefully this sounds alright with everyone, not saying it is too long or is not too long, just noting that it shouldn't be a major issue for now. Wizardman 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we shorten the article by splitting out the "(6.1)State courts" and the "(5)Early Commentary" sections into split out articles? If we could do this, our dispute could be resolved today. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the other three were to agree to that, then that would be fine. A better idea may be to split out all of sections 5 and 6 into its own article though, and keep the interpretations aside in their own article as a result. Wizardman 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since the contention is that the article has a POV imbalance, splitting material out would constitute a POV fork, which is discouraged by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Contention? I added the POV tag, so please do not speak for me. Actually, The split out sections would have to meet all standards of WP:NPOV, and we would have the duty to keep both the parent article and the split out articles neutral. So, the POV forking objection seems like a Red herring fallacy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, good point. I'll think of something else. Do you guys think we should try and find a split first and then compromise, or try for the compromise first? Wizardman 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any POV fork that would be implicit in a "split done first" approach. It would likely only magnify our dispute; hence, I favor that we should work towards achieving a compromise first. Yaf (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
saltyboatr, what are you talking about? are you now claiming that you do not contend that the article has a POV imbalance? if so, then why are we in mediation? Anastrophe (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bollocks. you said "If we could do this, our dispute could be resolved today.". is that so? you are withdrawing your claim of POV, and the issue now is purely one of length? thus, if we move any given six kilobytes of material out of the article, the dispute is over, and the article can be unlocked? i know the answer to that, it's "no". the only material you want moved elsewhere is material you claim 'tips the POV balance'. therefore, it constitutes a POV fork. period. Anastrophe (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to pick a fight with me, or trying to resolve our dispute? Do you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing? Why should I assume good faith from you? Ask me genuine questions seeking to resolve our dispute please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and, it's WP:SOUP time! okay, let me rephrase the above, so that you can answer: you said "If we could do this, our dispute could be resolved today.". is that so? you are withdrawing your claim of POV, and the issue now is purely one of length? thus, if we move any given six kilobytes of material out of the article, the dispute is over, and the article can be unlocked? Anastrophe (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Let's try and think of what we can do to come to a consensus, get the article unprotected, and move on. We're not at mediation to get what you want, we're in mediation to determine what is best for the article. Let's keep our eyes towards the end of the tunnel, please. Wizardman 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i would contend that the length issue is actually a red herring and should not be a part of the mediation. it is unproductive, and ultimately unnecessary. article length is strictly a guideline, not an enforceable policy. Anastrophe (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the main problem is not the text that's being added/removed itself, but rather what and how much information should be added based on sources, historical and otherwise, in order to keep the article in an NPOV state? Wizardman 19:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. The overall size of the article is an indirectly related issue. The big problem is that of systemic bias, where energetic editors tend to edit personal bias into the article, and the corollary, tend to oppose neutral edits. From the perspective of a strong personal POV, neutral content is seen as biased content.
The remedy, is to do a survey of reliable sources, establish the 'weight' balance point. That is the big picture problem I see is: 1) the heavy weight placed on use of Originalism and Original intent. (A theory favored by a pro-gun POV, especially those of the modern militia movement[3].) This is evident in the heavy reliance on the 'thoughts of the founders', which is described by Yaf above as "historical commentary discussing the creation" which is Yaf's declaration of intent to use originalism in this article.
Somewhat, although not exactly. However, as noted in other discussions underway relative to this article, meta-topics should, in general, be avoided for fostering cooperative work with other editors and to avoid getting bogged down. Attempting to do a neutral survey of "reliable" sources, through selecting only those sources that are non-historical, would constitute at best focusing on such meta-topics, and, at worst, an attempt at rewriting history. There is no fundamental reason why this article should be radically different in terms of containing historical perspective than, say, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Creation, interpretation, and a host of other historical topics should rightfully be covered in this article, not pushed off into a POV fork that readers wishing to read about the Second Amendment would likely never see.
Historical topics should be covered with an historical perspective. Claiming that the history of a topic is somehow "systemic bias", simply because it happens to support a point of view that one editor finds "disturbing", is not reason for a POV fork. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. It would be much the same as attempting to write an article on the 1861-1865 conflict in the US without mentioning slavery, while insisting that a separate article should contain such "disturbing" thoughts. Revisionist history is not a path we should attempt to go down in writing an historical article.
The issue should be whether or not cited references should be used, and if a historical perspective that happens to support a different point of view than one editor wishes to push should be allowed, or, whether, the article should be censored, through removing the majority of all such "disturbing" historical data, to achieve the one editor's "properly weighted amount of original intent theory". I advocate not censoring Wikipedia. Yaf (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 'cited references', with no limit, is not OK. They must meet WP:UNDUE standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, a claim of Undue weight must be accompanied by an objective metric to support the claim. "is not OK" is unsupportable as an objective metric. furthermore, i would ask for a metric to explain why 'systemic bias' is at work in favor of the individual rights interpretation, but no systemic bias is at work in favor of the collective rights interpretation. absent such a metric, i would formally ask that this red herring argument be eliminated from this mediation. maybe in the 'wild west' early days of the internet there were a preponderance of 'gun nuts' at the keyboard, but that hardly describes the online population today. my 80 year old mother who sends emails about adorable kittens, being an example of this altered population.
that said, i have never suggested that 'collective rights' interpretation material should not be in the article. in fact, i'd welcome historical citations in support of it. i'll keep hammering on this point: if there's a POV imbalance, then it is saltyboatr's (and any other interested editor's) privilege to add high quality, well-sourced and cited material in support of the counterbalancing POV. it is not an excuse to delete high quality, well-sourced and cited material from the encyclopedia. i contend that what POV imbalance may be there is not as gross as saltyboatr represents it. absent objective metrics, we cannot bend to "remove all this stuff because it's not the POV i like". Anastrophe (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your sword cuts both ways. Lets do the metrics then. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since you're the one wielding the sword to cut material from the article, it is your responsibility to show that removing that material is supported. sorry, the onus is upon you to back up your claim of a POV imbalance - you're the one who forced this issue. perhaps if the article were not interminably locked, other interested editors on the net could add material that supports your point of view. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wrong policy, chief. that has to do with using reliable sources, it has nothing to do with a claim of POV imbalance. NPOV also clearly states that it is not meant to be used as an excuse for deletion. Anastrophe (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Yaf has no obligation to edit neutrally? I concede I am mixing three things here, as I have objections to Yaf's edit on three grounds, 1) it is off topic, 2) it fails WP:V and 3) it tips the neutrality balance point of the article. At the least, I am on rock solid policy ground for my WP:V objection, and there Yaf has an unambiguous burden of proof. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that my "states" interpretation of the Second Amendment content was neutrally written, containing the first individual right interpretation as well as the first collective right interpretation, as well as additional key timeline events relating to the growth of the collective rights interpretations that occurred in interpreting the Second Amendment. This content is balanced. It involves interpretations of the Second Amendment. It belongs here, to understand the modern dichotomy that exists today, judicially speaking. Unfortunately, it happens to document that the unlimited individual rights interpretation predates the other interpretations, hence is deemed POV by an editor who wishes to remove all such content for reason of "shifting the POV balance". Claiming a POV imbalance simply because an editor "doesn't like it" is not proof of a POV imbalance. Yaf (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your obligation is to quantify this alleged POV imbalance. if you cannot quantify it, then it's nothing more than 'i don't like it'. there's nothing 'unneutral' about yaf's contribution of the 'states' section. it cites a 'collective rights' interpretation amongst the others. Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The byte count to which you are now referring is in regards to another point of contention, other than which has been discussed thus far in the mediation, which would involve going from 115,603 bytes to 109,044 bytes, while additionally removing a list of non-cited information, the value of which is in dispute. The "states section" content mentioned in the opening statements is a separate point of contention. It seems reasonable to table all such length issues for now. Yaf (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i think it's worth noting as well that the guidelines for article size pointedly discuss the size of the 'readable prose' -- not the gross byte count of the article, which is significantly inflated by the inline cites. using the technique mentioned at WP:Article size, i measure the article at approximately 55Kib, and about 8800 words. hardly enormous even by the guidelines. Anastrophe (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always believed that SaltyBoatr's claims about the length of the article are a smoke screen, meant to give a non-POV reason to remove those portions of the article he dislikes. If the length was really his concern, he could simply have proposed decreasing the size of the article in a way that would have been unrelated to any one editor's contributions to the article. It appears to me that SaltyBoatr is simply coming up with new reasons for removing content with which he disagrees and is hoping that something sticks. Complaining about the article's length is one example. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I or anybody else have an idea for a compromise, post it here. Each compromise will ideally lead to a better one that works for all of us. Wizardman 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should include sourced material dealing with any "individual right" interpretations and any interpretations dealing with any type of "state right" or "collective right" reading of the Second Amendment. This would allow all POVs to be expressed, while also having a balanced article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I generally like this idea, but would ask that special attention be paid to the fact that the term "individual right" is actually a truncated form of the term "individual right to bear arms". We must pay special attention to avoid causing this article to blur the distinction between the topic Right to bear arms and the topic Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is a significant difference. Also, SMP0328, I appreciate the concern to have 'all POVs expressed', but could you please also acknowledge my concern that the POVs be represented in proportional weight matching the reliable sources, as opposed to proportional weight of the opinions of the involved editors? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem i see with this is your contention that the POVs are not represented in proportional weight matching the reliable sources. where is your evidence that the historical record has substantial reliable sources representing the collective rights interpretation - and if there is this plenitude of such sources, why have you not added them? again, this is the problem of historical revisionism i keep bringing up. you can't change the weight of history to match contemporary POVs without making a lie of the history. consider that the reason there is so much high quality, well-referenced material in the article pertaining to the historical 'individual rights' interpretation has less to do with editor opinion and more to do with the simple fact that there's a huge volume of such sources available. Anastrophe (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reject that there is a black and white dichotomy between individual right to bear arms vs. collective right to bear arms. You challenge me to do a survey, and vaguely allude to your own survey which has found 'a huge volume' of such sources. This is progress, thank you. Though we should stick with a survey of reliable sources, which means books and not websites. How to proceed? An obvious tactic would be to look to a second amendment bibliography, there are plenty in the academic press. Or, look here is a start. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i absolutely, unequivocally, and vociferously object to an artificial - and patently false - construct that suggests that only books are reliable sources, not websites. please cite chapter and verse where in WP policy this contention can be found. you cannot alter the rules of editing on wikipedia arbitrarily. Anastrophe (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
once again, you warp the meaning. i didn't say i objected to the use of books. i object to your claim that "websites are not allowed for use", which is a complete misrepresentation of the section of the 'examples' page you refer to. yes, a subset of webpages, of particular kinds that are not at all reliable, are precluded from use as RS; a subset does not a 'broadly not allowed' make. most sources cited in wikipedia are online resources. again, i absolutely reject your blanket assertions that websites are disallowed as reliable sources; for that matter, it is not for you to set an arbitrary threshold of reliability that is outside the scope that wikipedia provides. if a source is reliable per WP policy, then it is a reliable source. period. "Though we should stick with a survey of reliable sources, which means books and not websites." is quaint, but unsupportable by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Individual right" is not a truncated form of "individual right to bear arms". The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms. Placing emphasis on "right to bear arms" is a POV push towards a militia interpretation of the amendment, and an equally POV push towards a "collective right" interpretation. Yaf (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never have pushed a 'sole collective right' approach. Don't fight a straw man. I think what Saul Cornell wrote makes sense, though, the article needs to be updated for the modern turn of events where even the people asking that Heller be remanded are favoring a limited individual right. Still, you must justify your heavy emphasis on Bliss v. Commonwealth which is far to the extreme fringe, being a unlimited individual right. That fringe idea should be a tiny footnote, at most. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Saul Cornell's article more carefully, (beyond the first sentence which you quote, see especially his summarization at the bottom). That article presents a neutral point of view superbly. If only our article could be so neutral. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you now disagree with your earlier statement of "I reject that there is a black and white dichotomy between individual right to bear arms vs. collective right to bear arms." ? If so, this represents real progress, in terms of you now recognizing that a dichotomy is widely believed to exist. If it is widely believed to exist, then it should be covered, no? Hence, both sides should be covered fairly, no? If both sides are covered fairly, then the NPOV status would be achieved, no? Claiming, as you have done, that there is a systemic bias however, is pushing a "collective right bias". If, by this push you mean this point of view is your "straw man" which you tell me not to fight, then that is an inappropriate plea, for it means that only your "straw man" of "collective rights" should be contained in the article. Again, this is not a proper path for us to go down, while trying to achieve a resolution to the {{POV}} tag you inserted in opposition to cited historical facts, rather than by you choosing simply to add balancing content. The best solution to the issue is for you (or other editors) to add balancing content, not to delete content simply because you say "I don't like it." Yaf (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, the range of views expressed in the amicus briefs for Heller range from unlimited to limited. I am not opposed to presenting all these views. However, if by your comment(s) you advocate restricting the individual right view to only the limited individual right view, then this is likewise wrong. VP Dick Cheney, for example, wrote a different amicus brief than the Department of Justice wrote, which, ostensibly, represents President Bush's view. If you advocate only presenting President Bush's view favoring a limited individual rights view, then this is likewise pushing a POV that is neither balanced nor accurate. If you advocate only presenting Handgun Control Inc.'s view, this likewise presents a POV push. If you advocate only presenting JPFO's or GOA's view, this would likewise present a POV push. The key for us as editors to is to present all views, while not removing any content which you find violates your sense of WP:UNDUE. Yaf (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yaf. Any attempt to limit the number of viewpoints is a POV violation. As long as its sourced, it should have a place in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please re-read WP:UNDUE, we must follow that policy, it is non-negotiable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just re-read WP:UNDUE. Why do you wish to place WP:UNDUE weight on a militia or collective rights modern interpretation? We should follow WP:UNDUE guidelines. Hence, all major viewpoints should be included in this article, not just militia or collective rights interpretations. From 1791 until 1905/1915, the individual rights interpretation was by far the dominant point of view. (Neglecting, for now, the outliers such as Buzzard.) The first interpretation of the Second Amendment was Bliss, which was an unlimited individual rights intrepretation. This interpretation of the Second Amendment remains to this day in two of the states. The first collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment was Buzzard, although this has been characterized by Kruschke, a noted anti-gun rights political scientist that favors gun control, as being another individual rights interpretation, presumably since Buzzard included an individual right when a person was "upon a journey". (This was discussed previously on the 2A Talk page.) Then, in 1905, more modern interpretations of a collective right was started. I have covered all these views in my edits, which you seem to think violate WP:UNDUE, since my edits do not remove all of the individual rights points of view content. I contend that your approach, of censoring Wikipedia, while removing points of view that you feel violate your sense of WP:UNDUE containing individual rights interpretations, is not following WP:UNDUE, by insisting on featuring only a collective rights point of view through removing the other content that you frame with "I don't like it" and POV bomb episodic and POV balance attempts. No where have I seen any systemic bias in this article, unlimited individual, limited individual, limited collective, unlimited collective, they are all covered, although the collective rights interpretations are fewer, primarily since they are of a more modern origin, and there are fewer references. Still, this is no reason to attempt to enforce a dictatorial approach of removing content you don't like, or to try to force a POV fork, through splitting off content, or other obstructionistic techniques, especially as it now appears that even the length of the article is not an issue. An uncensored Wikipedia, representing all major points of view is the correct way to resolve this impasse, not insisting on allowing one editor to maintain dictatorial control of the content of an article. Yaf (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presented an offer of a compromise[4], which was rejected[5][6]. We argue back and forth about who is right, but do not seem to comprehend each other. This is getting circular. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you offered a POV fork as a compromise. that is discouraged by policy.
i would maintain that if you cannot quantify the "POV imbalance" that you claim, this mediation needs to be dissolved and the article unlocked. Anastrophe (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I offered article splitting, not POV forking. See WP:SS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess where you three editors are going is that you insist that Yaf's insertion be allowed unchanged over my objections? Or, are you willing to allow Yaf's insertion to be checked for WP:V? That process had started, but now has stopped. Yaf, can you answer my questions?SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let us assume that yaf complies, and fixes the issues you have with the few instances of primary sources being used as references in the section. will you agree that the issue has been satisfactorily concluded and drop your objection to inclusion of the material, thus ending this mediation, and allowing for the article to be unlocked? Anastrophe (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is locked because of edit dispute and edit warring. The main reason for these is the large shifts in editorial content by Yaf, without any prior discussion or consensus on the talk page. You write: "let us assume that yaf complies", I cannot answer for Yaf. Even if the article is unlocked, it will likely need protection again, unless we fix the root cause. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the article is locked because you engaged in edit warring then asked that the article be locked due to edit warring. we've been over this, you gamed the system to prevent other editors from contributing to the encyclopedia. you claim that there's a POV imbalance. you will not quantify it. you claim the article is too long, but offer as a compromise a POV fork, which is no compromise at all. you claim the problem is the use of primary sources in the 'states' section, but you will not commit to dropping your objections if the use of primary sources is mitigated. you vaguely threaten page protection again once the article is unlocked, unless all other editors bend to your will, even though consensus is against you. translation: you will violate the spirit of wikipedia's policies to keep the article held hostage indefinitely. you own the second amendment article, period. no compromise is possible so long as you reject every offer tendered. hell, you won't even entertain a hypothetical. Anastrophe (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep repeating yourself. I get it that you think I am wrong, and that you think you are right. And, you offer a hypothetical resolution compromise; to that I say "show me". A good faith gesture might be to agree to remove the disputed passage pending resolution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just hearing the same arguments back and forth about whether to keep the stuff in or not. Let's start trying to think of things we can do in order to reach some middle ground. Start thinking of parts of your arguments you can live without in terms of what you want with the article. Wizardman 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Wizardman, but what you need to realize is that SaltyBoatr keeps making new demands and making new versions of old demands. What SaltyBoatr needs to do is tell us what specific parts of the article he is satisfied. Also, does he believe that any portions of the article that refer to any type of a "states right" interpretation of the Second Amendment should be removed?
Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome, just that everyone can live with the outcome. SaltyBoatr, can you live with the historical record cited in the article with Reliable and Verifiable sources, with the additional outcome for you to add balancing cited material supporting balancing content per your points of view, instead of asking for the deletion of material that you do not like? If so, then we have reached consensus, and the article can be released from protection. This should be vastly preferred in preference to establishing some type of semi-official censorship based upon any one editor's permission being required before permitting any future edits to the article. Yaf (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not acceptable to me. Rather, my suggested compromise is that we agree to:
1) To go back to this stable version of the page[7].
2) To be patient.
3) To work slow.
4) To be civil.
5) To not make anything but the smallest of change without first discussing, negotiating, and working
out differences on the talk page.
6) Agree to a moratorium on unilateral edits, except the simplest of grammar and punctuation corrections.
7) Agree to lift the article edit block, but to reinstate the edit block if any of the above 6 agreements are broken.
Working together, in much smaller chunks, lets discuss on the talk page first, before putting agreed revisions into the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm fairly positive that the other three wouldn't accept this, as it sounds basically like you getting your way. 5-7 sound good on the surface, but then it would just b discussion after discussion with tempers probably boiling over and causing more problems. Try and find something you think all four of you can agree to. Wizardman 19:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
saltyboatr's "compromise" is wholey unacceptable. 1. the claim that any given version of a wikipedia article is "stable" is meaningless. it is merely the version that saltyboatr likes. 2. nowhere in policy does it require editors to "be patient" - whatever that actually means. i'm quite patient while editing, who and how will this be enforced? who will judge that an editor is being "impatient" (i can take a guess as to who). 3. nowhere in policy are editors required to "work slow", whatever that means. WP policy actually encourages users to "be bold", which contravenes saltyboatr's desire to impose 'patient' and 'slow' upon all other editors. 4. civility comes in many forms. many editors find it the height of incivility to have demands placed upon them in contravention of consensus, and to have an editor engage in edit warring for the purpose of making a claim that edit warring is occurring in order to have an article locked. 5. nowhere in policy are editors required to make none but the smallest of changes without first running them past saltyboatr for approval. 6. nowhere in policy are editors precluded from making unilateral edits, nor any but the simplest of grammar and punctuation corrections (this differs from 5 how?), before first running them past saltyboatr for approval. 7. translation: "if i don't like any given edit, i'll engage in a revert war, go to the page protection noticeboard, and ask to have the article locked due to ongoing edit warring". these seven demands (sorry, "compromises") constitute the canonical expression by saltyboatr of his ownership of this article. why should the majority be forced to kneel before a single editor for approval to edit this article? where in policy is this allowed, that one editor can place unreasonable demands upon all other editors before they may edit an article? this is an intolerable affair. saltyboatr makes almost no actual constructive edits to the article - he claims there's a POV imbalance, but does not add material to the article in support of the POV he claims is lacking. yet he demands that material be removed from the article that does not match his POV - which is a violation of NPOV ('not an excuse to delete').
here's my compromise: if saltyboatr believes there's a POV imbalance, it is his privilege to add high-quality, well-sourced, properly-cited material to the article in support of the POV he believes is inadequately represented. speaking only for myself, i will certainly not interfere with the addition of this material, in fact, i would welcome it. that is really all that needs to take place. saltyboatr's demands that material be removed from the article because he believes it 'tips the POV balance' are not supported by WP:NPOV. what is supported by NPOV is the addition of material to balance the POV. have at it. go for it. do the hard work of tracking down high quality material in support of the POV you believe is not adequately represented - rather than going down this easy/lazy path of locking down the article and preventing other editors from contributing to wikipedia. who knows, maybe you'll be surprised to find that there are yet other editors out there who share your view, and desire to add material to the article in support of the POV you feel is inadequately represented. as it stands, with the article interminably locked, those editors are precluded from improving the article. are you willing to do the hard work of improving the article by adding material in support of the POV you feel is inadequately represented? Anastrophe (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can understand each other better if we look closely at what happened[8] between 22:34 to 22:56 and on Feb 27th. I see fast large scale edits, very little patience, very little discussion on talk page. Zero attempt to understand the opposing point of view. Zero attempt to build a consensus. A very similar process re-occurred on March 4th. Tell me please, how can we avoid this from occurring a third time? (and fourth)? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, looking closely at what took place on those occasions, we can see that you engaged in edit warring, then immediately went to the page protection noticeboard and requested protection due to edit warring. your actions are clearly evident and plain for anyone to examine from the history. editors are not required to run their edits past you for approval. neither, it should be added, did you begin discussion on the talk page - you merely used an edit summary saying (from memory) 'lets talk about it on the talk page first' but didn't make an effort to do so yourself. again, editors are not required to negotiate with you, or have their edits vetted and approved by you, before contributing to wikipedia.
i ask again: are you willing to do the hard work of improving the article by adding material in support of the POV you feel is inadequately represented? Anastrophe (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you effectively say that I alone did edit warring. One hand clapping. Do you see any effort towards consensus building on Feb 27th? Or, March 4th. How can we avoid this from occurring a third time? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to neutrality balance, weighted in proportion to the WP:RS. I also ask that we honestly address the issue of systemic bias among the self selected editors. Your 'offer' of adding material is hollow, until we address that systemic bias issue. It is hard for me to assume good faith, considering the uncivil water under this bridge. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "systemic bias" that you perceive? Perhaps if we understand what it is that upsets you about this article, we can work towards reaching a compromise. At the present time, there is coverage of a wide range of interpretations of the right the Second Amendment protects, to "keep and bear arms". Is it that you perceive it only protects a right to bear arms, and not a right to keep arms? Is it that you perceive it only protects a collective right to bear arms? Or what? Not seeing any "systemic bias", and seeing this article as presenting only a neutral point of view historical discussion, I am at a loss to understand the issue that you feel so strongly about. Yaf (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already written the answer to your question, a thousand words at least, see above. (And on the 2A talk page.) In a nutshell: Editors who hold a strong belief in the values of 'a right to bear arms', tend disproportionately to be attracted to edit this article. And, editors with the strongest of views, tend to edit most strongly. Human nature causes a tendency to want to give personal viewpoint a heavier weight, a tendency which is hard to avoid. Our obligation is to edit to the neutrality balance point of the reliable sources, not to edit to the neutrality balance point of the personal views on the interested editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you have not, in your thousand words at least, provided any provable basis for that claim. in a nutshell, you are bringing up yet another claim that you cannot support with any objective metric. the only metric you have provided is "i say so". that's not tenable. explain why those who strongly support gun control would not be disproportionately attracted to this article, along with the many other firearm-related articles here? Anastrophe (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and i guess, since you have refused to answer, that you are not willing to do the hard work of improving the article by adding material in support of the POV you feel is inadequately represented. you prefer that others' hard work be deleted. is that an accurate characterization of your position? Anastrophe (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your questions are genuine. I don't believe you could ever be satisfied. Why should I engage you in this circular process? You'll be outraged, (again) I am sure. Still, when I ask you questions, you rarely answer me. It is funny you blame me of WP:SOUP, but it is actually you who appears guilty of that tactic here. The fact that you have no outrage at the lack of answers to my questions reveals your partisan self interest. Explain your bias. My policy based questions about Yaf's edit have gone unanswered. Yaf has the burden of proof here which he has not met. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i've removed my last comments and am starting over, since we're not getting anywhere.
saltyboatr's claims are as follows, as best i can tell:
the included material 'tips the POV' balance
the included material violates WP:V due to some references to primary sources
removing material to satisfy NPOV is not on the table, since it's a violation of NPOV to do so. the logical alternative is to add new material that brings the balance back. it is saltyboatr's privilege and duty to add such material. if the material violates WP:V, then yaf needs to address those concerns.
if yaf makes the effort to fix the WP:V issues, then saltyboatr can make the effort to find new material to add to the article to balance the POV. if yaf indeed fixes the WP:V issues, and saltyboatr submits material here for inclusion that he believes balances the POV and which is acceptable to the other editors, then we should be at parity.
can both of you live with that? if not, why not, and what would be necessary to live with it? Anastrophe (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I had thought the original references were fine, especially as they had been largely the same for nearly 3 years, and were arrived at through working with SaltyBoatr long ago. However, to address SaltyBoatr's newly-perceived "concerns", I had proposed two variations of this write-up, in an attempt to improve cites, addressing the fact that the Bliss case was largely recognized as being a case about the Second Amendment, and, likewise, for adding Kruschke's point that Buzzard was categorized (by him at least) as being an individual rights case. This was done on the Talk page for the Second Amendment article. I have had no reservations about improving the article, including cites, to address even perceived "concerns". However, I now question whether this approach, or any approach conducted through mediation can succeed, in that there may be no real issue(s) at all. A request above, to identify what the "systemic bias" was perceived to be, was responded to with a largely unintelligible response. At this point, I have little faith that mediation is the proper course of action, when communication does not appear possible. Instead, ArbCom may be the only way to address the issue, in that it can ban intransigent editors who are being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive, only. The article should not be censored. Neither should it be WP:OWNed by any one editor. Neither should the article have any POV pushing in the form of uncited "facts", but instead should have facts established by reliable and verifiable sources. It appears to me that a consensus exists. Only one sole editor has any perceived "issues" with the article, for which he cannot voice what his "concerns" are regarding claims of "systemic bias", other than mumbling something resembling paranoia regarding "pro-gun" this and "pro-gun" that. I believe that mediation is at a logical end. Comments? Yaf (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not just "one sole editor" with the belief that inclusion of your "state courts section" is inappropriate. See here.SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and it would have been helpful if editor Arthur Rubin had joined this mediation, but he did not. in terms of input regarding the relevance of the section, he provided very, very little, unfortunately, and we cannot know whether his opinion on these matters would have remained the same the intervening two weeks and two days since he weighed in. i don't know whether persons not formally attached to a mediation can weigh in or not, or whether it's considered appropriate to do so. Anastrophe (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yaf. SaltyBoatr is not seeking compromise. He's seeking Anastrophe's, Yaf's, and my unconditional surrender. It's definitely time to go to ArbCom. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unless saltyboatr offers a reasonable compromise - one that does not include deleting this high-quality, well-sourced, properly cited material that is relevant to the article, and importantly, that already includes material supportive of his desired 'collective rights' interpretation - then i'd have to agree. we have one editor demanding that nobody can edit this article unless they run all edits past him, with the implicit threat that he'll just edit war and request it be locked down again if we don't play by his arbitrary rules. untenable. unacceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf also has "privilege and duty to add such material. if the material violates WP:V, then yaf needs to address those concerns." So, when will this happen for the material yaf added on February 27th, at the inception of this dispupte? I am waiting[9]. Or, is it as Anastrophe believes, that this duty only applies to me? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if yaf addresses those concerns, will you stop holding the article hostage, and withdraw your implied threats to just lock the article up again the minute someone makes an edit without running it past you for approval? Anastrophe (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not holding this article hostage. I would like to see Yaf address the specific policy based concerns which I have raised[[10]. We need to find a way engage in consensus building, rather than edit disputes (as occured on March 4th and Feb 27th), or at least keep them reasonable, in order to avoid page protection in the future. Ignoring my concerns is not helpful in that regard. Your extreme bias, complaining about just the 'one hand clapping' does little to help mitigate dispute either. I find it astonishing that my simple request that these large edits be discussed first on the talk page, is deemed unacceptable by you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
editors are not required to discuss their edits with you before committing them. editors are not required to gain your approval before adding material to the article. if you dispute newly added material, you can discuss it on the talk page, but blanket deletion of high-quality material as yaf added, on the claim that it violates NPOV, is itself a violation of NPOV ("not an excuse to delete"). you are using obstructionist tactics to keep the article in limbo (ever changing claims of what the actual dispute is), and you leave the continued threat of further page protection hanging over any "compromise" that does not completely satisfy you (thus, not a compromise, but list of demands). that threat in itself is worthy of sanctions, as it's a clear statement that you intend to game the system again in order to prevent other editors from contributing to the encyclopedia - unless they run their edits past you for approval. i see no further progress possible under these circumstances. Anastrophe (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until Yaf answers the questions[11], the one sided nature of your complaints reveal your inappropriate bias. I am guessing it is personal, and comes from a grudge which resulted from this disupte we had on February 24th. Can we focus on the problem at hand here? I am trying to engage substantive policy based discussion about the quality of Yaf's edit, and instead I get diversion of 10,000 words about why I am a bad editor. Lets focus on the article instead. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already offered, but previously rejected by SaltyBoatr, apparently as improving cites didn't fix SaltyBoatr's perceived "systemic bias" issue, whatever that meant. This improvement of cites was underway, incidentally, on the talk page of the 2A article, where I had proposed two iterative improvements to cites, addressing whether Bliss pertained to the 2A (it does, according to an added cite) and whether or not Buzzard was also considered an individual rights case by some (it was, by political scientist Kruschke, in another added cite). All improvements of cites was conducted prior to when mediation commenced, with improvements of cites stopping only to try and address perceived "systemic bias". So, I take this to mean that consensus has been reached, if SaltyBoatr now agrees with this earlier proposal. (Especially true, since policy-based discussions are not a topic agreed upon for mediation.) Yaf (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for your answer to my questions? You have the burden of proof here, not me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being that you have already refused to accept "reliable and verifiable sources" that were offered, there is no point to responding to this latest in a long line of rhetorical questions. Since you have already stated you will not accept "reliable and verifiable sources", it really doesn't matter, does it? Yaf (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, your passage should be removed from the article per WP:V policy. That would end this dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Through accepting compromise of Wikipedia principles, by accepting censorship of reliable and verifiable sources at the request of one editor who WP:OWNs the article? No, the text meets WP:V policy. Yaf (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All statements are cited with reliable and verifiable sources:
In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[1] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as being “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” that “was violative of the Second Amendment””. [2] As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[1] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[3] As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.[4]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[5] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.
The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified. "[6][7]
In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[8] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[8]
Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[9] Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model.[10] Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.[11]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[12] made the first collective right judicial interpretation. The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""
A modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy became better known when it was employed in a Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."[13]
^Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
^Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
^Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. pp. 140-143. ISBN0-87436-695-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ See the symposium in Chicago Kent Law Review 76 and the Fordham Law Review vol. 73
If this version is acceptable, then the states rights section dispute is over, although there are also issues with the lists that still need to be removed and the typos that need to be fixed. Yaf (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Yaf (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding footnote 2, is making a somewhat extraordinary claim and appears to be quoted out of context. Could you help please by identifying the person, or agency giving that testimony at that hearing? I have located a copy of the original in an online book catalogue but the physical copy is not available by interlibrary transfer, and it would take several hours by car for me to go read it. Also, could you provide a bit more of the context of the quote you are citing? Who is speaking, and what was the question asked of the speaker. Also, who asked the question? Thank you in advance for your response.
Footnote 3 proves my point that this discussion is about the Kentucky constitution, and is off topic in the federal 2A article.
Regarding footnote 4, this appears to be entirely original research.
Footnote 6 proves my point that this discussion is about the Kentucky constitution, and is off topic in the federal 2A article.
Footnote 7 appears to be entirely original research, and is improper synthesis, not allowed per WP:NOR.
Regarding footnote 9. Your use of this quote again is out of context and involves far too much synthesis, in violation of WP:NOR. It comes from Chapter 4, which declares in the opening sentence "This chapter provides an annotated list of selected court cases relevant to the subject of the right to keep and bear arms...". (pg 125) The topic "the right to keep and bear arms" is a much broader topic, and is not synonymous with the Second Amendment. So, while the this book seems to meet broad WP:RS standards, it does not answer the question as to why discussion of state court indictment and rulings about acts of state a legislature is relevant to the federal Second Amendment.
Regarding footnote 10. Extremely vague. Please provide a quotation from the source to allow verification.
Regarding footnote 11. When you follow the convenience link, it takes to another cryptic footnote, which says 'forthcoming'? Please provide a quotation from the source to allow verification.
Regarding footnote 13. The first sentence of this paragraph appears to be entirely original research, and it not found in the footnote 13 source document.
Here are nine of my major questions, please address each. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Salina v. Blaksley paragraph is entirely sourced on the original document. Use reliable secondary sourcing please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if yaf satisfies your concerns about this and the other one or two citations that are genuinely in contention, does that mean you will drop your claim that the entire section needs to be removed from the article? Anastrophe (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind, this material you and Yaf want added to the Second Amendment article is duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia[12]. So a real question is whether this material needs to exist twice in Wikipedia. (Or, better put, under which article topic.) Also, you must recall, this material was moved with Yaf's permission[13] last fall, from the 2A article to the RTBA article. Now Yaf wants the material duplicated in both articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so, just so we're all clear: all this parsing with a fine-toothed comb of the citations in this section, and the concommitant effort yaf has put in responding to these concerns, won't make a bit of difference. you will still reject inclusion of the material in this article. is that correct? Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking for a settlement favoring 100% Yaf. I am looking for some compromise solution. You ask hypothetical questions. So yes hypothetically, Yaf could still fix his WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems, but considering his inablity to do so yet I share your scepticism. Yaf has the burden of proof, and may still be able to support 100% of his edit. He has not yet done so. I suspect that some compromise will be the outcome. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise of Wikipedia principles, to force censorship onto an article, is not going to be the outcome. Rather, I suspect it will be the indefinite banning of a wikilawyer editor, but I digress. Especially as there are no WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV issues except in your mind. Yaf (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The the Salina v. Blaksley paragraph entirely lacks secondary reliable sourcing, that is not 'except in my mind'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what is your compromise, saltyboatr? i don't see one here. assume yaf satisfies 100% of all your concerns with the cites. will you then drop your objections to inclusion of the section in the article? part of generating a compromise is entertaining hypotheticals. you may either accept or reject the hypothetical, it's quite simple. Anastrophe (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf and I have successfully found a compromise for one of his seven paragraphs. Six still to go. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 2 being in context can be verified online here. Yaf (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read anything in that source, other than that tiny Google Books snippet?
You claim 'being in context'. In context of what? You, nor I, can see the context in that link. Again, please answer these questions: 1) Who is speaking? 2) What was the question asked of the speaker? 3) Who asked the question? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I provided this as a convenience link for you. Look it up in the cited reference. The cite is in the article. So that you could see the context, I provided a courtesy link, here. Just go look it up, please. Yaf (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read this source in context, how do you know what it says? I say it is WP:OR improper for you to rely on a source which you have not actually read more than a tiny snippet, and that snippet fails to show even the beginning of that one sentence. If we disagree about this, we can seek out a neutral third opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the false accusations. You repeat such as this over and over. You previously claimed I hadn't read Krusckhe (false, again...) As I stated previously, this is extremely difficult to find on Google Books without having the actual hard copy, which is available at many Government library repositories. I would not have found it on Google Books without the hard copy, as I had to search on the exact phrasing of words from the hard copy. Just go read the source in its hard copy form, please. Yaf (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have read the original source? Direct answer please. If yes, tell me the name of the person speaking. Tell me the question that was asked. Tell me who asked the question. Tell me the first half of that sentence. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 3 confirms that the constitution mentioned in Bliss is indeed the Kentucky constitution and not the US Constitution. This was put in to address your earlier concern that the "constitution" mentioned in Bliss was not clear and that it was OR to assume it was the Kentucky constitution. This reference clearly states it was the Kentucky constitution that was being mentioned. However, the quote "as it existed" contained in the decision refers to interpretations regarding the Second Amendment (see fn 2 above). This footnote merely addresses which constitution the word "constitution" was in reference to, to address your earlier concern, not the full range of interpretations. Yaf (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Why are we discussing the Kentucky constitution in a the federal Second Amendment article? I object, in that this discussion attempts to further a POV illusion that discussion of the greater right to bear arms is synonymous with a discussion of the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are discussing the Kentucky high court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, the first such interpretation in the United States. Of course, KY went beyond the protections in the 2A in its own state constitution then extant, but KY's high court ruled that the rights for both the 2A and the further-reaching KY constitution were both "individual rights". KY later amended its state constitution to bring it more in line with the 2A, as a result of legislator outrage over Bliss, in a later KY state constitution amendment that allowed the Commonwealth to regulate the concealing of weapons. Yaf (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your claim "Kentucky high court's interpretation of the Second Amendment" appears to be false. I just re-read the Bliss decision[14], and don't see any hint that the Kentucky high court is interpreting anything other than the state constitution. Many reliable sources say this too. Your premise is false. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. From Bliss,
"And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it...".
The 2A did not grant any rights, rather it protected the right that pre-existed its creation, of the God-given right of self-defense; the 9th Amendment additionally protected all such unenumerated rights. Likewise, the KY constitutional protections protected the same pre-existing right. Violation of this right would violate both the KY Constitution as well as the US Constitution. You have to read this with an ear for 18th Century wording to recognize the 2A content. Reading it with a modern "accent" sensitive ear, only, you likely didn't see it. Likewise, "well-regulated" meant "well-trained", not "massively regulated", as noted in yesterday's Heller transcript. The common use of the words at the time is important. Your claim of "your premise is false" is therefore false. Fn no. 2, noted previously, makes this same observation along similar lines, that Bliss involved a Second Amendment interpretation case, so please don't claim this discussion is Original Research; I am simply trying to elucidate the 2A content, so that you can see it. Yaf (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution they speak of is the Kentucky constitution. Again, I accept your premise would be on topic in the Right to bear arms article. You have not shown it to be on topic in the 2A article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your OR, perhaps. However, by fn no. 2, Bliss has been recognized as being about the 2A. Our opinions don't matter here; what matters are reliable and verifiable sources. They disagree with your opinion. Yaf (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 2, being half a sentence snippet is not yet verified. I am waiting for you to provide a full in-context quotation. I seriously doubt that you have read anything more than one half a sentence of that source. Who is speaking? What question are they answering? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read it and you will know, too. I refuse to play "step and fetch it" ad nauseum. When are you going to contribute any content to the article? When are you going to stop pushing your POV, and accept properly cited and reliable sources? When are you going to look up any references? WHEN? It has all been properly cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Your Wikilawyering needs to STOP. Yaf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take note that Yaf, behind the feigned outrage, is not actually claiming to have read footnote 2 in context himself. How can you know whether a source is WP:V, based on just reading a half sentence snippet in Google Books? Especially when there are several other reliable sources which disagree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 4 merely is a side note, not a citation, noting when the 2A went into effect, which was not long before the Kentucky Constitution was written. This statement was originally in the article, but was moved to a footnote at your request to make the article flow smoother and to provide context in a historical sense. Have you changed your mind on this, and now believe it is a side note that needs a footnote of its own? Or is it that you believe we should strip out all historical context to the article? Is the date of the 2A in contention? Yaf (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This editorial comment is an example of your attempt to give great weight in the article to the thoughts of the founders, which is use of the theories of Originalism and Original intent. With too much of this in the article, the policy of WP:WEIGHT is violated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion. I disagree. I make no claim regarding originalism, only historical relevance. It is only you who see a "pro-gun" or originalism intent behind each and every phrase to which you object. Establishing that the KY Constitution was written after the 2A is important for a reader's context. This is important. Why be so tendentious? Yaf (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 6 was added at your request previously to establish that Bliss was actually the first state court that addressed this issue. You had previously objected to the statement that Bliss was the first state court decision and interpretation without a cite. This was the cite I added to address this concern. You then objected to it as just a cite, so the quote was put in, too. Do you now object to citing and quoting that this was the first interpretation? I don't understand your concern, nor your flip-flopping. Without it, you wanted this cite. With the cite, you wanted a quote. With a cite and a quote, you now want it removed. What exactly is it that you want here? I don't understand your changing requests. It looks clear to me that this is an important case, being the first interpretation which established an important precedent regarding an interpretation. Yaf (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...important precedent regarding an interpretation." Finish that sentence. Interpretation of what? Kruschke (pg 140) says it interpreted that a Kentucky law to violate the Kentucky constitution. That case had zero effect on the interpretation of the federal 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Clearly, two states have retained the original KY interpretation of the 2A to this day. Documenting the state level interpretations of the 2A is therefore important. As you know, these state level interpretations vary widely, from the unlimited individual right first established in Bliss to the collective right first established in Buzzard. These two historical cases are important for readers to understand the dichotomy that exists to this day. States can and do regularly interpret the federal constitution. Yaf (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that a preponderance of reliable sourcing shows that these 'state level interpretations' are actually interpretations of state constitutions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "preponderance". Some. Big difference. States can and do regularly have interpretations of the US Constitution. Yaf (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was true, it was struck down as being a violation of the state constitutional protections. But, it was also a violation of the pre-existing 2A, too. The interpretation back then in Kentucky was the same with regards to there being a violation infringing upon a pre-existing right of an individual. But, the absence of something doesn't make a proof. (I won't belabor putting in the Latin words here...) You could also stop at a stop sign at a state line while driving both because it was required by law, and because there was a large truck coming through the crossing intersection. Which reason was the "real" reason you stopped? I venture you would agree to it being for several reasons :-) But, if asked by an officer of the law, you would surely say it was because there was a stop sign and you were obeying state law, or, if a federal officer, because you didn't wish to interfere with interstate commerce; in either case you, would probably not mention self preservation or self defense at all :-) It is much the same with reading summaries of Bliss. Yaf (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provide your sourcing. Your explanation appears entirely original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I provide the truck, instead? The above was not meant literally, but as a parable to help improve understanding. It is obvious that proper cites is not what this discussion is all about, but it is about your POV pushing, through censorship of properly cited content. This needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 7 was originally in-line, but was reduced to a footnote at your request to smooth the text flow, as you stated for "POV balance". Do you now want to move it back up inline, then, and cite it? This was originally done, including a cite, but you had requested the removal of the cite for POV balance reasons and we had agreed to move it to a footnote comment, instead, as it was not considered necessary to cite this well-known fact. Do you now want to footnote this comment again? The fact that two states have retained the original Kentucky interpretation is important, in that it shows the position taken by Kentucky is not "virtually extinct". It is easy to re-cite this, but will you then demand that the cite be removed and the comment moved back to a footnote because of POV balance concerns (which you had done previously.) Make up your mind regarding POV balance on this. I don't see it affects the POV balance in either location, but it is important, as it follows the first state interpretation to this day. Yaf (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is important to the Kentucky article. And, it is also important to the Right to bear arms article. But, it appears to be improper synthesis to claim this is important to the federal 2A article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It happens to show that two states retain to this day the original interpretation of the 2A established in Bliss. It is entirely relevant in a section on state level interpretations of the 2A, providing useful data to a reader. Yaf (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredible claim, considering the Bliss was overruled in 1850 by Ky. Const. Art. XIII section 25 (per the Cato Institute, see pg 31[15]) SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, it is nonetheless true. Two states, Vermont[1] and Alaska,[2] allow a non-felon, aged 16 or 21 respectively, to carry without requiring a permit as a fundamental right. Yaf (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is true? Yes, your point about Concealed carry in state law is true, so what? But you improperly synthesize thin into something else entirely relative to the federal 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is true is that two states, to this day, still follow Kentucky's original interpretation of the 2A, allowing the carrying of firearms without a permit, concealed or openly. This was Kentucky's original interpretation of the 2A established in Bliss, although later amended upon the SCOTUS ruling that regulating the carrying of concealed weapons was not an infringement of the 2A, and also because KY changed its own constitution to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons. But, two states still follow KY's original interpretation of the 2A to this day. Yaf (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in each of those two states articles then. The sourcing you have provided, Kruschke (pg 140) contradicts what you claim about Kentucky's original interpretation of the 2A. They were rather interpreting the state constitution, read page 140. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From page 125, "This chapter provides an annotated list of selected court cases relevant to the subject of the right to keep and bear arms... The Courts have tended to hold that the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment and the clause stating that such a right shall not be infringed is applicable to Congress. ... Moreover, the courts have generally argued that the Second Amendment provision delineating the right to keep and bear and bear arms does not necessarily constitute an individual right. Despite historical evidence produced by some legal scholars to contradict this interpretation..." You are entirely misreading Krusckhe. You are not being intellectually honest, but you are instead pushing your POV balance point censorship to ridiculous extremes. Kruschke's whole chapter 4 is about the right to keep and bear arms in the courts. But, you won't admit it. Yaf (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally admit that Kruschke's Chapter 4 is about the right to bear arms in the courts. I disagree that the Right to bear arms is synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Your material belongs in the Right to bear arms article. And, that is exactly where it presently is found[16]. Explain why this material needs to be duplicated in the 2A article? Or, explain why the right to bear arms in state consitituions as interpreted by state courts is on topic in the federal 2A article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kruschke writes about the subject of the right to keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment. Stop the POV pushing to only see "bear arms" in a collective, militia-only right. Kruschke is writing about the 2A, as noted by the quote above that I quoted, with both individual and collective points of view in the text, including recognizing Buzzard and Bliss as individual right cases relative to the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, but you are blind to the truth of what is being written by Kruschke, or by anyone else, and you are even unable to see words other than "bear arms", and you are totally blind to the word "individual", but you see "collective" just fine. Off your meds, obviously. It's time for ArbCom. Yaf (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Off your meds"? That is an over-the-top, insulting and offensive comment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not "off your meds", but you do come off as demanding. You unilaterally declare that violations of Wikipedia policy have occurred, as if you are a one man Supreme Court of Wikipedia. You need to accept that there are multiple ways of viewing this situation. When you do that, you will have a much better chance of getting a positive reaction from us.--SMP0328. (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^"It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man." NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for Vermont
^"Any person 21 years of age or older may carry a handgun concealed on their person provided that, when contacted by a police officer, informs the officer of that possession and allows the police officer to secure the handgun for the duration of that contact." NRA/ILA Firearms Laws for Alaska
Regarding footnote no. 9, no synthesis is involved here at all. Look on pp. 140-143 of Kruschke, as noted in the reference, not on p. 125. Kruschke specifically categorizes Bliss and Buzzard under a subsection of Chapter 4 devoted to individual rights cases. There is no synthesis involved here at all, in noting that Kruschke categorizes these two cases as being individual rights cases, consistent with the text used above. Your complaint is frivolous and tendentious regarding this use of Kruschke. Yaf (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you conclude whether it is an individual right of Kentucky or an individual right of the USA? Improper synthesis; in violation of WP:NOR. This is far from frivolous, considering that Kentucky at that time had an unlimited right to arms, and this has never been the status federally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. It is simply categorized as being an individual right case by Kruschke, to address your earlier complaint that it was original research to state some had seen Bliss as being an individual right case without a cite. See fn no. 2 (above) containing information that Bliss is considered a Second Amendment interpretation case. Yaf (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It matters hugely. You are improperly blurring 'individual right' to bear arms under the Kentucky Constitution, which is different topic that a right to keep and bear arms under the US Constitution. These are two distinct separate things, improperly synthesized. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Kruschke categorizes both Bliss and Buzzard as being individual right cases. That is all that is claimed in the inclusion of this point in the article, which was added at your request for a cite of an example of someone who felt that these were individual right cases. No improper synthesis occurs from stating that Kruschke considers these to be individual right cases. Digging into this more: The 2A protects a right to "keep and bear arms". In 1822, Kentucky went beyond this in its high court, to include a right to keep and bear concealed arms as its interpretation of the 2A. The CCW aspects don't matter here, only that KY interpreted the 2A as an individual right. It is not a violation of improper synthesis to state that because KY protected as an individual right the 2A and additional state level protections regarding CCW, it provided an individual right interpretation of the 2A. Improper synthesis would be claiming that CCW rights are implicit in the 2A. That is not what this says. Please re-read what is said in the proposed text. No problem with improper synthesis. Yaf (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly are you sourcing your bold text 'its interpretation of the 2A'? Kruschke (and many other sources) claim otherwise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was cited in fn 2. When are you going to read this in its original? Also, Kruschke does not claim otherwise; he even includes it in a section dealing with Second Amendment relevant court cases, in a section entitled "Some Cases Illustrating the Individual View" at the top of p. 140. Please go back and re-read Kruschke. Yaf (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, when are you going to read footnote 2 in its original? You have only read half a sentence, a snippet lacking all context. Worse, that snippet contradicts other reliable sourcing. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk)
Footnote 10 is a valid footnote. If we need to pick just one article out from the symposia, then this one is probably the best one, but there are many others, too. Is claiming that some points of view sided with Bishop a particularly unexpected issue? I find this ridiculous. This is becoming increasingly tendentious. A much better approach would be to unlock the article, and simply edit the data into the article, rather than laboriously hammering through each letter, word, period, and comma of each sentence. Yaf (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, provide the quote from the source please.
Footnote no. 11 has been revised to include the quote directly inline with the footnote. The Volokh footnote for this quote has been retained as the reference pointer. -- You had originally objected to quoting this directly inline in the article, as this "pro-gun" quote as you referred to it as, shifted POV balance too much, and you wanted only the obscure footnote. To address your changing concern, though, I have restored the quote, while not putting this comment back into the article, but rather into an inline footnote quote. Surely, this usage won't shift your delicate POV balance scale :-) Yaf (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, provide the quote from the source please.
I did. Look back up at the footnote no. 11 in the text above, argggh. This is getting EXTREMELY tendentious. Yaf (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I see it now. "...the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case." Why is an Arkansas state court case relevant to an article on the federal 2A? Again, you are improperly blurring the topic of Right to bear arms with the topic of this article. Put your quote in the Arkansas article where it is on topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as stated in the AR high court's own words, "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions". (US and AR). State courts regularly do interpret the US Constitution in the course of their judicial efforts. They generally strive for achieving consistency of interpretation between the two constitutions :-) Yaf (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You truncated the quote. The actual quote from Buzzard is '"by virtue of the provisions contained in the respective Constitutions of such States". That means two states, Kentucky and Arkansas, I believe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You are looking in the wrong place. Search again in Bliss for "of these Constitutions". Then, look at the wording again; "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State" and "common defense" only appear in the 2A and in the AR constitution, respectively. KY's Constitution and the US Federal Constitution don't have a "common defense" clause. This means that it is the 2A and the AR constitutions that are being discussed. OK now? Yaf (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"common defense" appears in the 2A? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I don't see common defense in the Second Amendment. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are not reading what I wrote. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State" appears only in the 2A. "Common defense" appears only in the AR Constitution, not in the KY Constitution. You missed the ", respectively" clause in my original exposition, implying a one-to-one and not an m-ary mapping of thoughts. OK now? Yaf (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me to interpret the original source document. the Bliss v. Commonwealth court ruling, not allowed per WP:PSTS. Instead, WP:V says we should read it in reliable secondary sourcing. You are trying to make the point that "Constitutions of such States" means Arkansas and the Federal Constitution? Tell me where to confirm your point in secondary reliable sourcing please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. You are looking in the wrong place. I did not say look at "Constitutions of such States". Look where I identified above. It is clearly in the text, if you will but read it and admit it is there. Please read it and be honest about what you read. This is getting extremely tendentious, and leads me to believe that it really doesn't matter what the references say, because you will not admit the truth. PLEASE READ FROM WHERE THE QUOTE WAS TAKEN, NOT FROM "Constitutions of such States", PLEASE. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. Yaf (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You implore me to "Please read it and be honest about what you read." The it which you are asking me read is the court ruling, which is a primary document. Point to secondary sourcing as required by WP:VWP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V does not require "secondary" sourcing, only reliable and verifiable sourcing. The primary source here is the Second Amendment, itself. The third party source is the Buzzard case, relative to the interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are wikilawyering, again. Yaf (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I meant to write 'secondary sourcing as required by WP:NOR'. And, sorry in your paragraph about the meaning in the Buzzard court ruling I believe that directly reading the Buzzard court document to determine what those judges meant when they wrote the ruling amounts to reading a primary document, a violation of WP:PSTS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 13 pertains to the quote. Stating where it comes from in the sentence prior to this is not any form of original research. It simply defines the context. Your request that an article from 1915 should have a quote stating the importance of the article is ridiculous. Rarely does an author know what, if any, impact his paper will have when published. What is it about the first sentence that you object to? I don't see any original research here. Yaf (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Omit the first sentence if you cannot cite it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not OR to state the author's name and the journal in which it was published. This is a patently ridiculous request. What is it that you object to in this sentence, is it the first name of the author, the last name of the author, the name of the law journal, the year of publication, or what? Yaf (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for a cite of your assertion that "The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when..." Who says this originated in 1915? This appears to be WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then lets change the wording to be "A modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when...". Would you object to this, changing the definite article to the indefinite article? (I have a powder scale for reloading ammunition that can measure in 0.1 grain, a grain being 1/7,000 of a pound, hence I can measure powder in 1/70,000 of pound, with even slightly better precision available on a repeating basis than this; perhaps I ought to hire you to weigh my powder in the future, as you evidently can weigh POV balances and presumably powder, too, to much greater precision than any mechanical instrument...) Yaf (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have not properly sourced that this dichotomy 'entered Federal law' with that article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, would you accept "A modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy became better known when...". Yaf (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to see the whole paragraph to see the context to answer, but I could probably accept that wording. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Have made this change to the states' interpretation section text above. Do you accept this wording? Yaf (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I check[17] I see that it is not really 'widely cited'. It appears to be a relatively obscure and not often cited article. Similar concerns for 'better known'. Otherwise, it looks ok to me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You searched on Lucilius + Emery + "bear arms". You used an implicit POV pushed search, to stress a search for collective right, militia only interpretation based usages. If, instead, you do a Google Scholar search on "Lucilius A. Emery" with and without "Harvard Law Review" you will get much better search results. We gotta work on your inherent bias, here :-) I take it you are OK with this wording, then. Yaf (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed "widely-cited" from the wording in the proposed rewrite. Yaf (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have found a detailed secondary reference confirming the disputed content. (Thanks for e-mail note!) Ordered the book; it should be in within 3 or 4 business days. Will add detailed citation upon book arriving. Yaf (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
State interpretations of state Constitutional provisions are only relevant if the wording were (nearly) identical to that of the 2nd Amendment, and only for those proceedings before the ratification of the Amendment. Those would provide historical context for the meaning of the Amendment, but other state cases are not legally or historically relevant. Other historical interpretations may be valuable, but not state court cases interpreting similar wording after the ratification of the amendment.
I think the article is quite biased toward the collectivist view, in that in Miller, if the USSC had taken a collectivist view, the key question would not have been whether the weapon in question had a relationship to a well-regulated militia. They could have just looked at whether Miller had a relationship with a militia, which he clearly did not. But that last is WP:OR.... We need relevant sources for an individualist view, as well as relevant sources for a collectivist view, both of which are lacking in the article at present. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
interestingly, in today's oral arguments in the Heller case, the question of state constitutions and their relevance came up.
Justice Stevens: May (I) ask this question, Mr. Dellinger? To what extent do you think the similar provisions in State constitutions that were adopted more or less at the same time are relevant to our inquiry?
Mr. Dellinger: I think they are highly relevant to your inquiry because now 42 States have adopted constitutional provisions.
Justice Stevens: I'm not talking about those.
Mr. Dellinger: You're talking about at the time.
Justice Stevens: I'm talking about the contemporaneous actions of the States, before or at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment.
Now, if discussion of the state's constitutional provisions had no relationship to a discussion of the second amendment, Mr. Justice Stevens would not have made such an inquiry. yes, that's OR on my own as well. but i think this exclusionist method saltyboatr is employing clearly goes against the supreme court's own inquiry into the matter. Anastrophe (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a split out article discussing "right to bear arms" provisions in the various state constitutions. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busy reading the entire transcript today. Most interesting reading. Yaf (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After listening to the oral argument I was left with the impression that all of SaltyBoatr's demands will be mooted by July. It would be nice if the article could be released from full protection so Arthur Rubin's concerns could be dealt with. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. And, I would consider selling any Class III stuff quickly, as I suspect it is going to get a lot cheaper real soon :-) Seriously, one should never try to guess what the outcome will be. I have watched too many cases over the years and know a narrow decision is the most likely outcome. Still, it would be nice to see this article return to normal editing, to address many concerns (bad footnote cites, typos, punctuation, etc.) ArbCom is looking like the only feasible avenue to resolve WP:OWN issues. Yaf (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to answer my questions[18] about your edit to the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough chatter about Heller, that is a misuse of this discussion page, there are other forums for that talk.
Setting aside the minor questions for the moment, the large question here is whether Yaf's footnote 2, which points to an obscure and difficult to find 1967 original source document meets the standard of WP:V. It is an obscure and very difficult document to check. I am asking if Yaf has actually read more than the one half sentence snippet visible in Google Books. Yaf, instead of answering yes or no, answered with a hypothetical question and objections of outrage. This appears evasive.
The central theme of Yaf's edit is that a state court ruling about an act of state legislature conflicting the meaning of a state constitution is 'on topic' in an article about the federal 2A. This claim appears extraordinary, considering that other reliable sources do not confirm it. There are many, but the most immediate RS is the Kruschke book pg 140 which states that the case was founded on the act of the legislature of Kentucky being in conflict with the constitution of Kentucky (and not the federal 2A).
I already know the opinion of several vocal editors about me being a bad editor, so please if you can, let's focus on the article now and not on me. But specifically right now, my question is solidly based in WP:V policy, and this question has been on the table unanswered for nearly a week. Believe it or not, I don't like to see the article lock needlessly delayed a week either. I have little control over when (or if) Yaf will answer WP:V questions about his edit, he has the burden of proof here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the true 'larger question' here is this: you have maintained that the entire 'states' section "tips the POV balance" and that it is not "on topic" to the 2A article, and have suggested on numerous occasions that it be removed. if that is the case, why are you wikilawyering over the citations? if yaf "fixes" every one of your objections to the citations, will that 'de-tip' the POV balance? will that make it "on topic" per your claim it isn't? will you no longer claim that inclusion of the section violates NPOV if all of these cites are "fixed"? i'd like an answer to this question, as it goes to the heart of the obstructionist methods at work here. massive volumes have been written above in response to your 'concerns' about the citations. but fixing citations won't mitigate your claim that the inclusion of the section 'tips the POV balance' and that it is not "on topic" - so by my reading, even if yaf answers each microanalysis of the citations you've posed, you'll once again come back to the claim that the very existence of the section violates NPOV. this isn't a discussion about your being a "bad editor", it's a discussion trying to determine whether any compromise is possible. keeping other editors occupied with busy work that won't satisfy your other claims against the section won't assist in getting the article unlocked any sooner. compromise. accept that the precious few legitimate objections to citations in the section can be addressed after the article is unlocked - and stop maintaining (counter even to the thinking of the supreme court justices) that state constitution discussion is not relevant to an article about the federal 2A. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Hey SaltyBoatr, stop telling us how to speak about this dispute. The Heller case is mentioned in the article, so it's legitimate to talk about it here.
(2) SaltyBoatr keeps coming up with charges against us, so I doubt that he will ever be satisfied with any attempt at compromise any of us make.
Bring on ArbCom! --SMP0328. (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The delay is that both sides are supposed to be willing to cut down and be willing to compromise and accept others; requests. This has been rather minimal, unfortunately. I'll reread the points above in the new section and work out a compromise of my own tonight, since it doesn't seem like a laissez-faire approach is working at all. Wizardman 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at the requests for mediation, we rank 2nd out of 10 in terms of how long it's taken so far. So really, don't fret too much that not a lot's getting done, let's try to compromise little by little. Wizardman 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have attempted to reach a compromise, but SaltyBoatr isn't trying to compromise. He just keeps making demands, but doesn't give an inch. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not precisely true (in "that both sides are supposed to be willing to cut down and be willing to compromise") as this tacitly assumes that all requests are equally reasonable and are in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Neither side should compromise on basic Wikipedia principles or policies, through accepting censorship of articles, or uncited statement POV pushing of articles, contrary to Wikipedia principles. When a single editor demands censorship of reliable and verifiable cited material as his only compromise position, through claiming "systemic bias" that shifts the "POV balance", that to date remains undefined, laissez-faire approaches are inherently doomed to fail. Compromise of Wikipedia principles is not a viable mediation path. Yaf (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt at "fixing" references is not possible, as it presumes that all editors will be intellectually honest. When an editor engages in making "busy work" through requesting cites on top of cites with no intention of actually reading the source wording in citations, or through twisting the meanings of reliable sources by being unable to see some words (i.e., seeing only "bear arms" and never seeing "to keep" just before it, for example), a successful mediation is impossible. It is time for the next step. Yaf (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. saltyboatr has made clear his ownership of the article with the 'seven step "compromise"' that consisted of requiring all editors conform to onerous 'collaboration' requirements that are nowhere found in policy, and that essentially constitute submitting all edits to saltyboatr for approval, under threat of having the article intentionally 'edit warred' in order to request page protection. it's time to end the ineffective mediation and move to the next step, which i guess is arbcom. Anastrophe (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are trying again to paint this as an ad hominem issue. That is, the problem is that SaltyBoatr is a bad editor. This diverts attention from the real issue which is the article, and the proposed edit to the article. I have tried to avoid attacking you and your style of editing. Instead, I have tried to remain civil and focus on genuine WP:Policy issues about the specific edit proposal on the table at the moment; and to search for possible compromises. This method I have advocated, (including this informal mediation which you now want to end), is the official policy method of WP:DR, and has worked so far, at least a little. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr, compromise means that we give in to your side a little bit and you give in to our side a little bit. Instead, all we get are demands from you. You act as if you are the head editor of the article. I'm not trying to insult you. I simply feel that if you truly tried to reach a compromise with us, instead of being a wikicop, you would have a better chance of reaching a compromise with us. As things stand now, the next step is likely to be ArbCom. You are not likely to win in ArbCom. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I know that arbcom doesn't like to handle content disputes. If this is more of a policy dispute than it seems then something could be done here. I would ask SaltyBoatr to allow at least a couple of those references above so far, and we'll work from there. Wizardman 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted footnotes 1,5,8,12 and 13. I also accept footnotes 3,4,6,7,9,14 and 15 as reliable sources except that for these I object that the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion as Yaf's proposed article edit. Footnotes 2 and 10, I can't say yet. These two cites are really tough to check because they are very obscure. I strongly suspect that Yaf has not ever checked them. I cannot check them either (though I have tried to do so) because they are not available online, nor are they available by interlibrary transfer, and they are not in any library in my county-wide local library system. I have requested that Yaf provide quotes from the source, but Yaf feigns outrage and refuses. Footnote 11, I have not yet checked. The bottom line is that I accept the many of Yaf's footnotes. The big sticking point is footnote 2 which is critical to Yaf's premise. The problem I have with his premise is that discussion of a right to bear arms in state courts and of state constitutions does not belong in the federal 2A article. I am not alone with this belief[19] and [20]. Sorry, but I see this as a odd dispute, considering that at one point Yaf explicitly favored[21] removing his section from the 2A article and putting it in the the Right to bear arms article. Yet now Yaf feels compelled that the material be duplicated back into the 2A article. Why this is a crisis, I can only guess. It already exists (in an almost identical form) in Wikipedia over here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 2 can be verified in context online here. The only interpretation involved in the statement above is that Bliss has been recognized as being a case involving a statute that was deemed "violative of the Second Amendment", which is the only point of the reference, namely, Bliss is an interpretation of the Second Amendment. The complete and voluminous Anti-Crime Program hearings from 1967 are not needed to verify the claim made above, although they were needed to find the online cite on Google Books through inputting a precise wording from the hardcopy to be input into the search parameters. Yaf (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you can see in the Google Books snippet is a partial sentence fragment. Evaluating context requires reading more than a sentence fragment. This is especially true because the quote, central to Yaf's premise, is contradicted by other reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got any sources that say it is specifically not about the Second Amendment? Bliss involved a statute that was violative of both the State constitution and the 2A of the Federal Constitution. Many sources stop only at the "violative of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's then extant constitution" without also noting it was also considered violative of the Federal constitution. The federal Anti-Crime Program Session 1 focused on just the federal violation and the 2A interpretation. Yaf (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I have to prove a negative? You the burden of proof, not me. Both the Kruschke book, pg. 140 and Jon Roland's webblog[22] say that the Bliss case was about state law, and they do not say it was about federal law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote no. 10 is a collection of legal symposia papers. An offer to use just this one paper would probably suffice, although pointing to both symposia would be a better idea, especially for those readers with access to law libraries. Yaf (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your new footnote 10 is reliable enough for me, but it still has the problem in that it speaks of a right to bear arms generally (addressing both state law and federal law), and as such belongs in the Right to bear arms article. You keep incorrectly blurring state law with federal law with the pre-existing right. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the paper is, "LOST AND FOUND: RESEARCHING THE SECOND AMENDMENT". The Second Amendment protects a right "to keep and bear arms", not just to "bear arms". You still cannot see the words "to keep" in any cited papers, or in the Second Amendment, either. Amazing... Simply amazing. Yaf (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is dawning on my now, the problem we have is that you believe that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the States. Virtually all reliable sourcing disagrees with your belief. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated to the States through formal recognition by any SCOTUS case. There are dicta that indicate that some SCOTUS justices did think incorporation has already occurred, but there hasn't been any formal recognition of this in any SCOTUS cases. Yaf (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but even with all this said, if yaf were to satisfy every minute qualm saltyboatr has expressed about the references, it all ends up '86'ed, when after the cites are all satisfied, saltyboatr will again claim inclusion of the section "tips the POV balance" and is not "on topic to the federal 2A", therefore none of it can remain in the article. so why keep bothering over the cites? it's nothing but a dodge, a misdirection to keep yaf busy. until saltyboatr commits to an affirmative compromise - something along the lines of 'once all the cites are satisfied, i'll drop my objections to inclusion of the material' (and shows good faith and drops the implied threat to have the article locked up again at the first edit he disagrees with), no concrete progress will be found. will you commit to this saltyboatr? if not, why not?Anastrophe (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also, saltyboatr, please stop misrepresenting that discussion about your tendentious and obstructionist methods is 'ad hominem'. it is not. please familiarize yourself with argumentum ad hominem. i have never said "this whole problem is because saltyboatr is an idiot/jerk/whatever", or "because saltyboatr is for gun control, we should just disregard whatever he says". personalizing the argument as a means of rejecting it would be ad hominem. discussing your methods and techniques is not ad hominem. Anastrophe (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate the tip. "Off your meds, obviously." is not ad hominem". SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was an eye test, specially written with a comma clause, to see if you could see it, as you haven't been able to see the "to keep" part of the Second Amendment, which itself is constructed with a similar, short, comma-claused construction. The test worked. It is now obvious that you can see such short comma-claused constructs, but you still simply will not accept the entirety of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment, seeing only the "bear arms" and POV-pushing "collective right" and militia-based interpretations, only. Most interesting. Yaf (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your jokes and personal attacks to be offensive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good effort, but oh, darn, i'm sorry. thanks for playing, but while you are correct that that is ad hominem, it's not from this thread. try confining your claims to what's under discussion, rather than searching for offending commentary elsewhere on the page. and, of course, i would be delighted if you would answer the question in the previous paragraph. Anastrophe (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You incessant attempts to question the behavior of editors is diverting attention from and interfering with the work of resolving the dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is dawning on my now, the problem we have is that you believe that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the States. Virtually all reliable sourcing disagrees with your belief. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated to the States through formal recognition by any SCOTUS case. There are dicta that indicate that some SCOTUS justices did think incorporation has already occurred, but there hasn't been any formal recognition of this in any SCOTUS cases. Yaf (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is what I find extraordinary about your footnote 2. If the 2A has not been found to restrict any state law or state court, then on what basis can a state law be viewed as "violative" of the federal requirement? I am not asking for an WP:OR answer. I look to WP:RS for answers and they overwhelmingly see Bliss as a ruling about a state law conflicting with a state constitution. And, not as a conflict of state law with the federal constitution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
State courts regularly interpret the US Constitution. For example, from Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 98-8384. “On the broader question of how much deference federal courts owe a state court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, Justice O'Connor, writing for a 5-4 majority, said it is not enough if a state court acted incorrectly. It must be unreasonably wrong or contrary to explicit Supreme Court precedent for relief to be given.”[23]
Similarly, on an athesism case, Volokh states: “And even those state supreme courts that might not take this view on their own might feel moved by precedents from other states, since courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.” [24]
State courts can and do regularly interpret their own constitutions and the US Constitution. There is nothing unusual about this. This has more to do with trying to achieve consistency. State laws that violate the US Constitution have generally been overturned, (e.g., miscegenation, etc.), and state judges don't like to have their decisions turn out to be regarded as "bad law" as this tends to make the judge's legacy to be considered "less than stellar", and leaves their image tarnished. Yaf (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You answered using WP:OR and WP:SYN. You cited a habeas corpus case, and a separation of church + state case. Both of those seem much different than an amendment to the Bill of Rights which has not been incorporated to the states. You improperly extend the logic. That state court regularly interpret the US Constitution does nothing to prove that they do so for unincorporated federal issues, and does nothing to prove that they did so in this instance. And checking the RS, I see that RS sources about Bliss overwhelmingly disagree with you, (see Kruschke pg. 140, for starters). Your logical extension is not allowed per WP:SYN. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are mistaken about what incorporation means, and whether WP:SYN and WP:OR are being violated. Incorporation has nothing to do with state courts interpreting the US Constitution. Incorporation has to do with limitations on Federal Government also restraining state, and local, governments. Some of the Bill of Rights have been formally incorporated to the state and local governments, other amendments have not specifically been declared incorporated, although SCOTUS justice dicta in cases are such that some SCOTUS justices nonetheless believe that the entire Bill of Rights has been incorporated. States are free to take this dicta, in the absence of any rulings by the SCOTUS itself, in forming state interpretations of the US Federal Constitution. Hence, state courts are free to interpret the US Federal Constitution without regards to formal incorporation limitations. You still haven't found any sources claiming Bliss was not about the Second Amendment, whereas fn. 2 clearly shows with a reliable and verifiable source that Bliss has been regarded as being an interpretation of the Second Amendment, involving a statute in violation of the Second Amendment. It has also been regarded as being an interpretation of both the Commonwealth of Kentucky's then extant constitution, in addition (from fn 2) of being an interpretation of the US Federal Constitution. Your POV (without cites) that Bliss involved no interpretation of the Second Amendment is just POV that is uncited. Such POV pushing does not belong in the article. This is a clear WP:NOR violation. On the other hand, if you can find a source that claims that Bliss was specifically not an interpretation of the 2A, then that could be added as well. I am not opposed to the inclusion of cited facts. However, I am opposed to POV pushing in the form of commentary in an article without cites, and to censorship of content an editor simply "doesn't like". These last two issues deserve administrator intervention where necessary to prevent such from occurring. Yaf (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You write "fn 2 clearly shows". How can a partial sentence fragment be called "clearly shows"? Especially, when this sentence fragment is at odds with many other reliable sources. (Kruschke pg 140, and many more) SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "fn2 clearly shows," it is meant that one verifies through reading the cited source, not that "United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246." is in and of itself showing it. This partial sentence fragment is a pointer to a reference, not the actual reference itself. Yaf (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have read the whole original document? Could you please provide a quote of the whole sentence here on this talk page? Also, could you please tell us who is speaking? Could you please tell us what question they were asked, that they answering? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this overnight, I am realizing that my objection hinges on the issue of 'state courts' being off topic, not the issue of the history of the 'individual' versus 'collective' dichotomy of 2A theory. I could agree to a solution where we add a section that focuses on the history of the dichotomy, and away from the history of the state courts, that might satisfy both sides in the dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this approach is that the "history of the dichotomy" occurred in the state courts, in the absence of SCOTUS rulings that spoke to the contrary. It would not be possible to write such a history without content, which I contend we already have. Yaf (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would need to be careful to separate between the greater issues of the right to bear arms in each of the state courts and the pre-existing right to bear arms, from the right to keep and bear arms addressed by the 2A. These several things are distinct, and you seek to improperly WP:SYN them together. Perhaps we need a new article Right to keep and bear arms (United States), would that solve this problem for you? It would solve it for me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, POV forks or extra article creations will not solve this problem. We are down to arguing over one of the references at least, so it's some progress. I'm currently reading the ref and discussion over trying to make sense of the matter. Wizardman 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for a POV fork. If the topic being discussed in off topic in the 2A article, and on topic in another article, how can you say it will not solve the problem? Indeed, this exact topicality was at issue in November of last year, and back then Yaf and I agreed about it. Obviously, something is different now. (What I am not sure.) If an almost identical dispute was easily solved this way last November[25], it might again be solved this way today. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's an interesting diff. Since the article is meant to be abotu the federal law, that could work, and it was apparently agreed on in the past. I'm curious to hear Yaf's view on this. Wizardman 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf answered this before [26], and his answer is a big part of the reason that I think that a potential solution would be to focus on the history of the 'individual' versus 'collective' dichotomy relative to the 2A. The trouble is that Yaf insists on broadening the discussion to be beyond the 2A subset of the topic. I would be OK to discuss the broader issue, in an article devoted to the broader issue. That would not be a POV fork, but rather an important distinct article devoted to a specific topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that the material is not off-topic to the 2A article. by this strict interpretation of 'off-topic', the considerable discussion of the english common-law origins of these rights, the executive and legislative branch reforms of the militia system, gun control act of 1968, etc etc are also "off topic". i wonder where the next objections will arise, once this dispute ends (if ever). Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated previously, what happened is that the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on Parker, and content need, of what should be included in the 2A article for readers coming to this article, changed. This is because, with certiorari, and due to the specific question framed by the justices of the SCOTUS, the issue of "individual" vs. "collective" rights returned to being worth summarizing in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article directly, for providing readers with an insight into this historical dichotomy that today forms the heart of the Heller/Parker case. The question posed by the justices in Heller/Parker is:
”The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? “
With this focus by the SCOTUS, on "rights of individuals", content in the 2A article, necessary for understanding “individual rights” interpretations, became germane. This was especially true, as the article was clearly unbalanced, with predominantly only a "collective right" set of interpretations running throughout the article. Rather than whining about the imbalance, and wikilawyering each and every reliable and verifiable source, and pushing the article into page protection each and every time an editor tried to improve the article, and attempting to censor this article by arguing that the POV balance point was off-balance, I simply went to work editing the article, and added balancing content. This included content on "shall not be infringed", as well as a general clean-up of typos and cites, and through adding "individual rights" content to the article. It was then that the dispute began, due to WP:OWN issues.
As for the states interpretation of the Second Amendment content, the wording, and even all the cites, was worked on previously, collaboratively, with SaltyBoatr nearly 3 years ago, and we had agreed with the cites then, and this agreement held for nearly 3 years in this very article. And it has held with the same exact cites even to this day in the Right to bear arms article in a longer version surrounding much of the same content. So, redacting a small, summarizing, subset of the earlier content, germane to providing an understanding to readers of the 2A article of the individual rights vs. collective rights dichotomy, being it had become the heart of the controversy contained in Heller/Parker in the first Supreme Court case to examine the 2A in nearly 70 years, and returning it to the 2A article, did not (at the time) seem to be a big deal. Obviously, that was not the case.
This material is precisely on-topic for the 2A today. It involves the first interpretations of the Second Amendment, interpretations that form the dominant pair of views regarding the Second Amendment, today. As has been noted by other editors, the flavor of the article remains "collective rights" even with the added content, but at least there is balancing content, to address making the article more NPOV. WP:OWNership by a single editor should not be an issue. What should be the issue is whether or not the article is as good as it can be, towards proving a neutral, informative article for readers coming to the article to understand Second Amendment issues, especially with regards to the SCOTUS case Heller/Parker. Yaf (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely on-topic? The Kentucky Constitution said "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state". To conflate that with the 2A which does not include "of themselves" is much to far off topic and skews the POV balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The fact that the Supreme Court will be determining the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, means whatever is used in making that determination belongs in the article. During the oral argument on Monday, a Justice mentioned State court interpretations of the RKBA. Obviously to that Justice, State court interpretations of the RKBA are relevant to determining the true meaning of the Second Amendment. That should be enough to show its relevance. A possible compromise would be to clarify when a State court is interpreting the Second Amendment and when it's interpreting its State version of the RKBA. Removing those State court rulings would be excessive. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kentucky did not use the word 'keep'. This reveals that the issue at heart is the greater concept, the RKBA. This is a greater topic and is definitely not synonymous with the Second Amendment. What exactly is wrong with a "See also:", split out article linking the 2A article to an article on the greater topic? See WP:SS, for how this is done. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have a "See also:" and keep the content to which you are referring? Many articles have a "See also:" at the beginning of one of its sections. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are style guidelines. "See also:" is normally followed by a brief summary. Read the style guideline here WP:SS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines, not rigid rules. The page you linked says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Note the words "occasional exception." Maybe this is an occasion where an exception should be made. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Bliss and Buzzard, despite being state cases, were interpreting the Second Amendment. (Sources have been cited.) That they were also interpreting their own state constitutions is also true. Since these cases involve interpreting the Second Amendment, this material belongs in this article. However, I have no objection to it also being selectively used in other articles. (It is already in the Right to bear arms article.) Yaf (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You actually have not shown that Bliss involves interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many reliable sources disagree with you on this Yaf. See Kruschke pg 140, and many others. Like this book, "incompatible with the state constitution" Notice that this book places the 'state court' issues about right to bear arms in an appendix. This is exactly analogous to having us put it in a WP:SS "See also:" article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't. That would be original research. But, Footnote 2 states it. Also, it should be easy for you to cite a single reliable verifiable source that states Bliss is not interpreting the Second Amendment, contrary to footnote no. 2 which disagrees with your Original Research, and states that Blisswas interpreting the Second Amendment. Name one source. (Kruschke doesn't count, as he does not make this statement, incidentally. Kruschke actually includes Bliss in Chapter 4 of his book while discussing the Second Amendment, categorizing it under the individual rights cases discussing the Second Amendment.) Please be intellectually honest, and stop wiki-lawyering. Yaf (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kruschke on page 140 states flatly that the Bliss case was founded on the act of the legislature of Kentucky being in conflict with the constitution of Kentucky. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in conflict with Kentucky's then extant constitution. It was also in conflict with the Second Amendment. (sources cited). Yaf (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About six times now you have evaded my request to provide a quote from your footnote 2. It is fair to conclude that you are either extremely evasive, or that you have not actually read it (beyond that partial sentence snippet). I have provided several reliable sources that have stated that Bliss addresses a right to bear arms under a state constitution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, I agree that Bliss interpreted the Commonwealth's constitution. It also interpreted the US Federal Constitution, by a cited source's content. You have yet to find a source that states Bliss only interpreted the Commonwealth of Kentucky's constitution, or that it did not additionally interpret the Second Amendment. You refuse to see the need for balancing content in the article, with properly cited sources, holding only to a collective right, militia-based, only interpretation. You have no cites supporting your position. You are simply Pushing a POV without cites. This is behavior that demands administrator intervention, to address WP:OWNership issues that you have. I promote the inclusion of all major points of view with properly cited reliable and verifiable sources, whereas you continue to push your POV without a cite and advocate censorship of the article. Yaf (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is "by cited sources" plural? You have cited exactly one single sentence fragment from an exceedingly obscure document that is at odds with many well known reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name one. Just one, that states it is not about interpreting the Second Amendment, or that it only interpreted the State constitution.Yaf (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, and seemingly contrive to your advantage, proving a negative is exceedingly difficult. Also, it is you, the editor seeking to add material, who has the burden of proof. See WP:PROVEIT. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. "a statute violative of the Second Amendment". Q.E.D. -- Yaf (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... a statute". Yaf, you forgot the ellipsis. I challenge your source as being of questionable context. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You challenged me to name one. This 1994 letter[27] from the Attorney General of Kentucky about the history the right to bear arms in Kentucky as part of analysis of Kentucky HB 359. This analysis includes analysis of Bliss v. Commonwealth, with analysis of all the other 'bear arms' law in Kentucky; serving precedence to HB 359. The Kentucky AG states: "(Therefore) HB 359 does not unconstitutionally infringe on any right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." This is a powerful statement which serves to contradict your cite of an obscure 1967 partial sentence fragment. Read his entire analysis, and there is not hint of any 'bear arms' law in Kentucky being violative of the 2A. Of course, proving a negative is nearly impossible, but this expert analysis of history of the right to bear arms in Kentucky including Bliss and reaches a conclusion that the Kentucky law including Bliss does not infringe on any right under the 2A. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wow. creating conclusions not even supported by what's in contention. you're familiar with synthesis - i'm quite sure of that. the above is classic synthesis. you're claiming that - because a document discussing Kentucky HB 359 describes that bill as not infringing the rights under the second amendment; and because the document simply mentions 'bliss v commonwealth' - that therefore bliss v commonwealth can't be described as being about a statute violative of the second amendment. for that matter, the kentucky AG's statement shows that he is making a claim that is interpretive of the federal 2A - which i thought all along was what was causing knickers to be tied in knots, because you claim these 'states' interpretations are divorced from interpretation of the federal 2A. so i think at this point, it's time for you to state, without equivocation, the precise objection you have to that one citation. as it stands, there's absolutely nothing wrong with what the citation is providing reference for - a statement that bliss v commonwealth "has been described as" violative of the second amendment. Anastrophe (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have four problems: 1) Yaf and I have have not read his 1967 sentence fragment in context. That is, to read the whole sentence. Or, to read the whole paragraph the sentence is in. It seems to be an answer to a question, what was the question being answered? Who is speaking, and what is their authority? (Is it the janitor?) We do not know the context of Yaf's obscure 1967 partial sentence fragment. 2) Also, Yaf's sentence fragment is at odds with many other reliable sources, and I have seen at least a half a dozen that solely describe Bliss in context of state law. 3) When I read the entire "Bliss v. Commonwealth" court decision as written by that state court and I see that those judges made no mention what-so-ever of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. If it makes no mention of the 2A, how can it have been considered by those judges to be violative of the 2A? 4) Yaf has the burden of proof, not I. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot state that yaf has not read it, so that objection is moot. your remaining questions are not supported by any policy i'm aware of. what policy requires yaf to provide you with ancillary details regarding the citation? on the most basic policy basis, your objection assumes bad faith, that yaf is lying about the citation.
that a RS is at odds with other reliable sources does not invalidate the RS. you can't claim that a citation is invalid, simply because there are other citations which are at odds with it. it simply means there is not a single opinion of it. curiously, the material you mentioned immediately preceding this actually supports the claim that it is interpretive of the federal 2A.
your WP:OR opinion of bliss v commonwealth is noted, but immaterial. neither yaf's text, nor the citation, claim what you suggest. the material claims that the decision "has been described as". the citation supports that it has been described as that. i'm sure there would be no objection to your adding content and citations for other descriptions of it.
yaf has the burden of proof in proving that the citation meets WP:RS standards, which it does. your objections are noted, but are not supported by policy. Anastrophe (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree on all four counts. Reality check now, are we trying to convince each other that I am right and you are wrong? Or, are we trying to find a compromise solution to our dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that you don't like those four conclusions is noted. please back up your dislike of those points with clear statements under policy, by which you reject those four points. if you can't describe your objections on the basis of policy, then it merely amounts to 'i don't like it'. what policies are you claiming i'm wrong about in the above? Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I notice that SaltyBoatr accuses us many times of not wanting to seek compromise when any one of us disagrees with him. That is further proof that SaltyBoatr views compromise as us giving in to his demands.
2. SaltyBoatr, if material in the article with which you disagree doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy (remember that guidelines are not policies), then there is no obligation to remove that material. SMP0328. (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of removing material, unless that material has been proven to be false. How about including your side SaltyBoatr? That way, the article's reference to Bliss can include material claiming that it was about the Second Amendment and material claiming that it's not. Balance, rather than censorship, should be the goal. SMP0328. (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anastrophe, I'd say to see an idea of a compromise from you. What do you think would be a good middle ground? I haven't seen one from you yet. Wizardman 23:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not entirely clear on the wording of the above, but if you've read this page and the 2A talk page, then you know i've made a number of suggestions for compromise; in each case, the target has been moved after the compromise was tendered, or no direct response was ever offered by saltyboatr. the major problem here is that saltyboatr's objections are for the most part specious: the material is relevant to the article, it is NPOV, the length of the article is not (and never should have been) an issue, and yaf has satisfied all but one or two quibbles about citations that saltyboatr has wikilawyered on unsupportable grounds (unsupportable by policy). i don't think a middle ground can be found when one editor changes the claim of what is in dispute each time a claim is satisfied. Anastrophe (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short, it is Saltyboatr's fault. A suggested solution to resolving this dispute: Make Saltyboatr go away. Might their be a compromise solution to our dispute? You did make the suggestion that Yaf could remove 500 words of his own choosing from his proposed 'state courts' edit on the condition that I accept it as full resolution in advance, sight unseen as to which 500 words Yaf would choose. That wasn't really fair, not policy based, nor did it happen. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
your hyperbole and diversion (and putting words in my mouth then attacking me for them) is noted, but immaterial. the offer based on length was before it was revealed that your claim that the article is too long had no validity. i've made several other offers of compromise. i still await your specific responses to the four points above. Anastrophe (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there is some attempt to compromise, the comments on the contributors are becoming more and more frequent while comments on the content are becoming less frequent. I let the discussion get out of hand, and have actually fallen behind in merely reading all this. As a result, I am temporarily halting discussion, for your own good and for my own good. I think a day or two where we don't have to worry about this will calm us all down, and will give me time to weed through everything, understand the foundations of the arguments, and ideally find something that we can all live with, which I have quite obviously not been able to find so far. Please don't continue discussion elsewhere, just take a day or two off and let me get to the bottom of this. You guys have been this close to giving up several times, I can tell, but I don't want that to happen. My ideas may not be ideal, but just hold out and concentrate on doing something else for a little while. That's all I ask. Wizardman 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I was reading the archives, and reading the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'm trying to put the pieces together on it since there has been a lot of discussion, so you're technically following this, it's the lack of finding a reasonable/temporary compromise. This clearly is not happening. However, after reading it I've made some progress. The protection expires in roughly 8 hours, however I ask that the moratorium remain out of courtesy for a little while longer. I am close to figuring out something that should make sense to all parties (which we can all agree is rather difficult to do). Wizardman 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to find a way to tweak that second ref so that the paragraph still flows well and the main point remains, but takes out some of the issues that SaltyBoatr has with it. After a day of reading that over and looking though everything, I'm still somewhat stumped, this is clearly a very deeply embedded issue. However, let's think of it this way. It's one sentence. In a 116kb article, it's one sentence. So what I want to know is if a mere sentence tweaking would be acceptable to the parties, and if so what part (let's try and keep explanations brief so i don't fall behind again, we're all rather wordy). Once this is done, we can move on, whether it's to the bigger issue or if we've managed to get it down to this.
I didn't think it would actually take me the full 48 hours+ to figure this out, but this has been a rather difficult introduction to medcom, I must say. Wizardman 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mere sentence tweaking may, or may not, address my core concern. Which is that discussion of subsequent state based rights to bear arms is not synonymous with discussion of the Second Amendment to the United States. Sometimes, when people are sloppy, they confuse the two, but we should not do so in this encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just as i predicted. no matter how much effort and busywork and time expended in this vast parsing of the citations - it was for no useful purpose at all - the target merely moved back to "none of it belongs in the first place". even though it's already been shown, numerous times, that state court interpretations of the federal second amendment are entirely within the scope of the article. the ven diagram is a falsification of the argument. replace "bliss" with "state courts". replace "right to bear arms" with "federal second amendment". replace "federal second amendment" with "federal courts". there you have the proper construct of what is at work here. nobody here is confusing 'right to bear arms' with '2A'. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman's proposed compromise is satisfactory to me. It would be nice to put this dispute to bed. Of course, whether this proposed compromise is sufficient is to be determined by the owner of the article. His response above does not bode well for the proposed compromise. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will ignore the straw man and ad hominem logic. It has not been shown numerous times that the Kentucky court was interpreting the Federal Second Amendment. Instead, per reliable sourcing[28] Bliss v. Commonwealth addressed the first Kentucky constitution (Kentucky, unlike the federal, had a different type of right to bear arms. The right for defense of themselves). SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's your answer Wizardman. SaltyBoatr won't budge an inch. He isn't interested in compromise. Compromise to SaltyBoatr means the unconditional surrender of all other editors, at least regarding the Second Amendment article. SaltyBoatr, are there any demands that you have made that you would be willing to give up in the interest of compromise? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reference does not state the statute at issue in Bliss was not also "violative of the Second Amendment". As has been stated multiple times, the statute was violative of both the then extant constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. If you were to look at an alligator and only see an alligator, is it not also a reptile? But, the reference says it is only an alligator you would plead, hence it can't also be a reptile, you would no doubt complain. Much the same. You are synthesizing your position without seeing what it does not say. (The reference does not state that Bliss was only interpretative of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's constitution, or that it was not interpretative of the Second Amendment.) Original research and synthesis are the problems with your reasoning, here. Yaf (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bliss has already been established as being interpretative of the Second Amendment, involving a statute that has been described as being "violative of the Second Amendment". Likewise, the Second Amendment protects a right to "keep and bear arms", not a right only to "bear arms" as SaltyBoatr wishes to POV push throughout the article. "Censorship" and "pushing an uncited POV" are contrary to Wikipedia policies, and I don't see much way to address SaltyBoatr's request of implementing censorship while pushing his "collective right" and "militia-based-right-only" POV to "bear arms" along with simultaneously "tweaking" a single sentence. The Venn diagram is entirely original research, and completely misses the facts established by cites from reliable and verifiable sources. It is only another example of POV pushing towards a goal of the censorship of Wikipedia, while advocating pushing a "collective right" and "militia-based interpretation" only, contrary to cited reliable and verifiable sources. But, short of seeing the tweak, it is not possible to say much, one way or the other. Yaf (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf again exaggerates and claims in the plural: "cites from reliable and verifiable sources" What Yaf has found is a single sentence fragment, which appears to be in error because it runs contrary to all the other sourcing which describe Bliss v. Commonwealth as "an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state" seethe indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state. and many many more, which uniformly describe Bliss as a State of Kentucky court case. Yaf's single sentence fragment RS and V claim is an extraordinary claim and per WP:REDFLAG must be discounted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the cite of United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. is a single sentence fragment, but refers to a document the size of a large telephone book. You have to read the source, not just the single sentence fragment citing the source. This source clearly describes the statute at the core of Bliss as being "a statute violative of the Second Amendment". Your refusal to accept a reliable and verifiable source is most disruptive, and deserves administrator intervention. Administrator intervention would end this whole dispute in one simple move, while following Wikipedia policies (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SYN, etc.). Yaf (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that Yaf stops just short of actually claiming to have read this extremely obscure primary source document, other than the Google book snippet of a partially visible sentence fragment. Considering the extraordinary claim, WP:REDFLAG policy applies here. Also, without reading the source in context, a claim that it is verified WP:V is premature. And, without knowing the authority or name of the speaker giving testimony, it is premature to claim WP:RS too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would argue that an alligator is not a reptile, then. Most curious. The Wiki-lawyering needs to stop, or else administrator intervention needs to occur. Compromise does not equate to acceptance of edits contrary to Wikipedia policy, that force censorship and uncited POV pushing onto an article at the request of one disruptive editor over the consensus of all other active editors for an article. ArbCom does accept policy issues routinely; this seems more about policy than content at this point. Looks like a simple decision, relative to policy, with a rather simple solution. Yaf (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the chance that this really is an instance of that we are not understanding each other, this diagram illustrates the concern that I see raised from yafs isolated 1967 fragmented citation. The Kentucky constitution, per the vast majority of the reliable sourcing, contains a right to bear arms for defense of themselves, and it plainly does not include the words "keep and". Therefore commingling the two is extraordinary, and giving heavy emphasis to that extraordinary 1967 source is not prudent per WP:REDFLAG. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguendo, let's say that Yaf removed any reference to the "single sentence fragment." Would that be the end of the dispute over the Second Amendment article? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see Yaf tweak the issue a little bit, that should lead us to closure. I'd do it but you guys know the topic better, I wouldn't know what to remove or tweak as well as you guys. Wizardman 04:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giving this a bump. Is there a compromise offer? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To state the obvious question: Is Yaf motivated to compromise as long as his favored version remains protected in the article? The longer he does nothing, the longer his favored version remains in the article. I suggest that the article be reverted back to the SMP0328 stable version[29] that existed prior to the dispute that led to the article protection, and that the article remain protected in that state until a mutual compromise can be found. That way Yaf will share in the motivation to negotiate a compromise to the dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of full protection should be more than enough warning that something is wrong with the article. Please read meta:The Wrong Version for a light-hearted explanation of why the protecting and mediation admins did not modify the page (as mandated by WP:PPOL) immediately. As for motivation for unlocking the article and making edits, there is plenty, especially since several footnote references are in need of fixing, and there is a plethora of issues remaining with the article. I am currently reading new source materials that arrived on Saturday, and hope to finish them in the next day or two. In the meantime, I note that SaltyBoatr claims that an edit "could easily end the dispute", not that it would end the dispute. This comment looks amazingly like more "paint me a rock" busy work, as it is difficult to assume good faith when what is "wrong" or disputed keeps shifting. If you will pardon the analogy, it is hard to hit a moving target. From my current reading, though, I am starting to think the issue in dispute is more one of Anti-Federalism vs. Federalism over any other issue. Both points of view should be included for balance, and the Federalism point of view seems dominant at present. In the meantime, I continue to read the newly-arrived source materials to gather references for my planned "new proposal" re-write. Yaf (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you motivated to compromise? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what this source material is? I would like to start reading it too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking again, can we know what your new source material is? In the interest of saving time, if the book is scarce, I may need some time to get the book(s) through inter-library loan. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it doesn't appear that Yaf will tweak the sentence, then I'll do it over the weekend. Wizardman 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All statements are cited with additional reliable and verifiable sources. That Bliss is not an anomalous case, but rather is a fundamental "individual rights" case regarding a statute found contrary to the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment is also addressed. Also, the difficulties regarding Salina are also addressed.
In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[1] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment””. [2] As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[1] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[3] As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.[4]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[5] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.
The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ."" "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[6][7]
That the decision of Bliss not be viewed as being solely about the Commonwealth of Kentucky's law is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[8]
In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[9] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[9][10]
Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[11] Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model.[12] Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.[13]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[14] made the first collective right judicial interpretation.[15] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""
A modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy “was the emergence of the collective rights reading of Cruikshank"[16] that became better known when it was employed in “a short but influential article”[16] in the Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."[17]
^Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
^Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. pp. 147-149. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 188. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. "Dillon endorsed Bishop's view that Buzzard's "Arkansas doctrine," not the libertarian views exhibited in Bliss, captured the dominant strain of American legal thinking on this question."{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. pp. 140-143. ISBN0-87436-695-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ See the symposium in Chicago Kent Law Review 76 and the Fordham Law Review vol. 73
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 258. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. "... the Kansas Supreme Court had used a similar formulation of the the right to bear arms a decade earlier, describing this right as one that "refers to the people as a collective body.""{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ abCornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 198. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Excellent job Yaf. I have one question. Shouldn't Buzzard be considered to be the first case to have a "collective right" ruling? Your proposed text refers to Salina v. Blaksley as being the first case to have such a ruling. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzard specifically stated, "then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms". Hence, it was not a "collective right" ruling. Salina, however, specifically did interpret a "collective right". Does it make sense, now? Yaf (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My confusion came from the fact that the proposed text says "In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law" (emphasis added). The words "militia-based reading" sound like "collective right". How about replacing those words with something that clearly states that the Buzzard ruling held that there was no RKBA of any kind? --SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not what the Buzzard ruling held; it found that the RKBA existed, but that it was a political right, and neither an individual or collective right, in a militia-based interpretation. Perhaps we need to add the word "political" to the revised passage to make this more clear. Yaf (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with footnote 2 remains the same. See my fn2 comments above which remain serious and unchanged. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, you need to read the source. Your lack of initiative to read this source does not change the veracity or reliability of the source. Yaf (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your footnote 6 from the partisan SAF.com website. I question the accuracy of the 'convenience link' which is abbridged, see the passage "It is difficult to assess the value of state court holdings because, in the absence of a binding federal provision, the states are bound by their own constitutions. So, although these decisions are not controlling, they are important because they deal with provisions of state constitutions that are similar to the second amendment [Page 161] of the United States Constitution.". Two issues here, notice that they declare 'difficult to assess' which tells us that they believe this information may be dubious. Also, the "[Page 161]" indicates this convenience link is abridged, and per we must question whether this convenience link is reliable.
Please tell us what "Page 161" means. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It means to look at page 161, for another article that is related, in the original source material, duh. Yaf (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the subject matter of page 161? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your footnote #8. Could you please provide a full quote of that 147-149 passage? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed convenience link for fn 6, as it was only there to provide a convenience link, anyway. The actual source remains the same. As for fn 8, you will just need to read the source. The pp. 147-149 passage details the whole case, from the initial confrontation involving an accusation of eating chestnuts in class between the student and the teacher, the subsequent death of the teacher the following day by the brother of the student, the notability of the Ward family in Louisville, the intense legal defense with a "dream team" headed by a former Attorney General of the United States, and the importance of the Bliss doctrine that was used successfully in the defense as being one of the well-documented views of the Second Amendment. Yaf (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the actual source? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And, the personal attacks need to stop, please. (I bought the book, it came in a week ago Saturday, along with some other materials, and I finished reading these possible source materials last Thursday evening. Cornell's book was by far the best source, but there are other possible citations in the other materials, too, if needed. After reading all these source materials, I then rewrote this proposal over the weekend.) Yaf (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Louisville, Kentucky? Again this seems to be related to Kentucky state law. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address my other points please? For instance the 'difficult to assess' nature of your footnote 6. And, we still need to resolve the issue about the problems with your footnote 2. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address my problems with footnote 2 please? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on here? Your third revised proposal seems to offer no compromise at all. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improving cites to address concerns that you identified earlier is clearly a compromise. The goal is to have a well-cited encyclopedia that is reliable and verifiable. Yaf (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see these improved cites, which exactly are you talking about? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes 8, 10, 15, and 16, specifically, that are put in towards addressing your earlier "concerns". Yaf (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only fn 8 pertains to 'Bliss', and I have mailed off for a copy of that book so I can read it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what compromise are you looking for? please be specific. furthermore, "difficult to assess" is not synonymous with "may be dubious". that appears to be your own synthesis. Anastrophe (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon research of reliable sourcing, (see detail above), I conclude that the Bliss court case pertains to the Kentucky legislature and Kentucky constitution which has a right 'in protection of themselves' not found in the federal 2A. In short, Bliss is an early case finding an individual right to firearms for people to protect themselves. And, that right came from the Kentucky Constitution, not the Federal Second Amendment. Therefore Bliss is off topic in the 2A article. You have not shown with verified or with reliable sourcing that Bliss pertains to the Federal 2A. The sourcing you have provide has loud WP:REDFLAG problems and appears contrived to prove your POV. You don't even claim to have read the source of footnote 2. Neither for the source of footnote 7. In short, you have made a personal conclusion, then do Google searching to 'prove' your conclusion. Instead editors are supposed to read reliable sourcing to learn what the reliable sourcing says, then edit that information into the encyclopedia. I ask that your Bliss passage be moved from the 2A article over to the Right to bear arms article where it actually is on topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bliss is clearly not off topic. Two sources now make the case that it was an interpretation of the Second Amendment, and that it additionally established a doctrine that found further widespread use after the Bliss court case ended, through having established a legal precedent. (There are more cites available, too, but the point has already been made with two cites.) You refuse to accept reliable and verifiable sources. You refuse to accept responsibility to even read the referenced sources. Convenience links were included to make it easier for you to verify the claim quickly, as well as by readers without access to a law library; the convenience links have now been removed at your insistence. This is doing a disfavor to lay readers. Also, the personal attacks need to stop; administrator intervention is clearly warranted to stop this foolishness that you persist in engaging. There is an old saying that one should not argue with a fool, since both you and the fool will appear foolish. I refuse to engage in more foolish discussions. Yaf (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above, your two cites fail WP:REDFLAG. Please avoid personal attacks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's starting to sound like different problem after different problem with each attempt. You're not going to get 100% what you want. It's unfortunate but it's how mediation works. Try and find something you can at least tolerate, I can tell that patience is wearing thin on everyone's front. Wizardman 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing, and I encourage Yaf to put his entire section in the Right to bear arms article. This dispute is about whether this material needs to be included, verbatim, not once but twice in Wikipedia simultaneously. I also am willing to accept the Buzzard portion of Yaf's edit in the 2A article, and the Salina section, and even the Emery section. My problem is with the Bliss section.
I fail to see any offer of compromise by Yaf. His Bliss section is poorly referenced, once from an extremely obscure source which I doubt anyone around hear has read in context. And second from a discussion about a Louisville Kentucky court case. I have cited several mainstream sources that describe the obvious, that the Bliss case pertains to Kentucky legislation, and not the Federal 2A. The Kentucky Constitution provided for a "protection of themselves" not found in the Federal 2A. This blurred distinction is critical to the pro-gun position that there is an individual right to firearms. Of course, this is one valid POV, but it is not a neutral POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Buzzard, Salina, and Emery sections of Yaf's proposal should be immediately added to the article. If SaltyBoatr has no objection to those sections (certainly Yaf and I have none and I doubt Anastrophe does), then there's no reason they shouldn't be added to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could reluctantly accept that compromise, though I have doubts and other nagging problems still remain. Two big ones, 1) the historical failure to engage in discussion on the talk page, and 2) the over-reliance on the 'intent of the founders' Originalism favored by the pro-gun POV causing a neutrality balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll count that as accepted. Now, what to do about Bliss.. Wizardman 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman, can you place the accepted material into the article? If not, how should we go about doing that? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bliss passage is still in the 2A article. I object strongly to that non-compromise. I did not agree to the addition of Yaf's State Courts section simultaneous with the existence of the Bliss passage. Sheesh. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being that Bliss is cited now with two sources above, is it that there is an issue with it being cited with no sources in the article? If so, then inclusion of the two sources above should address the concerns. Yaf (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. See above. My concerns have not been addressed. I suggest we remove the Bliss passage why until we address the concerns, see above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we not censor the article. The content to which you object is properly cited in the proposal shown above, and clearly is shown to be about the Second Amendment. "I don't like it" is not a valid excuse for removing cited data to which you disagree. Removing cited data and censoring Wikipedia is not acceptable. Yaf (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Kentucky state court case Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[1] which ruled on an act of the Kentucky legislature being in conflict with the Kentucky Constitution, which unlike the federal Second Amendment provided that "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned.". This case was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. The "constitution" mentioned refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[2]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[3] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms in Kentucky.
The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms was absolute and unqualified in Kentucky. "[4][5]
Above is the proposed compromise wording which Yaf reverted[30]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr, if you want to propose your own wording, then do so. What you need to realize is that your wording can't replace Yaf's proposed wording. He has as much of a right to have his wording on this talk page as you do. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not modify my statements above my signatures to make it sound like I said something other than what I said or proposed. I reverted your changing of my statements to what I had actually said, not what you wish I had said. As for this new proposal by SaltyBoatr, this proposal is unacceptable for several reasons. First, SaltyBoatr has changed the wording of the direct quote from the cited article, from "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified." to " This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms was absolute and unqualified in Kentucky." This is POV pushing at its worst, changing the wording of a cited quote to push a POV. The statement is not what the cited source says. But, it is consistent with changing my statements, too. It is worth noting that SaltyBoatr made this change in wording of a quote from a cited source after deleting the convenience link to the source,[31] such that it becomes more difficult for readers to verify the validity of the quote. Second, the cited information that was here previously has been deleted. Wikipedia is not censored; so, why are we discussing censoring wikipedia and pushing POVs contrary to cited sources? Administrator intervention is badly needed to stop this foolishness by SaltyBoatr. Yaf (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop calling me a fool? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't call you a fool, but if you believe you are one, that is an opinion which you are certainly welcome to adopt, too. "Foolishness" is an adjective applied to what is so devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable; such as a silly argument; an absurd idea that is bound to fail; a preposterous argument that no one believes; a ridiculous explanation; a ludicrous criticism that is immediately dismissed. If you are now volunteering yet another silly argument, then that is your prerogative, too. But, as for changing other people's statements and modifying quotes from sources to which you have removed the convenience link, in the hope that no one will catch your blatant POV pushes, this activity still qualifies as foolishness. Wikipedia has higher standards than that. Reliable and verifiable sources are easily checked to prevent such POV pushes from succeeding. Administrator intervention is still needed to end this foolishness. Yaf (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A while back Yaf challenged me to cite a reliable source that backs up my position, which is at the core of our disagreement, that the Bliss case did not pertain to the federal 2A. This book arrived the mail today, ISBN0208024239 Weir, William, "A well regulated militia: the battle over gun control, publisher; Archon Books, Hamden, Conn 1997. This book states solidly on page 35-36 "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what historical context was this statement made? Between 1822 and 1850? After 1851? Before 1861? After 1865? After the SCOTUS ruled in 1897 that controlling concealed weapons were not violative of the 2A? When? The interpretation from 1822 until much, much later was clearly that it was violative of the 2A. This interpretation changed later, only after the SCOTUS ruled regulating concealed weapons was not violative of the 2A. The point is that it was considered violative of the 2A for a very long time. Yaf (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, while Yaf has put seven footnotes in his Bliss passage, six are fluff and not relevant to the core disagreement. His only core footnote is footnote 2, which comes from his Google book search partial sentence fragment snippet. It appears that no one around here, including Yaf, has read this extremely obscure 1967 Congressional document in context. I challenge footnote 2 on WP:REDFLAG grounds, because it contradicts many other sources, including William Weir, Kruschke, etc.. I also challenge per WP:PSTS as it comes from a primary source, the 1967 Congressional hearings. Footnote 2 also has not been shown to meet WP:RS because we don't know the reliability of who is speaking. And per WP:V because we don't know the context, what question they are being asked, or even the entire sentence in context. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, SaltyBoatr is now changing the issue once more, and starting back with his relentless personal attacks. If he would but read the reference cited in fn 2, then this could be resolved. His false REDFLAG and false accusations of scholarly impropriety grow exceedingly tiresome. Footnote 2 clearly meets WP:RS and WP:V. Any cite with which SaltyBoatr disagrees is "fluff" by his definition, including fn 2. But, for fn 2 especially, he would have to read the cited material to see this is not the case. The refusal of an editor to verify a footnote (fn 2, which is not obscure at all) and to post unrelated commentary that pertains to a much later historical time, presumably after the SCOTUS ruled that regulating concealed weapons was not violative of the 2A, is an entirely different matter altogether. My cite IS NOT TO THE GOOGLE SNIPPET, for the umpteenth time. This was but a convenience link for SaltyBoatr to be able to see that the cite was real. The interpretation that SaltyBoatr prefers was not the interpretation for a very long time after 1822, until much later when the SCOTUS ruled on concealed weapons. This shift in opinion is already in the article, by the way. But, the censorship of the individual right for the long period of time from it being the first interpretation until the SCOTUS ultimately ruled on concealed weapons was a very long time in coming. Censorship of the individual right history, through changing editors comments, changing quotes from cited references, and through SaltyBoatr's general POV pushing contrary to Wikipedia policies, all of this must stop. Administration action is clearly warranted here. Yaf (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The shift due to the SCOTUS was in 1897, as noted in the article: "Regarding a meaning of "shall not be infringed", the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897),
“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;... “[6]"
From 1822 until 1897, however, Bliss carried considerable weight regarding the "individual right" point of view. SaltyBoatr wishes to censor all mention of "individual rights" from the article, pushing solely a "collective right" POV. Yaf (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that Yaf April 15th opinion[32], stated above, appears to be entirely original research and ad hominem attack. His one cite[33] required direct interpretation of the meaning of a Supreme court document which is a prohibited primary source. Where is Yaf's reliable third party sourcing? WP:Policy requires us to ignore Yaf's original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading Wikipedia policy once more. Primary sources are not prohibited; rather, they are fine provided they can be read by a lay reader. Also, there is no original research prohibition for comments on a talk page that are attempting to provide a "comment". Please stop the WP:MPOV. Yaf (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lay readers cannot be expected to read and understand Supreme Court rulings. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'd like clarification on two things: first, under what policy can certain citations be dismissed as "fluff"? chapter and verse, please. also, please also cite where in policy the claim that lay readers cannot be expected to read and understand supreme court rulings may be found. also, chapter and verse. thank you! Anastrophe (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By fluff, I mean they do not support Yaf's central premise, which is that Bliss is a federal Second Amendment case.
they are supportive of the material in the text. yaf's 'central premise' is not that "bliss is a federal 2A case"; the material does not state that, it does not contend that. you are restating the very core of this in order to support your distorted view of it. the material is provided as supportive of contemporaneous and concomittant state discourse that relates to the rights that are codified in the federal 2A; the federal constitution does not exist in a hermetically sealed bubble, untouchable by other courts; in fact, it's quite the opposite, the federal 2A guides lower court discourse on these matters. 'bliss' easily falls within 'Early commentary about the Second Amendment in state courts of the United States', which is relevant and pertinent to the article.
any reasonable, educated person can understand quotations from court rulings. many exist in this article, and hundreds of other articles on wikipedia. as long as there's no synthesis derived from the ruling, it's just fine to quote briefly from the court. please state specifically what synthesis is being made that you object to. Anastrophe (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me. The core of this dispute is that the Bliss case is or is not a Second Amendment case and therefore belongs or doesn't belong in this article. Your assertion implying that lay people are able to interpret the distinction and weight of orbiter dicta, stare decisis and rationes decidendi found in court rulings is laughable at best. Even experts have trouble with that, and certainly lay people cannot. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, the core of the dispute is whether "Early commentary about the Second Amendment in state courts of the United States" is appropriate to the article. if you contend otherwise, then anything that's not rigidly about the 2A must be removed. that means removing all historical information regarding english common law, etc, that preceded the 2A. that would be laughable. please directly answer my question - "please state specifically what synthesis is being made that you object to", rather than tossing out latinate terms which aren't found in the material under discussion - in other words, what you just wrote is purely a distraction. please stay on topic. Anastrophe (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree generally. Where I disagree is that I see plenty of reliable sourcing (Weir, Kruschke, etc.) that views that Bliss v. Commonwealth is a Kentucky law case, not a federal law Second Amendment case, see more detail about this in the discussion above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr's statement regarding court decisions and lay people is an elitist statement (fact, not insult). Court decisions in the United States are written in English and any reference to Latin are put in context. The average person is not an idiot and can understand what a court is saying. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Lay people with normal educations don't know the meaning of Latin legal terms, or have education about the the underlying critical legal concepts like orbiter dicta, stare decisis and rationes decidendi. Selective quotes with insufficient context can be misleading. Therefore, the policy of WP:PSTS is sound policy. If Yafs point is mainstream it should be easy to find reliable third party sourcing. The fact that he can't should be a warning sign. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
one more time: which material under discussion here uses the terms orbiter dicta, stare decisis, or rationes decidendi? Anastrophe (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime a Latin legal term is used, it can simply be translated to English so lay people can understand it. For example, stare decisis can be translated to mean "standing by precedent" or, if "precedent" is not understandable by lay people, we could say "following an earlier ruling on the subject." That would allow people of average intelligence to understand what stare decisis means. The same logic applies to any other Latin legal terms. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bliss is both a Kentucky constitution case and a Second Amendment/Federal constitution case, by cited, reliable, and verifiable sources. The insertion of all the Latin terminology is simply meant to obfuscate the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is that Bliss is at one end of the spectrum regarding interpretations of the Second Amendment, on the "individual right" end, and SaltyBoatr clearly wants to censor all such content. Clearly, there is an abundance of "collective right" supporting content already in the article. The issue is whether or not censorship of all "individual right" content should be permitted, contrary to Wikipedia policy, in the presence of cited, reliable, and verifiable sources that establish that Bliss was also about the 2A. Clearly, there are cited sources supporting that Bliss is about the Second Amendment. That said, however, I would have no problems citing and adding in other sources that would make the case that Bliss is also about interpreting Kentucky law if that would end this dispute, although state-specific constitutionality content is not at all germane to a Federal constitution article, and should not be added to a Federal constitution article, ceteris paribus. But, in the interest of ending this dispute, would the addition of one or two cites, stating that it was also about the Commonwealth of Kentucky's then extant constitution, constitute an acceptable compromise, SaltyBoatr? Could you live with this, and thereby end this dispute? Not like it, of course, but live with it? If so, although I don't think state-specific content belongs here, I think the other active editors and I could similarly live with this compromise, although not be entirely happy about it. Yaf (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown that Bliss is a 2A case. Your assertion that it is a 2A case violates WP:REDFLAG. You stretch and claim you have "cited, reliable, and verifiable sources" meaning your 1967 snippet which is ambiguous, and the Cornell passage which is ambiguous. You have spent a month and have been unable to find solid sourcing for your original research. Sorry. And, no we should not keep off-topic POV skewing commentary in the 2A article in violation of WP:Policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you have not even read all the cited, reliable, and verifiable references, it is rather bold for you to claim anything. Making such outlandish claims only exposes your bias and shows your clear failure to follow Wikipedia policies. ArbCom appears to be the only solution at this time, to solve WP:OWNership issues, and to end your disruptive, tendentious, and POV pushing WP:MPOV editing, which, it is worth noting, occurs without you contributing any significant content to Wikipedia at all. It is time to end the foolishness. Yaf (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are speaking only of your footnote 2 and 8. Correct?
Perhaps a compromise here is for you to reconsider your refusal to provide more extended quotations from your extremely obscure sources here in this mediation. You have steadfastly refused to do this. All we can see are your snippet quotes.
footnote 2. Who is speaking? What question are they answering? What does the full paragraph surrounding your partial sentence fragment from say? Those are basic questions you refuse to answer.
footnote 8. Why should we jump to a conclusion that "and wrapped their client's action" means that Bliss was a Second Amendment case. This seems like a huge WP:SYN problem.
Why should we ignore the expert William Weir who speaks of Bliss in his book A well regulated militia: the battle over gun control, Publisher; Archon Books, Hamden, Conn 1997. William Weir declares solidly on page 35-36:
"The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."
for the third time: which material under discussion here uses the terms orbiter dicta, stare decisis, or rationes decidendi? thank you in advance for responding unambiguously. Anastrophe (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You ask a red herring question. I answered you before: Understanding court rulings requires the understanding of the concepts of orbiter dicta, stare decisis, or rationes decidendi. Normally educated people do not understand these concepts, therefore WP:PSTS applies. Selective quotes from court documents, without expert understanding how to read them giving proper weight (a skill taught typically at law school), there exists a serious risk of misunderstanding. This should not be an urgent matter, because if Yaf's premise is valid and mainstream, a reliable third party source should be easy to find. As he has trouble finding reliable third party sourcing, WP:REDFLAG questions exist that he is delving into original research. I suggest that Yaf be more conservative and just use reliable third party sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are gifted in your ability to use red-herring arguments, while claiming it's others that are employing red-herrings. understanding court rulings does not explicitly and always require understanding the concepts you've tossed out there unqualified. to suggest so is, well - there's no delicate way to put it: utter, and incontrovertible, nonsense. here's a brief quote from a court decision:
"We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion." [34]
so you're suggesting that no lay person can possibly "understand" that without being intimately familiar with orbiter dicta, stare decisis, or rationes decidendi? careful, i might break a rib or two from laughing so hard.
here's an excellent test of your claim: are you a legal expert? i assume you are not. therefore, how is it possible that you, a lay person, are familiar with and understand orbiter dicta, stare decisis and rationes decidendi? if it's impossible for lay people to understand a court ruling without understanding those concepts, then how is it that you, a non-legal expert, are able to make such a claim in the first place? obviously, because you are employing a classic elitist test of your own devisement. your claim above is without merit. you've thrown out a red-herring requirement that lay-people are incapable of understanding specific legal terms, which are not employed in the material that is under discussion, and extrapolating (synthesizing) a rule that does not exist. please stop. this is nothing but disruptive ploy after disruptive ploy. Anastrophe (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking of simply 'legal terms'. I am referring to legal concepts, having to do with weight and context. These concepts are tricky enough that after years of law school, expert lawyers still have trouble and disagreements interpreting court rulings, especially selective quotations out of context. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately, you have not shown, by any measure, that the issue you describe has any relevance at all to the specific quotes under discussion. you've merely thrown out a boilerplate complaint that lay-people cannot possibly understand certain specific legal terms, without a concomittant showing that those (or other) complex legal concepts are in any way at work in the material quoted. either specifically state what complex legal terms in the material under discussion are problematic, or drop this unspecific complaint. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking of simply 'legal terms'. I am referring to legal concepts. Even experts need advanced schooling to understand the legal concepts needed to understand primary legal documents like SCOTUS rulings. Therefore WP:PSTS applies. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are being evasive and disingenuous. specifically state what complex legal terms or concepts in the material under discussion are problematic, or drop this unspecific complaint. your complaint is meritless if you will not identify the problematic material. you are playing disruptive GAMES. Anastrophe (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore, i've already shown that your non-specific, blanket assertion is patently false. to repeat, i've already provided an example quote above from a primary legal document, a SCOTUS ruling. it is written in plain english, understandable by any lay person. to suggest that merely because it is in a SCOTUS ruling it is inscrutable, is quite simply, a lie. stop playing these games. Anastrophe (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this section, Yaf, add your proposed compromise that you posted above. No more, no less. SaltyBoatr, add your proposed compromise you posted above, no more, no less. I'll find some middle ground with what we have left to obtain, and then you guys will post whether you agree or disagree. No more, no less. No 2-3kb diatribes, let's just get to the root and finish this. Wizardman 01:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf's proposal:
In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[1] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment””. [7] As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[1] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[2] As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.[8]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[9] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.
The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ."" "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[10][11]
That the decision of Bliss not be viewed as being solely about the Commonwealth of Kentucky's law is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[12]
In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[13] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[13][14]
Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[15] Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model.[16] Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.[17]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[18] made the first collective right judicial interpretation.[19] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""
A modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy “was the emergence of the collective rights reading of Cruikshank"[20] that became better known when it was employed in “a short but influential article”[20] in the Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."[21]
^Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
^Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
^Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
^Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. pp. 147-149. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 188. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. "Dillon endorsed Bishop's view that Buzzard's "Arkansas doctrine," not the libertarian views exhibited in Bliss, captured the dominant strain of American legal thinking on this question."{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. pp. 140-143. ISBN0-87436-695-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ See the symposium in Chicago Kent Law Review 76 and the Fordham Law Review vol. 73
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 258. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. "... the Kansas Supreme Court had used a similar formulation of the the right to bear arms a decade earlier, describing this right as one that "refers to the people as a collective body.""{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ abCornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 198. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
In the Kentucky state court case Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[1] which ruled on an act of the Kentucky legislature being in conflict with the Kentucky Constitution, which unlike the federal Second Amendment provided that "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned.". This case was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. The "constitution" mentioned refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[2]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[3] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms in Kentucky.
The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms was absolute and unqualified in Kentucky. "[4][5]
^Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
^Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
My proposal would include no mention of the Bliss case in this article, as Bliss has not been shown to be a Second Amendment case. It has been shows to be a Right to bear arms case. Discussion of Bliss therefore belongs in that article. Ironically, Yaf agreed to this before. My proposal also could include the discussion of the Buzzard case, but actually I think that it too esoteric for inclusion in this article which is already overlong. Similar for the mention of obscure article by Lucilius Emery. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
saltyboatr, instead of passive-aggressively changing 'saltyboatr's proposal' to 'wizardman's proposal', you could make an actual, positive contribution by posting saltyboatr's proposal. or are we to assume you won't provide one? i'm betting on the latter. Anastrophe (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ease up on the personal attacks. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please post saltyboatr's proposal. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal, posted 16:01, is to put Yaf's State's Court section in the Right to bear arms article, and not in the 2A article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so, to summarize, this entire mediation was destined to be fruitless since day one, since you are unwilling to compromise in any manner whatsoever. is that an accurate characterization? all of yafs efforts to refine the citations per your relentless demands were nothing but busywork, since you've never had any intention to agree to inclusion of the material in this article - that this mediation is specifically for - from the beginning, correct? you agreed on the project page to participate in mediation, in order to render a compromise. on this article. apparently you were being disingenuous in claiming your agreement to this mediation, since you are reneging on the agreement to work towards compromise on this article. arbcom, anyone? Anastrophe (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ease up on the personal attacks, please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's time for ArbCom. I think Wizardman is now suffering what what Yaf, Anastrophe, and I have been suffering. Here's where the request for arbitration can be made. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
saltyboatr, it is your behavior that is the overriding issue here, and as such, it is not a personal attack. i asked good faith questions above, which you ignore, preferring only to mischaracterize them as personal attacks. again, are you willing to compromise on this article? if not, the mediation can end, and we'll go directly to arbcom. Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took that directly from the above section, showing that you had posted it. If it's not your compromise then nevermind, it shows that apparently only one person is trying to fix it via modifying the text rather than arguing. I would like to see someone else propose their own wording next to Yaf's, seeing as how it's apparently not accepted. Wizardman 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That text, reflected my efforts to begin editing the residual Kentucky law, Bliss, passage excluded from the April 12th compromise wording. I have already agreed (reluctantly) to the April 12 compromise[35] wording. What is left is the residual dispute, involving the Kentucky law passage. I see that I have compromised extensively on April 12th, and I fail to see any compromise what-so-ever by the other side on the remaining core issue. In essence, I have already compromised a lot, and I am looking for some movement in return. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to focus on the core issue here: Yaf is seeking to raise the importance of this early conceal-carry Kentucky court case by associating it with the federal 2A. This violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV because the Bliss court case favored gun rights and involves Kentucky state law, and not the Federal 2A. My suggested compromise was perfectly acceptable to Yaf last October[36], but now it is not acceptable to Yaf. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:SYN or WP:NPOV issues exist here. Footnote 2 clearly states that Bliss has been described as being about the Second Amendment. The Cornell paragraph regarding the Mattews F. Ward case similarly makes much the same point. It is not synthesis to use properly cited and reliable and verifiable sources that say Bliss has been viewed as being about the Second Amendment. It is likewise not a violation of Neutral Point of View to include all views, including "individual right" views in the article, when cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Censorship of "individual rights" views is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy of not being censored. As often stated, consensus can change. And, when consensus changes, I change my mind; what do you do? Yaf (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf is mistaken, and this has been hashed over several times before, see above. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe that my reworded proposal is already acceptable to all but SaltyBoatr. It has been reworked 5 times from when the controversy first arose, twice prior to mediation and thrice during mediation, with all the edits/changes in each version attempting to address the myriad issues that were identified and worked between versions. (I have also added quite a few new books to my personal library during this lengthy exercise :-) This version already addresses all of the prior concerns, I believe, except for SaltyBoatr's desire for censorship. As for SaltyBoatr's latest proposal, it appears that no mediation can address his desire to eliminate all "individual right" content in the article, cited or not. It looks like we have therefore arrived at a mediation solution, in the proposal that others and I have worked on for so long, in that it mitigates all the concerns except for censorship, which is contrary to WP policy. Yaf (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The greater issue here is three pro-gun editors wanting to have their way. WP:Policy is not determined by a vote of the interested editors. Instead it should be determined by the proportional weight of reliable sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The greater issue here is one anti-gun editor wanting to have his way. WP:Policy is not determined by one editor's desire to own all article on wikipedia pertaining to firearms, and to wikilawyer to a stalemate inclusion of any material he doesn't like. furthermore, saltyboatr's clear statement above ("My proposal, posted 16:01, is to put Yaf's State's Court section in the Right to bear arms article, and not in the 2A article") betray that this mediation was entered into fraudulently; no willingness to compromise on the material exists.
we're all aware that you believe that you're as pure as the driven-snow in all this. i for one have no desire to have you banned, merely sanctioned for your unacceptable tactics, such that you'll stop wikilawyering every contribution other editors make, and actually refocus your efforts on making real contributions of your own. Anastrophe (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we go to ArbCom? Answer yes or no before giving any comment. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Much evidence exists regarding the disregard of Wikipedia policies and rules by the one disruptive editor (WP:3RR repeated blocks for edit warring, copyright infringement, censorship, and other issues which I choose not to mention now, as this is not the proper forum). Since this is becoming more of a disruptive editor issue than an article content issue, mediation is starting to make less sense, and ArbCom now strongly makes sense. We all entered into mediation assuming good faith. It now appears that this was but a false flag exercise. Nonetheless, the quality of the cites on the State's commentaries regarding the Second Amendment was improved, albeit without any significant content being contributed by the disruptive editor. But, that is usually the case with a disruptive editor who contributes little to Wikipedia, but who remains forever disruptive. ArbCom was expressly designed to deal with such disruptive editors. It's time. Yaf (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. what he said. and so much more. Anastrophe (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree. SaltyBoatr keeps moving the goal posts and wants to censor material. He certainly acts as if he owns the article. I recommend Yaf make the request, because he has had the most interaction with SaltyBoatr. Obviously, Yaf can decline. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if SaltyBoatr says yes, then we've reached a compromise. Not necessarily one I wanted to reach, but if you guys wish to go there with your policy and conduct issues (arbcom generally doesn't rule on content) then that's fine. Just remember when you do that Medcom is privileged information, not to be used against each other at RFAR. Wizardman 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman, are there any other solutions that you can think of, propose, or enforce, as an admin, now that you have considerably more experience with this mediation than any other admin? You have clearly seen the consensus among active editors. You have also shown a willingness to read comments from all editors, and you have attempted to stay neutral, supportive, and helpful throughout this lengthy process. To that end, I commend your patience. The fundamental goal, of reaching a compromise, even has been partially successful. The only real dispute remaining is with regards in how to handle Bliss content in the article.
Two cites have been given, supportive of the fact that among some reliable, verifiable references, Bliss has been considered to be an interpretation of the Second Amendment. Other references exist that support the view that Bliss was also interpretive of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's constitution. I have never thought that including such state constitution interpretation content was appropriate, but I did propose adding this other interpretation as an avenue worth exploring for reaching a compromise. However, SaltyBoatr refused this compromise, too, largely agreeing that the state interpretation content did not belong in what is ostensibly a Federal Constitution article. I actually agree with SaltyBoatr on this, but felt that offering this point as a compromise was worth a try. Still, this is the sticking point; what to do with the Bliss content. SaltyBoatr has expressed numerous times that Bliss was about the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Constitution. I actually agree with this. However, Bliss was also about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, by two cited, reliable, and verifiable sources. The doctrine advanced in Bliss also remained fairly well supported from 1822 until 1897, when the US Supreme Court finally ruled that restricting the carrying of concealed weapons was not an infringement of the Second Amendment, although the significance in Kentucky, at least, lessened after 1850-1851, with the modification to Kentucky's state constitution regarding treatment of concealed weapons. It is this particular point, however, that SaltyBoatr cannot accept, that the "individual right" interpretation came first, with collective, political, militia, and similar interpretations of the right developing more slowly, and later, in 1842, 1897, 1905, and 1915. Because of this history, SaltyBoatr's "compromise" is to advocate censorship and removal of all individual right content from Wikipedia, consistent with pushing a gun control POV. Censorship, however, is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies regarding censorship. Do you have any final ideas that we can explore for reaching a compromise, before the active editors start down another path? Yaf (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two cites given? Actually four. I also cited two references, William Weir pg 35-36, and Kruchke pg 140 which flatly contradict Yaf. Perhaps if I could read Yaf's two cites in context? It turns out that Yaf's two cites are quite rare. The first, is a sentence fragment snippet from a 1967 Congressional hearing, very hard to find to read the context. The second, a book, is also obscure. I looked and cannot find it in the public library system of my entire county, also not found in the adjacent county public library system. Still, Yaf refuses to help by providing full quotes to help us read the same thing he is reading. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for removing your absurd population claims. i was beginning to wonder whether you lived in china. Anastrophe (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant snipping is disruptive. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weir and Kruschke do not "flatly contradict" what I have said. They just focus on the state constitution issues, and do not discuss the additional Federal constitution issues at all. It is, however, flatly WP:SYN for you to claim Weir and Kruschke say something that they clearly don't. The two cites I gave go into the Federal interpretation issues, in addition to the state interpretation issues. Guess you don't have access to any law school libraries or university libraries among your local population of 36 million. Too bad. Getting back to the point at hand; neither source is hard to find and read. You can even buy a copy of the "rare" book from Amazon; it is in print. Yaf (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weir says: "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws." This is a very strong contradiction. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking deeper for clues into the Google Book snippets about 'footnote 2' I can see that the 1967 partial sentence fragment is also found verbatim in 1965 hearings before Congress and the Senate. I also see that it is not actually a statement by congress, but rather 'material submitted for the record'. For this to be considered a reliable source, we would need to know the reliability of the source who submitted the material. Yaf, do we know who was the source for footnote 2? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nowhere in the material under discussion does it state that the statement was by congress. red-herring. Anastrophe (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately and disruptively ignore my point, which is: Who is the source for footnote 2? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr, Are you saying yes or no to taking this to arbcom? Wizardman 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for asking a simple question. I don't know what you mean by "taking this". By "this" do you mean this mediation? How does that work? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr can't even answer a simple question. Even this must become a long discussion. You see Wizardman, now you can answer SaltyBoatr and he will disagree with a small piece of what you say. Then you try to clarify and he will consider your attempt to be unsuccessful. This is what Yaf, Anastrophe, and I have been going through. Hey Wizardman, would you like to come with us to ArbCom? --SMP0328. (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salty, when I mean "this", I mean the entire situation. The policy disputes, the conduct issues, everything surrounding the Second Amendment in the past months. Are we taking the issue to arbcom? Wizardman 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Wizardman's "this" is different than SMP0328, Yaf and Anastrophe's "this". They seem to be talking solely about SaltyBoatr's conduct. Do SMP0328, Yaf and Anastrophe agree that this ArbCom hearing will be about their own conduct too? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Wizardman said, "this" means everything involved in this dispute. Now answer the question! --SMP0328. (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SMP0328, are you willing to take your conduct before ArbCom? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BTW, what have I done wrong to you? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give you credit for remaining civil, but I criticize you for silently tolerating incivility by others in conversations to which you were party. And you have advocated for and participated in a pattern of stonewall tactics towards minority editors[38] . You argued that the majority has no obligation to negotiate with the minority[39]. You have abused the Wikipedia principle of consensus building. Also, you have failed to grasp the key principle that consensus requires an editor to be able to acknowledge and respect the various points of views, including those that are not their own. My question to ArbCom would be: Is it acceptable to shout down minority editors and falsely call that a consensus. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are Yaf and Anastrophe also willing to take their conduct before ArbCom? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they are, are you? --SMP0328. (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to avoid ArbCom, it sounds like a lot of sweat and a lot of time, both for us and for the ArbCom committee members, who volunteer their time. For what? That Yaf and SaltyBoatr are not mature enough to find a compromise? That is an embarrassingly childish reason. Though I do take responsibility for my conduct, and I would stand before anyone in that regard, including ArbCom. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom looks at all. Unclean hands can become an issue, but I think the outcome would be rather straightforward for them to arrive at. As I stated before, I believe it is time for ArbCom. The only hard part would be writing up the initial complaints and statements. After that, it gets easier real quick. They don't waste much time. Yaf (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since ArbCom will undoubtedly take much time, here is a last attempt at compromise before we go down that path:
In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[1] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment””. [2] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendent by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[3]
The Kentucky High Court stated in Bliss, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[1] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[4] As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.[5]
The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."[6] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.
The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, . . ."" "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[7][8]
That the decision of Bliss not be viewed as being solely about the Commonwealth of Kentucky's law is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[9]
In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",[10] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.[10][11]
Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Similarly, political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[12] Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model.[13] Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.[14]
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[15] made the first collective right judicial interpretation.[16] The Kansas high court declared: "That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""
A modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy “was the emergence of the collective rights reading of Cruikshank"[17] that became better known when it was employed in “a short but influential article”[17] in the Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."[18]
^United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246.
^Weir, William (1997). A Well regulated militia : the battle over gun control. North Haven, CT: Archon Books. pp. pp. 35-36. ISBN0208024239. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 2001 Paladin Press. ISBN1581602545.
^The Second Amendment became effective December 15, 1791, and was still a new concept in 1799.
^Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
^Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. pp. 147-149. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 188. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. "Dillon endorsed Bishop's view that Buzzard's "Arkansas doctrine," not the libertarian views exhibited in Bliss, captured the dominant strain of American legal thinking on this question."{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. pp. 140-143. ISBN0-87436-695-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ See the symposium in Chicago Kent Law Review 76 and the Fordham Law Review vol. 73
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 258. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. "... the Kansas Supreme Court had used a similar formulation of the the right to bear arms a decade earlier, describing this right as one that "refers to the people as a collective body.""{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ abCornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. p. 198. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
I have not verified the Weir quote, but am just assuming good faith for now, until I can review this source. Comments? Yaf (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the above proposed material. Of course, I'm not the editor you're trying to convince. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the phrasing of footnote 2, we actually do not know the authority of the unknown source. I also object to the first half of paragraph five as improper synthesis. Cornell says "under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. " 1) what does "under a banner" prove? And which constitution? Yet Yaf jumps to a conclusion that "not be viewed as being solely about the Commonwealth of Kentucky's law". And also, it is not at all clear that John Crittenden viewed that Bliss pertained to the 2A. He appears to be simply arguing that the actions of his client were justified by three distinct things, the laws of God or man, the federal constitution and the precedence of Kentucky law. How does this say that Bliss (or the laws of God or man) pertains to the 2A? All it says is that three things are offered in defense of his clients action. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of a hearing before Congress is supposed to be cited a particular way, which it is/was. If you have trouble with the Government approved formatting recommended for citing hearings before Congress, then take it up with your Congressman, not with Wikipedia editors. OK? As for the Ward case paragraph, do you have any input as to how to word this paragraph better, so as to address your concerns? Yaf (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yaf, calling my good faith edit[40] "rvv" vandalizm is incivil. Instead, could you please identify the source that placed that statement into the congressional record in 1967? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalizing the standard Government approved format recommended for citing a Hearing before Congress in another person's comment is not following Wikipedia rules. And, it wasn't the Congressional Record, it was a Hearing, which is published separately by the US Government Printing Office. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I object to using your source from Weir without having first read it, but, unlike you, I am willing to accept it on good faith until such time as I can read it, which will likely be in only a week or so, in the advancement of reaching a compromise. Considering that you have modified other people's comments in discussions several times, and even modified quotes from sources when they go counter to your POV, this is a bit of a risk for me, but I am willing to accept it for the short amount of time until I can read it for myself. If it is found to be false, then I will quickly remove it as unsubstantiated. But, for now, I will assume good faith in using Weir. If you would but do the same... Yaf (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that neither you nor I know the authority of the source behind both the 'violative' and the 'flying saucer' snippets. So, no, I do not grant the assumption of good faith for what neither of us know. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see more, I offer to give you a full quote of the Weir book here on this talk page, or images of scans of the paper pages under the fair use provisions of copyright doctrine. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you address my concerns about improper synthesis in paragraph five? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a re-wording would work for paragraph 5:
The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former attorney general of the United States. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[1]
Does this rewording address your concerns? Yaf (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wording shows that Ward pertains to the 2A because Mattews Ward used the 2A in his defense argument for his murder trial. Your wording does not show that Bliss pertained to the 2A or that Bliss is on topic in a 2A article. You offer evidence now that Ward is on topic, but no evidence that Bliss is on topic. That Bliss was important to Mattews Ward, a resident of Kentucky, is not surprising. It is an improper logical leap to say this connects Bliss to the federal 2A topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wording says " wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms." Which constitution? It is not at all clear whether they are talking of Kentucky's or the US constitution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also address my concerns about the context and reliability of the sourcing of the 1967 'violative' snippet. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. The tendentious "20 questions" game and the game of "forever moving the goal posts" is over. SaltyBoatr, whether or not you will agree with anything, including taking this to ArbCom, doesn't really matter anymore. It is time to file official protests over your behavior. Your behavior must be dealt with appropriately. Wizardman, do you want to close this mediation out as unsuccessful? We can go to ArbCom with or without SaltyBoatr's agreement. Yaf (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours ago you posted a new suggested wording for discussion[41] , which I only noticed an hour later. Then after one hour of dialog you describe my six questions as "20 questions" and after just one hour of talk you declare a hopeless impasse as 'forever moving goalposts'. You say "It is time to file official protests over your behavior." Are you willing to have your own behavior scrutinized too? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he means cumulatively in the past weeks, not just the past few hours. Wizardman 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I accept that this is part of the bigger dispute of course. My point, allegorical, is that in one hour of discussion I asked four questions, of which Yaf didn't answer one, followed by Yaf giving up in frustration. If Yaf cannot answer these questions, perhaps another editor can answer for him? SMP0328, you expressed support of Yaf's recent proposal, do you know the answers to the four questions marked in yellow above? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize for my part in Yaf's frustration. Still, Yaf has the burden of proof to answer questions about his proposal, and his refusing to answer my reasonable questions is also extending this impasse. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably send this to arbcom, since I can't think of anything that would be able to appease all parties. Before I do, I must ask about the scope of the entire dispute, as I know it's not limited to just this article. What other articles/users are involved in the general problems? Wizardman 04:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all about SaltyBoatr fighting our edits to the Second Amendment article. We think that we are making the article accurate and balanced; SaltyBoatr thinks we are trying to make the article have a "pro-gun bias." My first meeting with SaltyBoatr was when I made extensive edits to the article's Introduction. We got into an edit war, but after alot of discussion we reached an agreement. Outside of the article, I have no interaction with SaltyBoatr. --SMP0328. (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I know Right to bear arms is also a heated topic amongst the other three at late, so I'm wondering how far it extends. Wizardman 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SaltyBoatr although not probably his other account, although the history from it would be useful, too, in establishing a longer term pattern going back 3 years or so. (Disclosure of all accounts/identities must be made to ArbCom, although for privacy reasons SaltyBoatr will no doubt not want to release this earlier identity. I respect his right to vanish with this earlier account that still exists, having supported his original need to vanish.)
There are other editors for sure who have also been involved at various times with each of the articles listed above who also might be interested. Yaf (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Also, note that I'm pretty sure that since Medcom stuff is privileged, I'm barred from filing the case to arbcom itself should be involved, only thing I'd be able to do really is make a statement. It's up to you guys if you want to get one rolling, though of course if I can think of a compromise I'll post one. Wizardman 05:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I formally withdraw from this mediation. watching the 27th rerun of the 'bring me another stone' show has lost its luster. this mediation is at an impasse, and judging by the 14th rerun of 'spot the moving goal posts', it has been so since day one. i've said before that i 'look forward to arbcom', but the reality is that no, i do not look forward to arbcom. all i want to do is read and edit wikipedia. having to participate in policy-wonk circle jerks is not and has not ever been my idea of fun, nor is it how i want to burn the hours of my finite lifetime. but when an editor so egregiously games the system, wikilawyers other editor's contributions while making virtually no positive contributions to articles himself, it's a cancer in and of the system that needs to be treated. Anastrophe (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case has now been officially closed. Wizardman 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. pp. 147-149. ISBN978-0-19-514786-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
