Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to US Constitution

Statements

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)

Statement by Yaf

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 Obviously, this "house of timbers" has seen more content added on the historical content rather than on more recent interpretations of the amendment.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)

Statement by Anastrophe.

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.

Statement by SaltyBoatr

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 prominence POV 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)

Statement by SMP0328.

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)

Statement by Hoplon

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)

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)

Mediator Notes

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)

Length

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

Re-read what I wrote. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

Do I have this right?

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)

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.

If this information is carried in a distinct article, titled Second Amendment original commentary, or something similar, then the bias issue would be fixed without POV forking. I do favor carrying a properly weighted amount of original intent theory in this 2A article, but my objection is that the amount of originalist theory material is too heavy and violates WP:UNDUE. The insertion of Yaf's section 6.1 Early commentary about the Second Amendment in state courts of the United States section tips the weighting even further off balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, 'cited references', with no limit, is not OK. They must meet WP:UNDUE standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Your sword cuts both ways. Lets do the metrics then. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That would be Yaf in this instance. Not the other way around as you say. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mediation participant notes

Length

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)

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)

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)

Compromises

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am willing to stick with policy. Your personal opinion (and mine) shouldn't control here. Here is where I start: WP:V and WP:RS. The specifics about online sources does allow for very limited use, but broadly, websites are not allowed for use. See especially here Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources for my 'chapter and verse' on the strict limits on use of websites. Why do you oppose the use of books? See this list of books as a start. If we verify that the publisher of these books have reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy this should serve as an excellent baseline for us to check that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.. What exactly is your problem with this? Exactly which website sources have you used to determine your neutrality balance point for the article, and to form such an absolute, unequivocal and vociferous opinion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, Saul Cornell has stated "(T)he Bill of Rights has been cast in terms of a simple dichotomy: either the Second Amendment protects an expansive individual right similar in nature to freedom of the press or it protects a narrow right of the states to maintain a well-regulated militia." This is a fundamental aspect of the current dispute, whether or not to use cited information, or, rather, to push a sole "collective right" approach only towards writing the article. I favor including all properly cited points of view; unfortunately, this is not a view shared by all editors to this article, however. Hence, the dispute. Yaf (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, please re-read WP:UNDUE, we must follow that policy, it is non-negotiable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, I offered article splitting, not POV forking. See WP:SS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. the included material 'tips the POV' balance
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

revised passage

All statements are cited with reliable and verifiable sources:

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY), 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””. 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." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution. 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.

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." 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. "

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", 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.

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.” Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model. Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the individual rights model.

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley 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.""

The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when it was employed in a widely-cited 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."

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)

questions

• 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)

---

Footnote no. 2 being in context can be verified online here. Yaf (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

"...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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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[12]) SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

Omit the first sentence if you cannot cite it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No. You have not properly sourced that this dichotomy 'entered Federal law' with that article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Commentary by an uninvolved user

My take, for what it's worth...

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 procedings 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)

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 beause 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)

I have been busy reading the entire transcript today. Most interesting reading. Yaf (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)