Talk:Right to keep and bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the discussion/talk page for: Right to keep and bear arms.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Notes and revisions to the "James Madison" Section

Notes and revisions to the "James Madison" Section are on the way this morning (Feb 29, 2008, US Eastern Time), in an attempt to more closely follow the rules for sourcing and to (obviously) document the sources. I'm trying to follow the rules as best I can, but am a little new to this. I wrote this content back in November, but it looked like someone else had thrown in some notes and the gist of the content had been accepted, else I would have provided references myself. I will do it this time, and I think it will be a useful element of what is discussed here. I guess I should at some point soon create an account here, but in the interest of time, I want to get this in now so the page isn't so ragged. Regards, -JustMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem about 'being new to this', everybody was new a some point. Though, I see a problem that you have placed your 'James Madison' section up in the top of the article. Bear in mind this article is about a global context, and anything to do with 'James Madison' probably belongs down in the USA section. Additionally, your edit takes direct quotes from James Madison, and then adds your commentary about what he meant. This constitutes 'original research' and amounts to using 'primary sources', neither of which are allowed on Wikipedia. Read the policy about WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. I also have serious problems with the 'neutral point of view' of your thesis, as it appears that you are making this post to push your personal point of view. What have you been reading for the sourcing for your idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Salty, to answer your question, I was reading The Federalist, and I would appreciate your help in pondering how this page might be improved. I have already pulled down the content that I added, as I think I see how it either fails to fit the rules here and/or will be challenged as such, even with references added.
But when I have a few more minutes, I will write out a few more questions to ask for your help, and would appreciate your thoughts. In Federalist 46, Madison's discussion of militia in various scenarios explicitly illustrate a spectrum of cases where the militia might rise and fight tyrannical government (regardless of how unlikely Madison thinks it would be in a US) using their own arms. In one case the milita are made up of armed citizens "fighting for the common liberties, and united and conducted by [state or local] governments possessing their affections and confidence." In another, they are the Europeans who suffer actually suffer tyranny but even if they regained their "right" to be armed, would not have any such friendly [state or local] governments to help unite or conduct the fight to "shake off their yokes."
It is absolutely clear that Madison considers tyranny something that people are justified in fighting, and he specifically uses the term "right" to be armed. It is also explicit that he considers that citizens, even sans governments conducting them (e.g.: the Europeans in Fed 46), have the "right" to be armed. And Madison (and Hamilton and Jay) wrote The Federalist to explain their rationale for the Constitution (won't have much trouble finding a primary and secondary source for that).
My concern was that Madison's intent from his own words is very clear on these points. But when I read the page here in WP, the "military service definition" of bearing arms seems an awkward, imprecise, dichotomous construct for considering Madison's views. Granted, there are plenty who assume such a construct and argue both sides, and that bears discussion as does exist here already.
But there is a more granular and precise examination of who makes up militias that Madison walks through, and it feels very lacking from the discussion here. I think the article would be much more complete if it were in. I find Madison's words compelling, straight from the horse's mouth, but I'm looking for sources that would fit here and enrich the discussion here with some notion of this. Like I said, it is hardly a stretch of interpretation (Madison walks through this very clearly), but the article as written seems structured in a way that misses out on this significant viewpoint. For instance, in these two scenarios (armed citizens with and without the help and organization of friendly governments as they fight federal tyranny): is the fighting that the citizens do (with their rightfully kept firearms) "bearing arms" in the "military service definition" or not?
As written, the article seems unable to address the anwer. The whole definition seems not to fit, given that the militia can be a group of individuals with no formal organization other than what they construct themselves, and since the arms with which they fight must thus be their own (which Madison explicitly writes they have a "right" to) not something issued to them from some level of (now hostile) government above. It's almost a hybrid model--where the right to have the arms is clearly individual, but the fighting might be en masse in a milita. Except there doesn't seem to be any minimum number of people trying to stave off tyranny--a militia of one just seems far less likely to succeed.
Granted, I gather from the volumes of discussion of this page and reading lots of WP:XXX pages that the ideal is to find some published work that says this. (It's kind of funny, but it would almost be parroting Madison himself, and thus seems so needless that only a fool would restate it, that I wonder if academe ever thought it needed saying. But it is far more of a pure reading or observation of what Madison wrote than an interpretation of it. It's English.) Anyway, I'm curious whether you have run across any such sources in your travels, and how this seemingly significant (Madison seems a pretty important voice here, no?) subtlety might be added to the article. For reference, I have included the same two passages below, if that is of use in seeing my meaning. Regards, -JustMC

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that your synthesis of what you read in The Federalist amounts to original research from a primary source. I asked you earlier to read the policy WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. Did you you get a chance to do this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Salty, yes, to answer your question, I did read WP:NOR, as well as WP:V and WP:NPOV, and other explanatory material. This was helpful, and you will note that I pulled my own submission back down based on that--not the typical approach of a WP contributor with a different POV I suspect.
And I also went to great lengths--just look at those lenghts up there :)-- to answer your prior question about what I had been reading and give it the context of why I thought the existing article might be improved.
In so doing I also asked some questions (bolded for ease of reference) and i'd still appreciate your considered answers. I confessed to being inexperienced in WP (I had no idea these discussion pages even existed when I made my first submission back in November). Reading all the discussion here it appears you have read a considerable amount on the subject, and I thought you might be able to help.
I have a few more thoughts, but this seems plenty for now. Regards, -JustMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.243.243 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing[1], good editing. Also per WP:TP, talk pages are not a place to discuss personal opinion, so I won't. Rather talk pages are a place to discuss the article. Regarding your questions, yes I have been reading a lot about this topic, and you can see this from the citations I have given when editing the article. My advice is to stick with most reliable mainstream sourcing, see WP:RS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retrofit topic-year headers

28-March-2008: I grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics, as on other talk pages. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics will more likely be added at bottom, not top. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why not archive the old topics? This page is 245k in size.
—WWoods (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If you now how to set up bot assisted archive, like with MiszaBot, I vote yes. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure; it's not hard, and seems to be working well for Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Anyone else have an opinion?
—WWoods (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute: Title is not NPOV

The neutrality of this article is disputed, particularly the title (see the discussion below). I am placing the POV banner in the article until this dispute is resolved.tc2011 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf, I see that you have removed the POV banner. However, this dispute has not been resolved, as concerns regarding the neutrality of this article's title have not been addressed. The latest commentary in this section indicates that the current title ("right to bear arms") is most definitely POV and fails to accurately reflect the actual content of the article. Please respond. tc2011 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put the POV banner back. I was responding to improvements regarding another dispute when it got removed. Thanks for pointing this out. Yaf (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "right to bear arms" (deleting "keep and") is a phrase used primarily by gun control advocates to de-emphasize the individual nature of the right and to promote a collectivist understanding of the issue. I propose that the title be changed to remain true to the original text that gives rise to debate ("the right to keep and bear arms"), thus avoiding ideological deletions. The title, "the right to bear arms," simply does not reflect the article that follows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.201.209 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the banner "The neutrality of this article is disputed" be placed at the top of this article.tc2011 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The title is misleading & not a neutral point of view. Keeping in mind the global nature of the article & the subsequent treatment of the term "bear arms" one would reasonably conclude that the page deals with the right of a person to enlist in the martial services of his/her country. If we assume that "bear arms" has only (or predominantly) a military context (which appears to be a u.S. centric view) then we omit discussion of the possession of arms, which is the central focus of the issue on both sides (one view arguing against individual possession, the other for, with "bear arms" being used to further define or dispute the state of individual possession). While the phrase is centered in the u.S. discussion about arms possession & martial service there are notable instances outside of the u.S. where the subject is framed as such ("right to keep & bear arms") but meant to cover non-martial use &/or private possession (Australia & Switzerland come to mind). In other words the tone of the article implies that "bear arms" is generally considered to mean serving in a military & that negates any relevance to the possession of arms, which is not the expected discussion if one searches for "right to keep & bear arms" & is redirected to this article.

I would suggest either altering the title of the page (from "Right to bear arms" to "Right to keep & bear arms"), or deleting the page & creating a new page which better addresses the phrase "Right to keep & bear arms". Mikegtr71 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the "keep and" qualifier was not used in Great Britain, nor is it used in several of the State Constitutions, and neither is it used in the US Declaration of Independence. According to Stephen Halbrook[2], the term "keep arms" was not universal. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The verbatim "keep and" qualifier may or may not have been used in GB, but reference to possession (i.e., keeping arms) certainly was. The article itself provides citations. If this is to be an article simply about bearing arms in military service, then so be it. However (Brady Campaign systemic bias aside), the content of this article clearly and constantly addresses the right to both possess and bear arms (either in military service or for personal defense). The title "right to keep and bear arms" is thus both more inclusive and universal, and more accurately reflects the actual content of the article.tc2011 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Keep and" is not a qualifier, rather a transitive verb & conjunction used to direct the action to the noun ("arms"). :) In the English Declaration of Rights (1689) the phrase "have arms" is the equivalent of keep arms as used here, in so much as they both speak of possession. Same applies to the Assize of Arms where "possess" & "have" are both respectively used distinctively from "bear" (& its variants). It ("keep") is used in several state constitutions, past & present [3] & while the u.S. Declaration of Independence omits the topic, the constitution of Mexico as well as (according to references by David Kopel [4]) Switzerland deal with keeping arms apart from "bearing" in the military context.

The phrase "keep & bear arms" is generally viewed not as a strict iteration of martial use (except as used by gun control proponents), but as a convenient way of addressing the ideas for & against individual possession & the scope of use of arms. While it may be reasonable for someone with strong anti-gun ownership leanings to omit "keep" from the discussion, that is not what most users would think if they decided to look up "right to keep & bear arms". The place for the suggested military-only use of "bear arms" is within the article itself & not as a summation within the title, which negatively effects the neutrality of the article itself. By relying on "right to bear arms" then it becomes a discussion of whether military use is or is not the only legitimate validation for such a right & as I have pointed out there is a possession component in the phrase that is indispensable to anything other than a one sided view of the subject as a whole. If the page did not redirect from "right to keep & bear arms" & was thus framed as a discussion of the meaning of "bear arms" then the title would not be misleading, but as it stands it frames the issue in a biased manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketgtr71 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Declaration of Independence say "keep and bear arms"? No, it says 'bear arms'. You claim 'generally viewed', but don't cite your source. Please do. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True. The u.S. DoI uses "bear Arms". However this is not an article about the u.S. DoI & its' use of that phrase. As I point out it redirects here from "right to keep & bear arms". As you have mentioned yourself (if I'm not mistaken) there should be a global rather than u.S. centric view to the article. Many documents from the u.S. & a few outside the u.S. use the phrase "keep and bear" or equivalent language to generally describe a right (or lack thereof) to possess, own or use weapons in some manner. When you focus so much on "bear arms" as you seem to mean it, then it excludes the opposing viewpoint - that bearing arms may not be related to military service. That is conveyed in the title of the page by the omission of "keep and".

This [5]is one example where an organization uses "keep and bear arms" to denote a discussion about gun control in general. Here [6] is another. Here [7] is a Google search for "keep and bear arms". Here [8] is a Google search using "right to keep and bear arms". I also refer you to the link numbered 38 in my previous comment which points to Volokh's discussion of state "right to keep & bear arms" provisions, even though not all use that phrase precisely. Here is his blog post announcing the publication of the article [9]. Here [10] is a book (or at least author) I believe you're familiar with. You'll note that the majority of sources are not neutral, but I believe you'll also note than when not involved in a direct discussion of the second amendment to the u.S. Constitution the phrase "right to keep & bear arms" is used to describe firearms ownership, possession &/or use by individuals. "RKBA" is a common abbreviation within the pro-gun movement (see the aforementioned links)& it is used to denote the concept of an individual right to arms even apart from discussions of the 2nd amendment to the u.S. Constitution. Thus I think it's not a stretch to say that widespread use of "right to keep & bear arms" points to a general discussion of gun ownership, rather than a specific discussion of the phrase "bear arms" (although the latter is certainly a component of the former).

Would my proposals (to amend the title or delete the current page & create a new page) be objectionable? If so, why? Mikegtr71 04:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you are attempting to push an americanocentric POV. The right to bear arms has a long history in quite a selection of legal systems.Geni 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the global article on the right to bear arms. Not to be the USA centric article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Just because a disproportionate number of editors from from the USA does not mean that this article must not represent a global view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, possession of arms is specifically referenced with great regularity throughout the world and throughout history. Please reference the article. To exclude possession from the title is itself an "americanocentric POV." Specifically, it is the POV of American gun control organizations and like-minded people. As the article points out, possession is specifically mentioned in the English, Irish, Mexican, medieval, Chinese, and American cultures, among others not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc2011 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think limiting the title to "right to bear arms" is a non-global treatment of the subject. As I have pointed out a few non-u.S. documents use language that equivocates "Keep" as well as "bear", so by omitting "keep" from the title the discussion is inclined towards the u.S. centric view that any right involved is of a martial &/or collective nature. After all this page deals with possession of arms as well as the use, so by using a title only referring to the latter (i.e. bear) you're slanting the article in favor of the latter at the expense of the former (i.e. keep, possession, etc...), when globally discussions of the "right to keep & bear arms" tend towards civilian, non-martial use [11], [12], [13], [14]. As per the Wiki Naming Conflict page [15] (specifically the objective criteria subsection) "right to keep and bear arms" is a more accurate & proper name for the subject, relying on common English usage as well as its' use in a number of legal documents & other reliable sources.

But I am open to being enlightened - just how is omitting "keep and" from the title a global treatment rather than a u.s. centric view, when the redirect from "right to keep and bear arms" points here?

Would there be an objection to altering the redirect so "right to keep & bear arms" does not lead to this page?Mikegtr71 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"...more accurate & proper name for the subject"???. Perhaps we are talking about two different subjects. It seems you are looking for an article about an Individual right to firearms. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We're looking for a title that appropriately and accurately represents the article and issue to which it is attached. This "right to bear arms" phraseology is a fabrication by anti-gun organizations to throw "keep and" down the memory hole. The current title ("right to bear arms") is blatantly ideological. Maybe this will help: gun rights supporters say "right to keep and bear arms," gun-control supporters say, "'keep and' doesn't jive with our collectivist interpretation, so we'll just change our wording to address a 'right to bear arms' and hope everyone forgets how this whole conversation started." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.201.209 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No; same subject. From the page summary: "The right to bear arms refers to the concept that individuals, and/or governments, have a right to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense". It seems there is focus on one aspect of it (the collective/martial use arguments), hence the non-NPOV situation.

Now if you'll do me the courtesy; What is the objection to adding "keep and" to the title (i.e. how is it a non-global view to insert "keep and"?)? Would stopping "right to keep and bear arms" from redirecting to this page be objectionable? Mikegtr71 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you provide no reliable sourcing for your opinion. I already answered your question on April 6th. According to the expert reliable source, Stephen P. Halbrook[16], the term "keep arms" was not universal. You propose a too narrow title. Your concerns about coverage of the 'keep and' topic could easily be fixed by editing verifiable material about 'keep and' into the article, though it is already mentioned twenty times in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
From the article itself: "the Assize of Arms in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms[18]" "Protestants may have Arms for their Defence...[19]" "criminalised the possession of virtually all handguns in the United Kingdom." "to keep firearms for personal protection, for example during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland." "The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession[61]" "privately owned firearms are illegal in the Peoples Republic of China [62]" Use of the phrase "right to bear arms" in no way addresses the universal issue of possession. It is less inclusive than "right to keep and bear arms." Further, the title is blatantly POV, as the popularity of the phrase "right to bear arms" is due entirely to particular anti-gun organizations of the United States. It is telling that the definition in this article cites Sarah Brady twice: once for each sentence of the definition. This article must be marked as having disputed neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tc2011 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer my question satisfactorily. While "keep arms" may not have been a universal term (setting aside arguments about its equivalents such as "have" & "possess") I am not arguing to use the phrase "keep arms". I am arguing that since the redirect from "right to keep and bear arms" points here, & that there is discussion in the page about keeping arms as well as bearing them, that either we need to change the title of the page to reflect the subject more accurately (& quell non-NPOV & systematic bias concerns) or stop the redirect from pointing here. Mikegtr71 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer several of my questions, see above. And my biggest concern, which is that you seek to change the title to a specific narrower title, which pertains to an 'individual right to firearms' POV. The existing title, and the article at present gives plenty of coverage of this POV, twenty mentions by rough count. The existing title covers the broader topic, of which 'individual rights to firearms' is a significant subset. Your proposed title, addressing just the subset POV, is too narrow when the topic is as expansive like this topic. Your view that the topic is an 'individual right to firearms' is too narrow for this global article. In short, the more neutral title is the broader title. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikegtr71 has a point with reference to the title. Why not solve this by rephrasing the title so that it mirrors neither the collectivist nor the individualist interpretations of the US constitution? The title should indicate both in a global POV meaning that it does so without injecting UScentric advocacy for control or proliferation. This issues is getting hung up on whether the words "keep and" present a biased POV when in fact, the phrasing itself, with or without that language does have a rather Anglo-US centric POV regardless of the "keep and" language usage because it refers to the language of the those countries without being inclusive of other phrasings and nuances. It is undeniable that using the language "right to bear arms" is the exact language of gun control advocates while inserting "keep and" simply parrots the right to own advocates - this in itself presents a biased POV; Unavoidable bias in using either phrasing as it places all emphasis on US phrasing. If this is not the case, then why have a section that reads "The right to have arms" instead of one reading "the right to bear arms". The only way to settle this debate is to drop the Anglo-US centric language and go for a title more reflective of the global value of this article. In this manner a pro-gun bias ("keep and") and a control bias are avoided.JasonSP (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I recall that the 'have arms' section was included and named "right to have arms" because the 1689 Bill of Rights uses the phrasing "have arms". And, I recall that reliable sourcing (Malcolm?) would confirm that this 1689 involved issues including firearms used for militias, posse comitatus, and also firearms used for hunting/poaching in the game reserves (not to mention the gun powder tax). Therefore, the 1689 'right' falls in a gray zone, squarely in 'right to bear arms' and also outside it somewhat too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This could be acceptable, I believe. Do you have a suggestion for an alternate title that accurately represents the article, and is inclusive of the major and universal points (possession and use of arms) it addresses? tc2011 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian use section

Yaf, could you please give more emphasis to using reliable secondary sourcing? Your use of direct quotes from court documents, and direct quotes from congressional hearings comes very close to crossing to be a WP:PSTS policy violation of WP:NOR. Surely, if your hypothesis is valid there must be some sourcing of the 'most reliable' standard found in WP:RS that you can find and use. If not, there are reasonable doubts that this may be a WP:REDFLAG issue. As a demonstration of good faith, could you also find and use some mainstream, scholarly, peer reviewed 'most reliable' secondary sourcing please? I am asking this on the talk page to give you a chance to respond, and with hopes of avoiding dispute or edit war. Surely there must be some really solid 'most reliable' sourcing for your idea so that you don't need to resort to a policy gray area for your sourcing. Find some scholarly sources please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Being that Heller was only recently heard, there are, as of yet, no textbooks or scholarly publications on the topic available. On the other hand, WP policy does not prohibit using quotes from primary sources, either. Please do not start Wiki-lawyering and then request page protection, as is your usual practice. (For more on this practice, see the currently page protected Gun politics in the United States, the indefinitely page protected Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Hunting weapon, ad nauseum, articles to which you have resorted to this most detestable practice of Wiki-lawyering, then immediately requested page protection to prevent all other editors' attempts to balance articles. Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to single editors, who may think they WP:OWN them. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think finding some solid sourcing is what’s needed and would not be too hard to find.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Section is reliably sourced with secondary and tertiary sources. Additional sources would be good, too, of course. But, there are no primary sources currently used in this section. Yaf (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Quoting the court document and the US Senate report is dicey. Both these entities are active in directly legislating and ruling on the Right to bear arms, and because of that they violate WP:PSTS. I think it wise to use higher quality book sources to be on the safe side of the WP:NOR policy. Why is this so hard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, these documents are defining the right, and doing so by citing primary sources. These are appropriate secondary sources. tc2011 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "individuals, and/or governments, have a right to weapons."

i'm kind of troubled by this phrase in the intro. as the lede, normally citations are not required. so i'm reluctant to fact tag it. but the reality is it's an absurd statement on its face. by the very definition of government, governments do not have rights, they have powers. a government has no right to bear arms. it's patently false to suggest so, and frankly sounds ignorant. i'd recommend this be removed. Anastrophe (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense considering that in democracies, people are the government. It follows logically that people can authorize their government their right to control weapons, therefore in that real sense, the democratic government has been given, and therefore has, the right to control weapons. Your point of view appears to be based on an assumption of governments are authoritative, dictatorial and/or tyrannical? Please explain. I have seen pro-gun editors make this 'governments cannot have rights' argument before, but I am curious where this argument comes from? Is it from a book? I would like a chance to read in reliable sourcing your premise that: "by the very definition of government, governments do not have rights, they have powers". Where does this thought of yours come from? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To "authorize" means to grant authority/power. One does not "authorize" or even grant rights; rights are simply recognized, since they are innate to the individual. Government, despite possibly having representative characteristics, is an artificial construct and as such can have no "rights." Governments have authority or power, not rights. Only when it comes to guns do anti-gun people start talking about government having rights. tc2011 (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I read about your opinion in reliable sourcing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
as is not unusual, you are conflating different concepts and claiming they are one. "the democratic government has been given, and therefore has the right to control weapons". that statement stands alone, separate entire from what is being discussed (never mind that it's incorrect). no, government has the power to control weapons. that power has been conferred by the people; the people hold rights, government holds powers conferred by the people. but it's not even germaine to what's under discussion. you are claiming that the power to control weapons has some sort of lexical symmetry to "government has a right to weapons"?? are you claiming that the government has a right to privacy? that would be novel, as it would destroy the very concept of how our government works. before you start hectoring for sources - where are your sources for your unsourced opinion and counter-claims above? as for my sources, see the OED. you find nowhere in the OED definition, or any other dictionary, a claim that government has "rights". you will only find that governments have power, authority, control, etc - governance, by definition. if you can cite me any reputable dictionary that claims government has rights, i'll eat my foot. Anastrophe (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I read about your opinion in reliable sources? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
stop playing games. i just gave you a reliable source. now perhaps you'll do me the kindness of providing reliable sources for your opinion as well. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The OED describes that governments have a right to judicially condemn land for public use, under the definition (Condemn v. 7.b) "...the land...the Government has a right to condemn it for that purpose." SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned a source where I can read your idea? You did not. Cite ISBN and page number please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
stop this tendentious, disruptive, nonsense. you're demanding the ISBN and page number from the Oxford English Dictionary where it defines "government" and "govern"? why not also demand to know how many inches in from the edge of the page the definition begins, what font, and what color the ink is and how many microns thick the paper is? This is entirely and purely disruptive rhetoric on your part. where are the sources for your contention that government has rights? you have the burden of proof if you wish this to be included. Anastrophe (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
ISBN and page number please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
sorry, no. demanding to know the page number for a definition IN A DICTIONARY is an absurdely disruptive and tendentious request. asking you for your source for your claim that government has "rights" is a legitimate request, since YOU have the burden of proof. open a dictionary. mirriam webster, fine. OED, fine. american heritage, fine. just do it. i've never before heard of an editor demanding to know the PAGE a definition is on within a dictionary. you are aware that dictionaries are in ALPHABETIC ORDER? Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
After just a short look, I see several instances in the OED where they describe the rights of government. That governments have a right to judicially condemn land for public use, under the definition (Condemn v. 7.b) "...the land...the Government has a right to condemn it for that purpose." Also, under the definition for anarchist, "The anarchist who denies the right of any government. (Joking now,) are you an anarchist? I could keep quoting where the OED describes the "right of governments", but more to the point. You asserted that governments only have powers, not rights. Surely this thought of yours can be found in some mainstream reliable source without having to resort to research in a dictionary. Try again. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Read the US Constitution, or the English Bill of Rights. Rights pertain to individuals. Powers pertain to Governments. Have removed OR from lede. Yaf (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I meant a reliable third party source, per WP:V standards. Your reading primary documents involves WP:SYN. Surely for a concept as major as this you can find solid reliable third party sourcing. Perhaps some mainstream expert published by a reputable university press? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you look up "right" in the OED, or something else? Because it seems as if you're cherry picking. Anyhow, the OED is not an appropriate source for this discussion unless it specifically addresses the term "right" in the context of possessing and carrying arms. tc2011 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for source for claim that government has rights

user saltyboatr is of the opinion that a government can have rights. i formally request a reliable source for this claim. absent a source, the opinion cannot be included in the article, per WP:V and WP:RS. absent a source, it's pointless to be party to bickering over saltyboatr's unsourced opinion, since none but he is insisting that this unsourced opinion be included in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the OED sources I just provided above not good enough for you? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
they are not. examples from other definitions hardly constitute reliable sources for the meaning of the word itself. stop playing games. Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems plainly obvious that the OED has great weight and authority about the proper usage of the English language. When the OED uses the expression "the right of government", that is solid proof of proper usage of the English language. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
what do the definitions of "government", "governance", "govern", say? do the definitions of those terms state that government has rights? no? then stop playing games. a quote used as an example of the definition of "condemn" does not define government. Anastrophe (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
it is sadly amusing, your utterly disruptive actions just a short while ago, demanding ISBN's, page numbers, etc, for the definition of government, that you turn around and magically start claiming that the OED definition of 'condemn' is relevant. it's odd that you haven't yet been able to find the actual definition of the word 'government' in the OED. perhaps your edition is damaged? Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is playing games. Per the OED, which is a gold standard for usage of the English language, (but not good enough for you apparently), I have shown that governments have rights. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't own or have access to the OED, i have an oxford universal dictionary. it doesn't include these examples of usage you claim it has. please provide the full and complete material, rather than elided excerpts, so that i and others may see what is actually being quoted. the definition for government, the word under discussion, does not include the suggestion that government has rights, is that not correct?Anastrophe (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
can i have an answer to the above? i ask since you've responded elsewhere on this page since i made the request. i realize we're all busy people, so i simply don't want it to be overlooked. Anastrophe (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, here is a screenshot. Bear in mind this is just one example in the OED which I found in a few minutes searching. No doubt there are many more. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


that is a quote from the Niles Register illustrating usage of the term condemn. it is not authoritative by any measure whatsoever as to the meaning of the term government. would you be so kind as to provide screenshots for the terms "government", "govern", "governance"? do they anywhere mention government's "rights"? Anastrophe (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look again, the OED passage quote is from the Congressional Record 1876. The OED provides rock solid sourcing about usage of the English language. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to source "the sky is blue." Historically, all governments have claimed all rights and it is only through their magnaminity that eny other entity has rights at all. This has been worldwide practice for thousands of years. (Please don't argue philosophy here with me, I'm not trying to defend any government here, much less our own, but just stating a fact.) Matchups 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your opinion, but you're in error. governments claim powers, not rights. the request for sourcing still stands. here's a link to the EB 1911 entry for 'government'. nowhere does it claim that government has rights. [17] Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where in that encyclopedia article does it say "governments claim powers not rights"? I don't see that it says that. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
good try, but no. you've stated your opinion that government has rights. where in the article does it state that, or anything even remotely suggestive of it? Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you also have a duty to edit based on reliable sourcing, not just your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
likewise. does this eminently reliable source state that government has rights? if the article does not, it could hardly be considered an oversight. EB trumps just about any source you can come up with. more below.Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right" can mean different things in different contexts. In a broader legal sense, SaltyBoatr is correct, the government can have rights. In English/British/UK law, it is common to refer to the bundle of privileges and immunities that constitute the royal prerogative as "rights" of the Crown. In the U.S. constitutional tradition, things are different. "The United States Constitution consists of individual rights and institutional structure. People (including organized groups of people) have rights. Governments do not have rights. Rather, governments have powers and duties." (Prof Carl Esbeck, "Differentiating the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses," 42 Journal of Church and State 311, 2000.) I think Anastrophe is correct about constitutional rights in a U.S. context, but since this is not a U.S.-specific article the intro ought to take a broader perspective. PubliusFL (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"rights of the crown" seems dodgy as suggestive that government has rights. the rights of the crown are the rights held by monarchs - who by definition rule with total control of their subjects (that very word quite descriptive, i might add - 'those subject to rule'). that the UK now has a symbolic crown with virtually no power of control of the people suggests the term is archaic. as a historical colloquialism, it may be accurate, but i don't think it serves a valid definition today. is there a showing that in any nation today, the concept of 'government rights' is validly applicable? Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

James Madison argued on June 6, 1789[18] that the government "...has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary...". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

i'll again acknowledge your gift with search engines. that said, you utterly ignore the content of the paragraph, which clearly describes the powers of the government. to quote:
"It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the state governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is them who are to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary or proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the state legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those governments. I will state an instance which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The general government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the state governments had in view. If there was reason for restraining the state governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the federal government.'"
i've added a lot of emphasis, i admit. but in the very sentence you claim states that government has rights, madison states that these are exercises of power. the same sentence. and all other mentions within the paragraph are of powers granted to the government by the people. you're grasping at straws trying to maintain this point. shall i throw out your classic 'primary source' rejection of it? stick with EB 1911. incontrovertibly reliable source. Anastrophe (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your moving target is hard to hit. I quote James Madison stating directly "government has a right". And somehow that is still not good enough for you. Your turn, where do you read your novel idea that governments cannot have rights? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

feel free to ignore the forest for all the damned trees. the entire section describes the limits upon the powers of the government and the potential for abuse of that power, and in an example, he uses the term 'rights of the government', while discussing the need to restrain the power of government. rather than focusing just on your search keywords, perhaps actually read the document, it's quite illuminating, and says exactly the opposite of what you wish it said. as for an incontrovertibly reliable source, we can go with encyclopedia britannica 1911 as i said, or the OED's definition of 'government', 'govern', 'governance'. which definitions you have pointedly avoided, because, quite obviously, the actual definitions of the terms do not support your mistaken opinion of what they should say. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Your view is sitting out on a branch on a personal tree. Your stubborn refusal to cite any sources, and your pushing of personal opinion, violates WP:NOR. James Madison and John Locke[19], knew that the rights of government are meaningless without power. Per Locke and Madison (Democratic) governments have rights and, which flow from the people go hand in hand. Government by the people, has the rights and the power, granted by the people. Locke and Madison understood clearly that governments assume the right to govern from the people. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
EB1911- 100% acceptable secondary source, routinely used throughout wikipedia. OED, definition of "Government". 100% acceptable source for definition of "government". did you even bother to read the paragraph your keyword search directed you to? clearly not. hell, did you read your own sentence? "[...]knew that the rights of government are meaningless without power". hmm. if there is no power - there is no right. ergo, the suggestion that government has rights is meaningless, as a government without power is not a government! and from the very text you cite:

Locke sometimes identifies this power in other terms: the "power of the magistrate", the "authority to command", the "right to obedience", and the "power or right of government"; and he even occasionally uses the language of "sovereignty" to characterize it. But in whatever terms, political power is simply "that power which every man, having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of society, and therein, to governours".

this is patently clear on its face. at best it's a euphemism to speak of government rights ("right to obedience" is clearly intended as sarcastic). EB1911. OED, definition of "Government". what, exactly, is your objection to those two eminently and completely reliable sources? Anastrophe (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those sources prove your point. You could point to a million sources that don't disprove your point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

States rights. You don't believe in them. Yet, the article needs to present a balance viewpoint. Certainly one viewpoint is the viewpoint known as the states rights view. Cleansing the article of this viewpoint, leaving only the individual rights view violates WP:NPOV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

from the states rights article: "The phrase states' rights (and all variants of the words and the phrase) does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or its amendments -- rather the word rights is exclusively associated within the Constitution with the phrase the people, while the word powers is extensively and exclusively associated with government entities such as Congress or states. Therefore, the phrase states' powers is more technically consistent with the terminology of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, with the phrase States' rights popularized by repeated usage." i'm done with this absurd wikilawyering. you want to shove your unsourced opinion into the lede of the article, with nowhere within the article any discussion of your opinion. you're violating WP:MOS by forcing an assertion into the lede that is nowhere in the body. you refuse to actually bother with the genuine definitions of words, rather prefering to cherry-pick the rare uses of the term 'government rights' that you are able to find using your exquisite gift for using search engines. perhaps it's time to bring in a neutral third party. by the way, i like the second sentence of your first graf. it reads, removing the double negative, "you could point to a million sources that prove your point". why thank you! Anastrophe (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody dispute that there is also a point of view on this topic termed the "states rights" view? Or, is the only valid point of view, the "individual rights" point of view? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

where in the body of the article is the 'states rights' view discussed? why are you changing the subject? your desire to insert an opinion into the first sentence of the lede, where it is nowhere discussed in the article, is unsupportable by any policy i'm aware of. Anastrophe (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prepare for page protection!!

saltyboatr just dropped a 'friendly' request on my talk page asking me not to revert him. this is standard precedent to his soon requesting page protection, because he desires to pollute the intro to this article with all sorts of bizarre, unsourced and unsourceable POV wording (eg "through their collective government" - as opposed to 'individual government'??), but does not want others to edit it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we work out our differences on the talk page? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
great, stop edit warring the intro. with the exception of the bogus claim that government has rights, the former version that's been in place for months and months is fine by me. Anastrophe (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that Yaf just reverted[20] the former version to his problematic version, again! We need to learn to work things out on talk pages and not edit war. Otherwise, page protection is needed (yet again) to give us the discipline. When will we learn to discuss and find compromises? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted to Anastrophe's more neutral, less verbose, more cogent version. It is not "my" version. Yaf (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
editors make mistakes, particularly when an editor is forcing multiple, unsourced, POV changes into the lede. please answer my question above in the previous section, since you seem to have the time available. Anastrophe (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can anyone really claim that this intro is not clear, concise, accurate, and appropriate

this is the lede as it is at this moment (19:15 UTC, god knows how long it'll last). it is brief (desireable), concise, accurate, and clear. what possible objection can there be to this wording? remember, this is the LEDE.

"The right to bear arms refers to the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently or individuals acting collectively is a matter of debate in the United States."

seriously, besides the current bickering, is this not an accurate lede? nowhere in the article does it discuss the 'right of government'. the debate, patently, is whether the right is individual or collective. nobody can dispute that, not in good faith. Anastrophe (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While we work this out, I agree that we should settle on the last stable version of the lede paragraph, that which existed on April 11th and for months prior. I just restored that version, Yaf, please do not revert again. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
the problem is that nowhere in the article does it discuss the idea that government has a right to weapons. since that is nowhere discussed in the body, your opinion that government has rights does not belong in the lede.Anastrophe (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
furthermore, your edit summary is disingenuous. you claim i 'favor' that version, which is quite simply a lie. my edit was to add date for cat, wholey unrelated to the lede text. don't misrepresent my interests. Anastrophe (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up and re-write

Have attempted to fix the previously-jumbled presentation, ordering the text into a more readable article in the tradition of BE BOLD. This rewrite should help address many of the issues with the article. Still, there is a POV concern regarding whether or not the title of the article is correct. Should it be "Right to bear arms" or "Right to keep and bear arms", or ???. I can see it either way, as well as seeing the need to make the title more neutral such as "Right to arms", but respect that many believe that "keep and" or "bear" should be inserted into the title. Comments? Which way should it be? Yaf (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address the POV concerns in the lede of the article and removed the POV tagline. If anyone still thinks there is a POV problem, please put a {{POV}} tagline back on the article, and comment on why there is still a problem. Yaf (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Due to the particularly POV nature of "right to bear arms," I personally think "right to keep and bear arms" is the more appropriate title, as it is simply a verbatim excerpt of a very prominent text related to the article's discussion. Some have argued that, since that text is taken from the US Constitution, it may present some non-global issues...on the other hand, the article is written in English, and until we have a universal language (but English is lingua franca, anyhow), it would be inappropriate to avoid extremely germane, notable, and fitting expressions of that language simply because they are so notable. Besides, the US Constitution is one of the most prominent documents addressing the article's topic worldwide, and it is entirely acceptable to rely on such prominent documents for our wording. To dismiss the wording of this document for less notable documents (e.g., state constitutions, Brady Campaign publications, etc.), as suggested elsewhere on this page, strikes me as a particularly non-global approach. Even disregarding POV concerns with "right to bear arms," the title "right to keep and bear arms" is certainly a more objective and appropriate title for the article. In any case, these two aspects of the discussion (possession and use of arms) are indeed global, represent the actual article, and should be included in the title. Changing the title to "right to arms" (while making note in the lede of its origin in this dispute, similar to your edits, Yaf) might sidestep this dispute. Although I think it'd be better to have a title more representative of the article's actual content, "right to arms" might be acceptable. Before I reinsert the {{POV}} tag, I'm interested to see what you, Yaf, and others involved on this talk page think about these comments.
I would support a move to "Right to arms" with "Right to bear arms", "Right to keep and bear arms", and "RKBA" all identified as synonyms in the lede, similar to what is there now, to address potential NPOV issues. "Right to bear arms" is a gun control advocate's term. "Right to keep and bear arms" is a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution term. "RKBA" is a gun rights advocate's term. Although "Right to keep and bear arms" would be the most factual, coming from the US Constitution, it would likely draw criticism from gun control advocates. For this reawson, "Right to arms" would therefore be a slightly more neutral title. My $0.02 worth. Yaf (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian use section

The Right_to_bear_arms#Civilian_usage_definition section relies predominantly on three quotes from judges and a politician. This falls in a WP:RS gray area, using direct quotes from court documents and congressional reports comes close to being a WP:PSTS violation. (I think it is, and Yaf thinks it is 'fine'.) I suggest that rather than arguing, lets just find some better solid sourcing. Surely this idea is mainstream enough that some good old most reliable sourcing is available. And, also could we[21] tolerate leaving the 'tag' in place? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think finding some solid sourcing is what’s needed and would not be too hard to find.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion topic already exists... DavidD4scnrt and SaltyBoatr have been answered in the original topic. tc2011 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's the RKBA in the US and where else?

Contrary to the insertion by SaltyBoatr of "also referred to in the United States as", the right to keep and bear arms is not a US-only label. See for example, this website in Canada. Likewise, the "keep and bear arms" terminology is also used in England and Australia. On the other hand, the "right to bear arms" terminology is largely a gun-control preferred terminology used only in the US to stress the collective or militia only interpretation of the Second Amendment. We should take neither side in this argument in the lede of this article. The reference to the "also referred to in the United States as" needs to be reverted back to the more neutral earlier version, without any POV pushing, that has no mention of the United States. This will help to globalize the article. Similarly, it is not appropriate to put in non-globalizing content and a globalizing tagline, too, as SaltyBoatr has done. Yaf (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the "keep and" makes primary reference to the Second amendment of the United States constitution. Sure, other people in the world discuss the 2A, but the 2A is fundamentally a USA centric provision. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Salty, it is entirely appropriate to borrow language from neutral and prominent documents that address the issue at hand, and certainly more appropriate than relying on biased Brady Campaign publications (see the POV definition of the issue offered in the article). Can you reference another globally prominent document that directly addresses the right to possess and use arms? "Right to keep and bear arms" is certainly neutral (as opposed to the current title), and is inclusive of the global issue of possession and use of arms discussed in this article. Your attempts to augment the American gun-control proponent POV the article by suppressing neutral references to possession ("keep and") is doing far more harm to the integrity of this article than the text of neutral and globally recognized documents. tc2011 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr's edits are steadily augmenting the American gun-control proponent POV under the bizarre excuse that such a view is global. It is inappropriate to systematically ignore or minimize certain global aspects of the article's topic to fit this American gun-control proponent POV. tc2011 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
To Salty, the commonality of the languege is simply because the framers of the constitution had the foresight to include two intertwined rights, the right to use arms (expressed as "bear arms") is useless without the right to possess arms (or "keep arms") both of which are covered in the article. The reason for using the older turn-of-phrase "keep and bear arms" is because it is more easily recognizable and unmistakably in-refrence to this issue, even outside the U.S. F-451 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
the 'right to keep and bear arms' is not a US-only term. insertion into the lede of this unsourced opinion is not acceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tags

Yaf, your edit summary doesn't explain this[22] removal of tags. Please give a policy based explanation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Article has been globalized through removal of US-centric content in lede; hence, the need for the globalize tag has already been alleviated. Tagging the article with the {{POV}} label because you feel states right content has not been added is not appropriate. You are free to add properly cited content expressing states right content. But, POV bombing the article because someone else hasn't written this content is not appropriate. It is an improper use of the POV tagline. Other editors can't read your mind, to see what it is that you think ought to be added. As for tagging a section with the needs sources tagline, this is inappropriate, as the content in that section is already cited with reliable and verifiable sources. Please work with other editors, instead of advocating disruptive editing techniques, and please contribute cited, sourced material to the article. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This ignores the reality of your tactics. Engaging in a edit war with me over neutrality and these tag[23][24][25][26][27]. Reporting me for edit warring to get me blocked[28], followed by several dozen pro-gun POV skewing edits[29] during my block. Which you now defend. In the mean time, the tag warnings are appropriate. Instead of warring, can we try to collaborate to make the article neutral? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The reality is that a consensus of editors actively editing this article did not agree with your continued POV pushing. You then chose to edit war with the community, and you subsequently were blocked for 48 hours for a repeated offense of edit warring on this same particular article, in violation of WP:3RR. No other editors violated 3RR. Instead of resuming your edit warring with the community again, please try to work with other editors to avoid future blocks. You truly do have many vaid points, but it does you and the Wikipedia project no good when you edit war instead of working with other editors to reach consensus. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice that Yaf does not deny edit warring. Rather, he did not get reported for a violation of the WP:3RR policy for participation in the edit war. I am trying to cooperate to collaboratively edit this article. The consensus needs to be to about whether the article meets policy, not about the consensus of the personal POV of the involved editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Making an edit of an article that is WP:OWNed by another editor is not edit warring. Reverting edits of other editors, contrary to community consensus, and then getting blocked for 48 hours for repeated infractions of WP:3RR is, however, clearly edit warring. The problem here is not with an editor reporting a violation of WP:3RR, resulting in a 48 hour block for the POV warrior who has had edit problems with the same article before; rather, it is with the editor who actually engages in edit warring against community consensus. Don't shoot the messenger. Yaf (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, the POV of the article (starting with the title) is demonstrably biased in favor of American gun-control proponents. Any deviation from this POV to an objectively more neutral and global treatment of the topic is shrilly condemned by you as anything but. Just because this article has long been biased in favor of the American gun-control proponent POV, and likely was originated by members of its camp (the original "definition" of the topic was cited to none other than Sarah Brady), does not mean that it cannot now be corrected and rendered more neutral and more globally representative of the issue. tc2011 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] globalize tag

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

i'm sure i speak for all editors when i say that we will all appreciate your efforts, and look forward to your inclusion of high quality, well-sourced material in support of globalizing the article. do you have a rough timeline you can share for when you will have these problems fixed, so that you can remove the tags? Anastrophe (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Being that there is essentially no right to keep and bear arms outside of the Anglo-American world, this is not a disproportionate allocation of content. Would an article on growing tropical plants be remiss if it skipped discussing the growing of tropical plants in Antarctica? No. The use of the "Globalize" tag implies that there is no content about numerous countries. To the contrary, the article has considerable coverage outside the UK and the US, to the extent that the right to bear arms actually exists outside the UK and the US. This is an improper use of this tag for, at most, a missing paragraph or two. It is not bias, it is simply reflecting factual issues that the right to bear arms is primarily an Anglo-American construct, and today exists only in the US. Not many dictatorships ever permit this right to exist. Have removed tagline as it is inappropriate. Yaf (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV warning tag

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

i'm sure i speak for all editors when i say that we will all appreciate your efforts, and look forward to your inclusion of high quality, well-sourced material in support of this claimed POV that government has a right to control 'bearing arms' (worded correctly, 'the power to control bearing arms'), and in support of the 'states right model'. of course it goes without saying that per WP:NPOV, a claim of 'excessive coverage' of a POV is not license to delete that material, so there's a lot of work ahead for you to add the balancing material. do you have a rough timeline you can share for when you will have these problems fixed, so that you can remove the tags? Anastrophe (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It is an improper use of a POV tagline to complain about what isn't even in the article. Have removed this tagline. All editors are free to contribute cited, reliable, and verifiable sourced content. An editor tagging an article with the POV tagline, because the editor is too lazy to add material he feels is missing, is clearly exhibiting improper use of the tagline. The goal is to provide a neutral point of view, with cited content. If we tag all articles and we wait until an article is completely finished before removing such a tagline, then no article would ever be without the POV tagline. Lets reserve the use of the tagline to when there are issues with an article. WP is not a crystal ball. It is improper to assume that there will be problems when future content is added to an article. Have removed the tagline. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, the recent trend has been to remove the American gun-control proponent POV and move toward a more neutral presentation of the topic. Until just recently, the "definition" section included two sentences, each of which was supported by citations of...publications of the Brady Campaign...authored by Sarah Brady. The very title of this article betrays the American gun-control proponent bias of this article. tc2011 (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources tag

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

i'm sure i speak for all editors when i say that we will all appreciate your efforts, and look forward to your inclusion of high quality material from independent third party reliable sources to improve the section. do you have a rough timeline you can share for when you will have these problems fixed, so that you can remove the tags? Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The timeline depends on whether you will cooperate, or continue your participation in the edit war[31][32][33][34][35][36]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Have removed the tagline. There are no Primary sources in dispute here (i.e., none are sources very close to the origin of the particular topic, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc.) The Right to bear arms dates to the Assize of Arms, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc. It is improper tagging to claim that the sources mentioned are in any way related to the origin of the particular topic. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
saltyboatr, your claim above is a knee-slapper on the hilarity scale. it is an editor's duty to revert unsourced assertions inserted into articles. none of the 'edit wars' you claim above comprised me removing any material at all that was sourced - it was me removing your POV-pushing into the article material without so much as a bad citation.
looking forward to arbcom. the above is a canonical example of the tendentious, disruptive methods this editor tries to employ. completely unacceptable. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we discuss the article and avoid the uncivil commentary about me? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
nothing uncivil in the above. i didn't call you an 'ass' or some other epithet. your methods are unacceptable behavior. your claim above is nonsense - a complete non-sequitur, that it was edit warring to revert your unsourced insertion of opinions into the article. it's also a standard diversion away from what you claimed is the issue - over reliance on primary sources. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yaf just reverted again[37]. (removing all three tags, misleading edit summary) This sure looks like edit warring to me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
not at all. the matters are being discussed here on the talk page. i agree with yaf's rationale for why the tags are being inappropriately used. you're wikilawyering content, which is unacceptable editor behavior. please stop. alternatively, add actual content to articles, rather than these constant disruptive tactics. Anastrophe (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf just reverted again[38] with the edit summary "(rv; there are no Primary sources (i.e., none are sources very close to the origin of the particular topic, the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, etc.))". The origin of the topic is not frozen in the 18th Century, as modern events are on topic too. And, obviously, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the Heller case is very close on topic here. Similar with the District 5 court cite, while not so central as Heller, also still close. And too for the US Senate which has authority to pass law, or hold hearings, which is very close on topic. In summary, Yaf's reason appears to violate WP:NOR policy. And why? Isn't it possible to just find a book source somewhere? Instead, Yaf insists on synthesizing directly from political and court documents. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Since when did Merkel and Uviller become a primary source? Likewise, the other quotes are not directly related to the US Constitution, the English Bill of Rights, or any aother source that is very close to the origin of the particular topic, but involve appellate court opinions. Improving sources is always good, but the sources in this section are already secondary/tertiary. Yaf (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you limit your concern to simply the 18th Century 'origin'. Isn't it obvious that the Supreme Court is directly involved in updating the US legal definition of "Right to bear arms" at this very moment? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
They are currently involved, yes. However, isn't it obvious that no decision has come out of Heller/Parker yet from the Supreme Court? Hence, no books or scholarly papers on the future opinions coming out of this case have yet been written. If your complaint is about why such future content and citations aren't here yet, I fail to see why we are even discussing this. By WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yaf (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Crystal ball? The court cases you cite happened already, and the court documents are published already. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
SCOTUS has not published its decision on DC v Heller as of 2008-05-02. Please see the SCOTUS web page. Please don't inject misinformation into the discussion. tc2011 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, these District Court rulings, that Yaf is directly quoting, are active in the determination of what the "Right to bear arms" means legally in the USA right now. Therefore they violate WP:PSTS. Is finding book sourcing very hard? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I just fixed that error in the article. There are no District Court rulings cited, just opinions from Circuit Courts of Appeals, which is something completely different. District Courts are trial courts, while the Circuit Courts are appellate courts and therefore "one step removed" from the trial level. They review, analyze, and comment on the primary source trial record. PubliusFL (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. The circuit court documents are also of WP:PSTS policy concern. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can show us a pattern of circuit court publications being thrown out of less controversial Wikipedia articles? I call foul on you. Please don't continue to wikilawyer this article ever deeper into an American gun-control POV propaganda piece. tc2011 (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Yaf just reverted again[39]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. See the original (as opposed to your duplicate) "Civilian use section" discussion topic. tc2011 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Not true. Where have they been addressed? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
True. See the parent to your comment here. Not to mention PubliusFL's comments above. SaltyBoatr, you err in labeling circuit court decisions as primary sources. The circuit court decisions themselves rely on primary sources...which makes them secondary sources, and quite appropriate for Wikipedia articles. tc2011 (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you tell me the diff(s) please, I looked and I don't see it in 'the parent to your comment' above like you say. Also, PubliusFL is describing the difference between a Circuit and a District court which is another thing altogether. The circuit courts are presently playing a direct role having ruled and defined a legal 'individual right to bear arms' with Emerson and Parker, (which was granted cert by the SCOTUS as Heller). This makes the circuit court documents primary sources. Is the Civilian use definition not available in any true secondary source? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
See the original (as opposed to your duplicate) "Civilian use section" discussion topic. Just because you don't like the fact that these are valid secondary sources for Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that they aren't. Also, just because a secondary source is cited by another secondary source doesn't make the first secondary source a primary source. I'd say that you've never done literature research, but I think you're really just being disingenuous. Anyhow... Take a look at the circuit court decision, you should be able to see that it's rife with citations of primary sources. These courts are interpreting the right by citing primary sources, and are valid secondary sources for Wikipedia articles. Contrary to popular belief, the courts do not create law and rights out of thin air, but rather interpret and clarify them. The courts are also NPOV. Perhaps you would rather cite Sarah Brady in the civilian use section? Or perhaps you would like to cite Michael Bellisle? I hear he's done some research on the civilian use of firearms. tc2011 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't mention diff's. I looked, again, and found this diff. In short, what harm is there is improving the cites? This edit war is over a primary sources tag is about if we can improve the quality of cites, which seems a silly thing to oppose. Can't you you find a law review article, or some book published by a mainstream publishing house? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You are free to add such sources if you wish, if you can find equally objective and well-sourced analyses and interpretations of the Right. Others have added these appropriate NPOV secondary sources that don't appear to fit your agenda... Please stop warring with the "Primary Sources" tag, as it is completely inappropriate to call these sources primary just because they don't fit your apparent American gun-control proponent POV. tc2011 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Because these courts are currently "interpreting" the right to bear arms they do indeed qualify as primary sources for this topic. They are presently directly involved in making history about this topic. Read the tag please before reverting again it says ... sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words, sources that address the topic of the article are not generally sufficient for a Wikipedia article? This is beyond ridiculous. Is there a Wikipedia pattern of rejecting court documents as sources for less controversial subjects? If you can demonstrate that there is, then fine. Otherwise, it seems you are just raising any objection you possibly can to push an American gun-control proponent POV in this controversial subject. tc2011 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Before the district v. circuit court issue, see my comment from 1 May about appellate court opinions as secondary sources. PubliusFL (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Yaf, please take a moment to address my concern about that these courts are presently directly involved in making history about this topic. You say 'no dispute here', but I have identified a real issue which you evade (or dispute). Therefore, there is a dispute here, and the tag is warranted. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, the courts are interpreting the right, much as an academic would, by citing primary and other secondary sources. The courts are only "making history" to someone who takes a biased approach to the Right and who seeks to warp this discussion to the American gun-control proponent POV. These documents are appropriate secondary sources for this article. I challenge you, since you seem so fond of "diffs," to establish a Wikipedia pattern of rejecting court documents as inappropriate sources for less controversial topics. It strikes me that you are only raising these unwarranted objections because of your apparent American gun-control proponent agenda. If you wish to add other sources, the onus is on you. I would remove the "primary sources" tag, but you clearly are not interested in contributing anything meaningful to this section of the article (otherwise you would add additional sources) or recognizing the reality that these are appropriate secondary sources, and you will just edit war the tag back in. tc2011 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Tc2011 recent edit[40] describes a "right to have arms". That is a much different thing that a right to bear arms. Considering that the two word term "bear arms" historically (by a vast preponderance) has had a military (not civilian) connotation.
If you guys cannot find high quality scholarly sourcing for that 'civilian use' section, it appears to readers as original research and not neutral. I don't question that certain judges who do not practice stare decisis and certain politicians have interpreted a 'civilian use' of 'bear arms' and in the last decade are active changing the history US judicial precedence about the topic of 'bearing arms'. The challenge to you is to find third party scholarly sourcing for this POV concept of 'civilian use'. Your court and political sources are active in the topic, and are not third party. This question stands independent of my personal POV. Lacking better quality sourcing, I favor removing that section altogether per WP:NOR policy.
Instead of edit warring over the tag[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48], cannot you just find some good quality third party sourcing for your idea? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable sources. The secondary/tertiary sources for the civilian usage section meet this requirement. That said, it is also encouraged to add additional sources where an editor feels that they are needed. However, it is not required that only "scholarly" sources be used. That is an improper interpretation or reading of Wikipedia rules. Reliable and verifiable sources are what is absolutely required. Have removed the tagline, as there are no non-reliable or non-verifiable sources or primary sources in the disputed civilian definition section. Yaf (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Your personal American gun-control proponent POV suggests removing the entire "civilian usage" section because the American gun-control proponent wishes to eliminate "civilian usage" from the discussion. Let me remind you that right to keep and bear arms redirects to this article. Do you agree that right to keep and bear arms should not redirect to this article, which you want to address only the military definition of bearing arms? tc2011 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Civilian definitions section

Yaf reverted again[49] with the edit summary (rm tagline; none of the sources are primary sources. Consensus on talk page is to remove this tagline. Additional sources may be added, of course.)". Yaf please explain how denial of my minority position is 'consensus'?

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

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

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

None of the sources listed are associated with a right to keep and bear arms, or a right to bear arms. These rights spring forth from God as God-given rights, spring forth from Common Law practice, as well as are recognized and protected from infringement in the US Constitution, among similar primary documents. No primary sources are cited in the Civilian Definition section. There are no Bible quotes, no Torah quotes, no Koran quotes. There are likewise no quotes from the US Constitution or the English Bill of Rights, for example. Appeal courts interpret primary documents, through the appeal process for cases that come up from lower courts. U&M is also cited. Again, none of the cited sources are primary sources; all of the cited sources are secondary or tertiary. If you feel there is a need for additional cites, that is fine; you or any other editor are always free to add additional citations. Wikipedia should be cited well, with reliable and verifiable sources. As for the Emerson case, it did not grant or even redefine the right to keep and bear arms; it only interpreted the right relative to a primary source (namely, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution). As for Parker, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this case, although certiorari has been granted and arguments were presented a few weeks ago. A final SCOTUS decision is expected by June. Wikipedia does not require edits or choices of cited sources to conform to User:SaltyBoatr's rules, but rather to Wikipedia's rules. If you would accept the need to include all major viewpoints with reliable and verifiable cites, instead of always pushing a gun-control POV and Wikilawyering for censorship of individual rights points of view, none of this would be occurring. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
By that logic, it would OK with you to delete the discussion of Emerson and Parker in the "Modern Commentary" section of this article, right? The article gives coverage to Emerson and Parker court cases, and therefore these two court rulings which you directly quote are 'primary' in the context of this article's topic. You didn't answer my question (again): Why not just avoid this dispute by finding reliable third party book sourcing? Is there some reason for your avoidance of that alternate route to resolution? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
By that logic, all modern commentary on the right to bear arms, including the most scholarly sources imaginable, becomes "primary sources" by being discussed in the "modern commentary" section, which gives coverage to just such sources. PubliusFL (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

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

You appear to not comprehend two concepts, 1) That our duty is to edit the article to the POV balance found in reliable sources, to understand the POV which may not be our own, and to set aside the influences of our own personal POV. 2) That the encyclopedia is to be written from a global perspective, and that 'keep and' is USA centric, while 'right to bear arms' has a global perspective. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who does not comprehend your first point. You simply discount reliable sources, for arbitrary and heavily wikilawyered reasons, that do not meet your standards of being sufficiently biased toward an American gun-control proponent POV. The subject of possession ("keep") of arms in the subject Right is global. I'm sorry this fact does not fit into your agenda. But so that we can move toward a resolution... Is right to arms an acceptable alternative title for you? Do you agree that right to keep and bear arms should not redirect to this article? tc2011 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that this article should not give excess representation of the "American gun-control" point of view. It should give a balanced coverage, per WP:UNDUE.
No. I think that the topic of a right to "bear arms" has a obvious notability to justify an article on this topic in Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Presently, the article has a very heavy bias in favor of the American gun-control proponent POV. Let me remind you that, until very recently, the "definition" section of this article contained two sentences, each sourced to a publication of the Brady Campaign and authored by Sarah Brady herself. The current title and much of the remaining article (except, perhaps, the "civilian usage" section to which you have of course objected in toto) is a reflection of the view popularized by her organization. You conveniently ignore the global references to possession in reference to the Right. Please clarify: should right to keep and bear arms no longer redirect to right to bear arms and should this constitute a separate article? From your objections to "keep and," you seem to indicate that these are two separate rights. tc2011 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming the article to address POV issues and NPOV dispute with the article

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

Although "right to keep and bear arms" is NPOV, notable, historical, a widely (and globally) recognized description of the topic that addresses the global issues of possession and use of arms addressed in the article[50] and thus is an extremely appropriate title for this Wikipedia article, "right to arms" may be acceptable. Another editor has indicated that this article should only be about the military definition[51], which could work (ignoring for a moment American gun-control proponent POV problems) if right to keep and bear arms were its own article, because the Right clearly has a notable and global "possession" component. However, I think we all know that if a separate article were started, there would be an immediate movement to merge. So... if the current article is to address the global issue of possession, which it logically and historically must and currently does, the title should do what titles are supposed to do and represent the article that follows it without ideological deletions or cherry picking of less notable sources. But...in order to develop consensus and move away from the current memory-holing of possession and its accompanying American gun-control proponent bias, I believe right to arms could be an acceptable re-titling. tc2011 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have moved article to "Right to arms", and have gone through the article, addressing the POV issues. If there are any issues remaining, please re-tag the article and identify on the talk page what the remaining issue(s) is(are). Thanks. Yaf (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have clarified some points and noted certain beliefs were controversial, and corrected some unsourced POV statements. More remain. I noticed at least one source was simply a newspaper editorial. Surely this is not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article? I've left it in place for now. tc2011 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Yaf moved the article, but that the term "right to arms" is the more obscure having 92k ghits] versus the article title 'right to bear arms' with with 902k ghits. This appears to be going against the zeitgeist by 10:1. Is there a rational for this? Worse, the term 'right to arms' historically pertains to heraldry[52]. What is the encyclopedic benefit of this confusion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The "right to bear arms" is a descriptive term reflecting the POV of the gun control crowd supporting a militia/collective only right interpretation. The "right to keep and bear arms" is a more neutral title, being part of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but reflects a POV of the gun rights crowd, implying an individual right as well as a militia right. "Right to arms" is a more neutral title than either, per the previous discussion. Hence, the reason for the title change was to improve NPOV. Yaf (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yaf, you speak of 'United States...POV' and remove the globalize tag? Which is it? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yaf reverted again[53], can we resolve this disagreement without edit war? Seriously, approximately 90%+ of the article is US-anglo centric. Can there be any question about the lack of global balance? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No campaign has been conducted against any editor for making contributions to Project Firearms articles. However, administrative actions against edit warring by editors unable to follow Wikipedia rules (regarding WP:3RR, etc.) are commonly executed against disruptive editors to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. Inclusion of all major viewpoints in articles, with properly cited sources, is highly encouraged by all Wikipedia editors. On the other hand, edit warring by a lone editor, who continually insists on censorship of major points of view that are properly cited, against the larger Wikipedia community, is regarded as disruptive, and usually results in progressively longer and longer blocks for continued edit warring by the one disruptive editor. If a disruptive editor then sees reports of his violations of WP:3RR as attempting to get him banned, this is a misreading of Wikipedia policy. Neutral editing does not mean censorship is permitted of all content that a disruptive editor finds offensive. Wikipedia is not censored. All major points of view, with proper cites, should be included in articles. Equating "editing neutrally and globally" to mean censorship is likewise a gross misreading of Wikipedia policies. Yaf (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Let the facts speak for themselves. On May 6th you reported me for WP:3RR, with a false claim that this edit was a revert, which resulted in my ban. On May 4th you campaigned to WikiProject Firearms[54] for support of your attempt to get me banned, which you filed in your May 4th appeal[55] to the Arbitration Committee. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

"Freedom to bear arms" is a commonly used legal term for this right. See the 5th Circuit's use of this wording in context here. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution similarly uses a "keep and bear arms" wording. All of the identified synonyms are thus well represented in practice and are in common use where a right to arms exists. As for a right to arms being a global right, it is decidedly not. It is a right that is still, or, in some cases, was, protected or recognized among many countries with an English Common Law history, but is not a right that is commonly protected or recognized among dictatorships and totalitarian Governments, for example. Advocating censorship of Wikipedia content regarding rights protected under the United States Constitution, under a pretext that such rights are somehow not global, is a wild misreading and abuse of Wikipedia policies. "Globalize" does not mean "delete". Neither does "globalize" mean censorship on Wikipedia of text simply because one editor "doesn't like it". Yaf (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yaf, what the...? Your proof of a 'commonly used legal term' offered in your 5th Circuit pdf link does not include the phrase "freedom to bear arms". This is outrageous logic, an egregious violation of WP:SYN and POV pushing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look at footnote no. 1 on page 2 here, in the right hand column. The terminology is clearly there. Your refusal to read cites, or to accept content contrary to your extreme POV, is becoming legendary. Yaf (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The footnoted wording given is actually "freedom to possess firearms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. The footnote no. 1 on page 2 here, in the right hand column, reads as follows, “We need not decide whether the Second Amendment's boundaries are properly defined through strict scrutiny analysis, though it remains certain that the federal government may not restrain the freedom to bear arms based on mere whimsy or convenience. See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 261.” It clearly says "freedom to bear arms". Please stop your POV pushing and start reading cites. Yaf (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I add a 'USA, not global, qualifier to that sentence then? Or will that get me banned again? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] explanation of revert

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

Neither word is particularly spectacular there, actually, but, 'some' is more neutral than 'many'. We should explore re-wording that sentence, to a more neutral version.
Regarding the Senator's "title", it really seems out of place to me, and, somewhat WP:SYN. In looking over it again, there's a bit in there as well, about Sarah Brady, that should similarly go as well, probably (although, that's what she's known for, whereas the other person is a legislator). Anyhow, hope some of this helps clear a bit of this up. SQLQuery me! 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would favor replacing the word "many" with the word "all". Also, I would favor removing the political quote from Orin Hatch as it being a political claim, and not a encyclopedic 'fact'. I am not convinced that political documents meet the "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard required by policy WP:SOURCES. I don't object to the idea presented, but just object to the vagary of the sourcing and would prefer to see a higher WP:V quality, for instance a scholarly book or some such. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Only one problem. "All" is factually incorrect. There are numerous well-respected books and articles by other historians that would counter this false claim (by Cramer, Hardy, etc.). "Some" is clearly more factual than "All", and "Some" is more neutral than even "Many". Yaf (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Give the full citations please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Use of True Primary Texts

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

The original research analysis of the text of the Declaration of Independence as it relates to the definition of bear arms against is unsourced (and does not address the definition of bear arms). SaltyBoatr has suggested instead of removing this apparent original research that *I* should dig up a citation for this particular analysis ("Instead of adding sourcing, you deleted it."),[56] though I have no idea who originally included this, and do not know whence it was obtained, or even that it was obtained from anywhere. This is ridiculous. If someone has a citation, please include it, otherwise this original research will be removed. --tc2011 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It was put in by editor BruceHallman here. No reference was ever included or given. It is original research; it interprets a primary source; it should be removed. Yaf (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It would be more helpful if you were ask for sourcing, versus deleting the passage. I recall reading this sourcing in a book, but the exact book escapes my memory at the moment. This sourcing also is found in the amicus brief to the Emerson case from the Potowmack Institute[57] quote:
""Bearing Arms" in Naval Service. Perhaps the most revealing use of "bear arms" as a figurative expression of military duty concerning service with the Continental or state navies or service aboard privateers. This type of military service, on the high seas or coastal waters as a pilot or seaman— or as an impressed sailor on a British warship— was just as much "arms bearing" in 18th century linguistic practice as was service in the militia. And there is no ambiguity of meaning. Sailors did not "carry" weapons as a normal part of their duties. Rather, they manned the sails or performed other non-armed jobs aboard ship. ... This usage is captured most persuasively in the clause of the Declaration of Independence..."
Do you still have objections to restoring this passage which you deleted? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you don't cite the book you think you remember reading it in, it depends on if court documents are acceptable sources for Wikipedia, doesn't it? --tc2011 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What is your answer to your question? Please respond, as I would like that passage restored ASAP, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying court documents are acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles? --tc2011 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Bear Arms" v. "Bear Arms Against"

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

The phrase "bear arms against," as defined by the O.E.D., is an English idiom distinct from "bear arms." As such, its inclusion only seems to clutter the article and set the stage for some original research.[58] Does anyone object to its removal? --tc2011 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Where does the OED say this is "an English idiom distinct from "bear arms". It appears you are using WP:SYN here and I object. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smoothing of Awkward Edits

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

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

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

Because of your removal of the neutralizing wording, (and footnote) I have added back the POV warning tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Have removed the POV tagline; current text is more neutral, and is less bizarrely repetitive than the insertions that were removed previously by tc2011. If there are POV issues, please identify what they are and they can be fixed. Tagging every gun-related political article and then never identifying or fixing the POV "issues" (if they even do exist) is not conducive to improving Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I did not delete the footnote (it was simply a duplicate), as is speciously charged, nor did I remove the meaning of these edits. Their meaning (minus the bizarre repetition) was retained, and the citation is still in place. --tc2011 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over POV tag.

Yaf appears to dispute that there is a POV dispute[59]. Yaf do you dispute that there is a POV dispute? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please specifically identify the text that you're disputing, explain your problem, and suggest an alternative on this talk page. Vague accusations of POV only serve to disrupt and are not helping to move this conversation forward. --tc2011 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been explained over and over see above. Specifically, I see the push away from the historical meaning of "bear arms" towards a individual right meaning. The shift is out of balance of the reliable sources which violates policy WP:UNDUE. Also, the blur of the decidedly USA local as it it were a universal global issue is inappropriately framing the issue as favoring gun rights globally. Indeed, gun rights globally is uncommon, rather most of the world including the UK has chosen to democratically legislate severe gun control. As to specific text, there are many problems, one recent "specific" is your removal of the fact that Cramer clearly states that "usage of the expression "bear arms" in government documents referred overwhelmingly to the profession of military service." Also, the Declaration of Independence inclusion of the term 'bear arms' for conscripted sailer's (when these deck hands did not even get to touch gun powder) is well documented by reliable secondary sourcing. Instead of adding sourcing, you deleted it. Your deletion of that passage causes undue POV shift off balance. The renaming of the article, which Yaf did during my block, a block which resulted after Yaf falsely reported my constructive edit as if it was a revert, has improperly shifted the POV off a neutral balance point. Remember the balance point is to be determined by the weight found in the reliable sourcing, not the weight of opinions of the involved editors. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The only push here has been to suppress or twist reliable sources that balance the article's systemic bias of researchers who focus solely on government documents, particularly of the United States, in portraying the historical meaning of a phrase that was actually in wider English usage. You attribute the quotation "usage of the expression "bear arms" in government documents referred overwhelmingly to the profession of military service" to Cramer, but that text does not appear in the source. Cramer does in fact use the term "overwhelmingly" when characterizing the claims of researchers suffering from selection bias, but you have twisted and misrepresented his words. What Cramer actually says is, "If you look in databases consisting almost entirely of government documents, it should not be a surprise that most of the uses will be governmental in nature." What you are doing here is fundamentally dishonest and deceitful. Just because the section/article to date has been systemically biased and only contained sources from a narrow and non-neutral POV does not mean it should remain so to suit the interests of an involved editor. Regarding your 3 blocks[60]...just a guess, but it seems you are engaging in a variety of disruptive and counter-productive tactics, multiple reverts being one of them. Regarding your primary source/OR, see above Use of True Primary Texts and "Bear Arms" v. "Bear Arms Against". The quotation you keep reinserting doesn't even address the definition of bear arms, rather, it addresses the definition of bear arms against.
The reasons given for inserting the POV tag appear to be based on dishonest representations of reliable sources, and its insertion serves to maintain the systemically biased history of this article. This is an improper use of the POV tag, therefore I suggest that it be removed. --tc2011 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Dishonest? We have some work to do, if we hope to ever understand and tolerate each other as co-editors. Presently we disagree at the most fundamental level, which is that we disagree that we have a dispute. (Wow. Read the tag.) Quoted from the tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Yet, you insist on removing the tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent my suggestion that the POV tag shouldn't be used as a disruptive tactic to maintain a biased/unbalanced status quo as "insistence on removing the tag." I trust that you are not implying I have removed the POV tag. --tc2011 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of POV Disputes and Proposed Solutions

  • That the article has a long-standing American gun control proponent POV.
  • That the article gives WP:UNDUE to non American gun control POVs.
  • Solution: Provide citation from verifiable sources that all verifiable sources support the American gun control proponent POV.
  • That the article gives WP:UNDUE to the American gun control proponent POV. An editor claims that "all"[61] verifiable sources support the militia-only definition of "bear arms," yet there is no substantiated evidence[62] that all, or even a majority, of verifiable sources take this view. The only evidence cited so far is that an editor claims "The 'some' word implies that there is peer reviewed research to the contrary, and I don' think that there is any peer reviewed research to the contrary."[63] This is claimed even after peer-reviewed citations are given in addition to other verifiable sources to the contrary.
  • Solution: Provide content and citations from balanced and verifiable sources.
Which gives rise to the next POV dispute...
  • That the article suffers from systemic bias of the American gun control proponent POV demographic, and has consequently incorporated sources primarily from that POV.
  • Solution: Provide content and citations from balanced and verifiable sources.
  • That the article has a USA focus and thus is not global.
  • Solution: Provide additional sources describing the international right to arms.

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

Another extreme POV push has been inserted by User:SaltyBoatr: "However, while the researchers Cramer and Olson confirm that the term 'bear arms' in government documents overwhelmingly involved usages related to military service, when the study was expanded to non-governmental documents, some non-military usages were found:". This is a totally false piece of Original Research, that turns the findings of Cramer & Olson to the exact opposite of what is actually contained in their paper. Cramer and Olson actually state that U&M found overwhelmingly military service definitions in the Government documents that they cited, due to selective bias in the selection of the documents that they cite, and that extensive non-military usages were found when extending beyond the select set of only the Government documents that U&M cite. This statement needs to be removed and reverted back to the older, neutral wording. Rather than reverting, SaltyBoatr needs to revert this himself. Otherwise, it is just one more example of extreme POV pushing, counter to what the source actually says. Yaf (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, the text that you have added does misrepresent and twist the authors' meaning, as you did here, to conform to the unverifiable POV that "all"[64] verifiable sources support a militia-only definition of 'bear arms.'[65] Please revert so as not to further jeopardize the NPOV of this article, and to avoid edit warring. --tc2011 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Author's meaning? Pardon me, Cramer and Olson, at best, claim "a number" of individual rights uses. They do not quantify what "a number" means. I have read the research on this, and "a number" actually means a small handful out of many hundreds of uses. My edit is solidly based on the Cramer and Olson sourcing, and no revert is needed. Indeed, your complaint is upon the figurative Cramer and Olson "author's meaning" in your imagination. Mine is based on a literal reading of their words. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation does not "reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)."[66] Not at all. --tc2011 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the opposite. These authors state bluntly, direct quote: "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts." They go on and elaborate what they mean by "almost entirely" by citing a few examples which they claim to be exceptions. This is fact, not interpretation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Again you ignore the fact that this is part of the source's criticism of "previous scholarly examination." The source is not confirming previous conclusions. --tc2011 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
A "literal reading" taken out of context. The next sentence in Cramer & Olson regarding their opinion of U&M's previous "scholarly examination" is "But this is perhaps reflective of a selection bias problem." Cramer & Olson are thus countering the claim of U&M, contrary to what you inserted. Hence, what is missing is neutrality, context, and conformance to what the Cramer and Olson paper actually says, not what you you have read elsewhere and interpreted incorrectly, contrary to what their paper says. Your OR needs to be removed from the article, and the article needs to be reverted to the neutral statement that was there before. This needs to be done immediately. Yaf (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How have I taken anything out of context? Cramer is simply stating that there are exceptions to the prior scholarly finding that there are hundreds of 'military use' examples. Cramer a very few exceptions which he describes simply as "a number". In my opinion, Cramer is guilty of shoddy scholarship by not quantifying that number, but it is clear that it is a very small number which should be given appropriate weight. Have you read the Heller amicus brief[67] on this topic? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is ironic that Cramer criticizes the prior scholarly findings for systemic bias, but rather than doing a statistical analysis to control for effects of systemic bias, Cramer instead proceeds to 'cherry pick' usages favoring his 'individual rights' point of view. Cramer's cherry picking of data is also a form of systemic bias. Why should this article give equal weight to Cramer's shoddy scholarship? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this revert edit[68] to be part of a long term edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Yaf, It is you, not me, who did the revert[69]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Again, you twist the meaning of Cramer & Olson to exactly opposite what their conclusion actually is. The selective quotation you favor is immediately followed by a sentence that is a criticism of U&M's previous "scholarly examination" and that states "But this is perhaps reflective of a selection bias problem." Please look at an Admin's comment on this very topic and discussion, here. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "unilateral" appears wrong. I see that multiple scholars have found that the term "bear arms" meant to serve military service. Indeed, it is the Cramer and Olson paper that appears unilateral. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Unilateral" is an appropriate word here, as it describes a conclusion "of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject; one-sided."[70] --tc2011 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Move back to "Right to bear arms"

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

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

[edit] Meaning of "bear arms"

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the fresh opinion and insight. I am a bit apprehensive that you may or may not be able to separate your personal opinion from your editorial duty to edit based on the opinion balance found in the reliable sources. This comes from my observation that all the sourcing you cite, seems to be from a 'pro-gun' slant. I would hope that you are able to read the sources, both with which you agree and disagree. In the recent past, this article has had the problem of personal POV pushing.
Regarding your concern that the Oxford English Dictionary definition is WP:OR, it is not. There are several reliable sources that analyze the meaning of 'bear arms' through a reading of the Oxford English Dictionary, like here here and here.
Also, I support the article name "Right to Bear Arms" for the same WP:NAME reasoning your give. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would assume more good faith upon the part of admins like CHL. His editing history does not suggest any kind of preoccupation with this topic, unlike that of some other editors here, and he was completely open about the POV of the sources he put forth and the reason he cited them. The sourcing you cite (Yassky, Crooker, and Silveira v. Lockyer) on the OED issue all has a definite anti-gun slant, and unlike CHL you did not disclose that fact. So do you question your own ability to separate your personal opinion from your editorial duties?
Both of you make good points about the OED: it's not OR, but it probably should be cited to a reliable source for the analysis, like the Yassky article. I think the WP:NAME point is a good one, too -- maybe this article should be moved back to its old name.
Incidentally, the third of your "reliable sources" is the 9th Circuit opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer. So, do you now take the position that appellate court opinions can be reliable sources? PubliusFL (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually you are mistaken. The third ref is a book, ISBN:1425925804, not an appellate court document. Also, it is remarkable that you view the Oxford English Dictionary as anti-gun, and it reveals the depth of the POV battle surrounding the editing this article. And thirdly, now there are three of us now that favor moving this article back to its old name. Certainly, I will try to maintain WP:AGF, but when I see only pro-gun sources in Luke's citations, I am asking a fair question. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't characterize the OED as anti-gun, I characterized the three sources you pointed to ("There are several reliable sources that analyze the meaning of 'bear arms' through a reading of the Oxford English Dictionary, like here here and here") as anti-gun. I explicitly stated the sources I was talking about in parentheses ("Yassky, Crooker, and Silveira v. Lockyer"), so there is no excuse for trying to make it look like I was accusing the OED of bias. Regarding the third ref, it is true that the text is found in a book, but nonetheless it is a verbatim reprinting of the Silveira v. Lockyer opinion. PubliusFL (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would support the renaming of the article to Right to keep and bear arms, as it is the wording used in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as many other international documents. Right to bear arms, though, is decidedly an anti-gun wording. The reason for the current wording is to avoid taking either side in the pro-gun and anti-gun camps. It is why the the consensus was reached previously, to name the article Right to arms. Yaf (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would favor either title over the current one. I'm not sure why "right to bear arms" has an anti-gun slant. I'm new to this particular subtopic, but I've not seen it described that way.
SaltyBoatr: I don't have an agenda here, but I found the exchange between Professors Kates and Halbrook very enlightening. As is the opinion in the Rhode Island case. Both of these are debates, not one-sided sources. I prefer them to the current lead becuase they actually address each other's arguments whereas the sources now cited are talking past each other (i.e., "bear arms" in the PA constitution is mixed in with Latin analysis and the OED). I find this jumbled intro to be synthetic. There's no reason to separate the sections; it's not helpful.
Instead, let's concisely lay out each position and represent the academic dialog that actually exists in the literature.
Also, SaltyBoayr, I would appreciate if you drop the paranoia. I'm not a POV warrior on this topic. Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke. Thanks, I am willing, mutually, to "drop the paranoia". Do you offer similar advice to Yaf and Publius, who (see above) both are framing the task of editing this article as a pro-gun/anti-gun POV battle? It is a little curious that you see paranoia in me, but not those two. I emphatically support your advice to "represent the academic dialog that actually exists in the literature". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, I'm not sure what you were reading, but my comments were a direct response to you, trying to point out how the insinuations you were making about Cool Hand Luke applied just as much to you. I wasn't doing any framing, I was explaining the consequences of the framing that you had applied. PubliusFL (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr: their first messages to me did not say "I am a bit apprehensive that you may or may not be able to separate your personal opinion from your editorial duty." I have no strong personal opinion on this topic, so your message was quite paranoid. You didn't even look at the sources I found most intriguing. I have some U.S. legal education, some knowledge about guns, but no strong opinion about gun rights. In fact, I think the collective rights argument seems a bit stronger to me. Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I see POV framing in PubliusFL comment "anti-gun slant" on 21:34 30 May 2008 (UTC) and in the majority of Yaf's comments, most recently "anti-gun wording" on 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC). In any case, sorry for asking. I am happy to accept and welcome Cool Hand Luke at his word. And actually I did look at your sources. I see that the Kopel article, pages 124-126 are very much 'on topic', though David Kopel does not represent a neutral point of view, but even Kopel acknowledges "The majority adopted the theory...that the phrase 'bear arms' has an exclusive military meaning". My opinion of the Anthony Dennis article found on guncite.com is that it is a polemic with an agenda which we should use only with caution. I hadn't read the Halbrook article on JSTOR, because it is subscription access only, but I just looked through a library card account, and see that it is also a polemic, yet very much worthwhile per WP:RS. Your three sources, Kopel, Dennis and Halbrook, all are written from a solid 'individual rights' POV advocacy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
...All published by law professors in law journals. And the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, which you're too busy to look at. Note again that the Halbrook piece is one of two: a debate. Note again that unlike you, I noted that the sources were biased. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does being a law professor mean they are not polemic? I advise we favor the work of history professors, over law professors. Also, I disagree that court documents meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:PSTS. And, pardon me, I am quite aware of when sources are biased. Don't be fooled by the smearing of my reputation. In the eyes of a pro-gun ideologue, my arguments for a neutral article appear to be 'anti-gun'. I am not anti-gun, I am simply interested in the article having a neutral point of view as measured by the balance of the reliable sourcing, and not measured by the balance of opinions of the interested editors. There is a disproportion attraction of 'pro-gun' POV editors to this article which results in systemic bias. Human nature is such that it is difficult for editors to separate a true neutral point of view from their own personal point of view. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is smearing your reputation, SaltyBoatr, your actions[71][72] and block log speak for themselves. --tc2011 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that you engage in innuendo and avoid my concern about systemic bias. Is it more important to shift the question to a person than the neutral balance point of the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you really not see that my wording was an intentional mirroring of your own language, "'pro-gun' slant," in the immediately preceding comment (16:29, 30 May 2008)? I based my wording directly on your own. So if I was engaged in POV framing, so were you. PubliusFL (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I do not think it would be proper to move back to "right to bear arms," per previous discussions. Consensus does not appear to have changed, anyhow. May I remind everyone that, prior to the move, the "definition" of the article topic was sourced to Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign, adopting her terminology. It was noted that "right to keep and bear arms" would have been the more appropriate title, since it (1) succinctly addressed the global characteristics of the right (possession and use), (2) addressed the actual content of the article, (3) borrowed language from the most widely recognized historical and NPOV document regarding the right (as opposed to more obscure and/or POV documents). Although "right to arms" is a less artful title than "right to keep and bear arms," it clearly enables interested readers to find the article, and effectively eliminates POV concerns in the title. --tc2011 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I count three editors favoring the move back, and two opposed. The consensus appears to have changed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I favor changing the article title to Right to keep and bear arms. If this is not appropriate due to concerns over balancing POV concerns (this was the reason that the original consensus was made to name the article Right to arms, by the way, instead of the more common Right to keep and bear arms), then Right to arms should be retained. Right to bear arms is decidedly an anti-gun title, being that it is the title that is used by anti-gun organizations opposed to an individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, through removing the "keep" portion of the Second Amendment wording while focusing on the "militia" content of the Second Amendment wording. Yaf (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not favor moving the article back to Right to bear arms. Like Yaf, I think that Right to keep and bear arms is more appropriate, but I honestly don't think there is a snowball's chance that it will be moved there. In the meantime, it should stay where it is. --Hamitr (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Incidentally, can someone provide a source showing that "right to bear arms" is POV? It's used by gun rights advocates all the time—both in short hand, and on full reference. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Right to bear arms is not generally used by all gun rights advocates. Although this is clearly not an unbiased source, Section 5 (and to a lesser extent, Section 6) of the following text does make a POV case about the Right to bear arms wording. If others agree with changing the title to Right to keep and bear arms, then we should change the title to Right to keep and bear arms, as it is clearly the most common wording. Yaf (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Google and Lexis-Nexis (U.S. law reviews, combined) "clearly" show that right to bear arms is the most common wording. I get that you don't like Brady's shtick, but lots of gun rights advocates are fine with the term. See, for example, Eugene Volokh and Dave Kopel. The fact that Brady made a bad argument is not a good enough reason to violate WP:NAME.
That said, if there's consensus for "Right to keep and bear arms," we should move it immediately. As far as I can tell, only one person opposes it. It's not used quite as frequently as "right to bear arms," but it's used nearly as often. "Right to arms" is not. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the global right to bear arms, and the 'right to keep and bear arms' which is US centric and related to the US Second Amendment. I wouldn't oppose an article split, one for the global topic, and another for the USA topic. 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We've been through this before. The title "right to keep and bear arms" more accurately represents the global nature of the right in question.[73][74] I think we all know that launching a separate article would result, appropriately, in an immediate merge. What you suggest, SaltyBoatr, would have the article going in circles, and accomplish nothing but disruption. --tc2011 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of a solution that I like. The specific language "right to keep and bear arms" does evoke the U.S. 2nd Amendment, which has its own article. "Right to bear arms," however, does imply an anti-gun POV because it plays into the contention that the phrase "bear arms," by itself, refers to military service. The English Bill of Rights says "have arms," and Blackstone talks about "having arms" or "having and using arms." PubliusFL (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what led the original move to right to arms. However, I tend to agree with Cool Hand Luke that right to arms is an inferior title. Right to keep and bear arms, however, is objectively the more appropriate title per WP:NAME, because:
  • it succinctly encompasses the major and global elements of the issue (possession and use), (Use of "and")
  • it is taken from the most notable and globally recognized English language document dealing with the issue,
  • it is taken from an historical document, and as such is objectively NPOV,
  • it succinctly and more completely describes the actual content of the article,
  • it is more artfully descriptive than the current title, and, of course,
  • it is in popular use.
So... This is where we're at. --tc2011 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is far from global, your Anglo-American bias ignores 90% of the world. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an English language article, so...we use English words to describe the issues. Do you have citations to the original language (Spanish, Chinese, etc.)[75][76] documents that describe the global elements of possession and use? I'd be happy to see you include those other original languages, if that's in line with Wikipedia norms. --tc2011 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The Right to keep and bear arms is not a US-only label. See for example, http://www.rkba.ca/, a website in Canada. Likewise, the "keep and bear arms" terminology is also used in England and Australia. On the other hand, the Right to bear arms terminology is largely a modern, gun-control-preferred terminology used only in the US, created specifically to stress the collective or militia-only interpretation of the Second Amendment. Although a Google search does show Right to bear arms is currently slightly more common than Right to keep and bear arms, closer examination of the search results shows many hits among US-based gun-control-oriented websites. Among significant sections of the search results, there is considerable rancor associated with the terminology Right to bear arms, primarily for its tacit support of gun-control by its very name. This article should not be used to push such a POV. Prior to the rise of gun control in the 20th Century, there is is no significant usage of the term Right to bear arms, although Freedom to bear arms was commonly used. Freedom to bear arms is more appropriate than Right to bear arms, but Right to keep and bear arms is the more historically common and more historically neutral term, with considerable international usage. Freedom to bear arms was primarily used only in the US. Taking the Brady shtick as an official name, couched in vague Wikipedia policy terms, is not a neutral approach to naming the article. This article should not take their position, but should take a neutral approach to selecting the title, choosing a term with significant international usage. Right to keep and bear arms meets these criteria. Yaf (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All your 'proof' is Anglo. Sorry, the "keep and" is decidedly US centric, or at the least Anglo centric. Moving to 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' would entail splitting the article into Anglo and non-Anglo versions. We must not move the article and ignore the 90% of the world which is not Anglo. Of all the suggestions, Right to Bear Arms is the best. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Verbatim "keep" is only Anglo insofar as it's the English language. English language Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in English. This is getting ridiculous. Of course we're not going to find "keep" verbatim in Spanish, Chinese, etc.,[77][78] just as we will not find "bear" or any other word of the various suggested titles. The meaning, however, is what's important, and that is "keep" and "bear" accurately, NPOViewly, succinctly, and completely address the global aspects of possession and use of arms which are both intrinsic to the topic of this article. --tc2011 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You have just touched on the nut of this dispute. You prefer to separate the words "bear" from "arms", knowing full well that the two word term "bear arms" has historical meaning you hope to suppress, which is different from the modern meaning "bear" (to carry) "arms". Similar, you seek to emphasis "keep" because of your agenda, which is to advance the theory that "keep" means individually possess. Of course, this is but one POV, whcih you incessantly seek to advance. I am arguing that your POV is but one POV, and needs to be counterbalanced to comply with WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the problem I see: If, by your own contention, the phrase "bear arms" has a historical meaning relating to military service rather than possession of arms and must be analyzed as a whole, then using the title "right to bear arms" for this article does not adequately cover the English tradition, which speaks of "having" or "having and using" arms (see the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone). It also does not adequately cover the right contained in the Mexican constitution, which speaks of a "derecho a poseer armas" ("right to possess arms"). It sounds like you are advocating a title that you intend not to cover individual possession of arms, which would obviously not be global considering these English and Mexican examples. I guess it boils down to this: what does the historical meaning of the phrase "bear arms," which you state is different from the modern meaning of the phrase, have to do with those global examples of arms-related rights that never used that particular phrase? PubliusFL (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You could also point to the Thomas Jefferson game bill speaking of 'shall bear a gun' mentioned in Cool Hand Luke's Anthony Dennis article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate your highly nuanced question, it hits the nail on the head. Indeed, we face this dilemma, walking a line between the modern 'having arms' concept and the antiquated military service based concept. Therefore, I favor coverage of the topic as it has evolved over time trending from the 17th and 18th Century where the predominate understanding (with some exceptions) was 'military service', trending towards the modern understanding where the concept is viewed broadly as the 'having arms' concept. I acknowledge the spectrum of understandings, as clearly, the concept has evolved over time. Can we avoid having this article be a battlefront in modern gun politics, and instead try to represent the full spectrum of the trend of thought? The biggest reason I favor Right to bear arms is the main WP:NAME premise: What the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
One difficulty with your progression from the 17th-18th century with "military service" to a modern understanding with "having arms" is that the principal document using the "having arms" language (the English Bill of Rights of 1689) predates the principal document using the "bear arms" language (the U.S. Bill of Rights) by more than a century. If this article were primarily about the 17th-18th century English right, it seems pretty clear that Right to have arms would be the best title. If it were primarily about the U.S. federal right, it seems pretty clear that Right to keep and bear arms would be the best title. U.S. state constitutions vary between "right to keep and bear arms" (30 states) and "right to bear arms" (13 states), with Montana as the oddball ("right to keep or bear arms"). I'm lost about the best course of action. All titles that have been proposed seem equally unsatisfactory to me. Looking at the bright side, I suppose that makes them equally satisfactory. PubliusFL (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary dates the term 'bear arms' to Arber's English Garner circa 1568, much earlier than the 'principle document' you identify as the Bill of Rights. I think that part of the ambiguity problem is that firearms were used both for hunting and for militia use. I recall reading, per Joyce Lee Malcolm, a part of the reason for the English Bill of Rights stems from the tensions over game laws enacted to restrict militia firearms used for poaching game on royal lands. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Another point of view on this is contained in an editorial by Halbrook, that is here. It makes the case that, at least at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment, "bear" meant "carry". He also makes several other points germane to this discussion. It's worth a read. Yaf (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as seen in the Anthony Dennis article when Thomas Jefferson meant "carry a firearm" he wrote "bear a gun" and consistent with the vernacular when he meant to serve military service he used the two word term "bear arms". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but is the 1568 source in reference to a right? I ask because this article isn't about "bearing arms" per se, but about a right relating to bearing arms (whatever that may mean in this context), or possessing arms, or some combination of the two. What the phrase "bear arms" means in other contexts may be relevant but isn't necessarily so, especially when the document dating back closest to that time which does deal with a relevant "right" (the English Bill of Rights of 1689) does not use the phrase "bear arms." PubliusFL (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No I don't think it was a reference to a right. Regardless your objection presently appears moot after the page move. My question now, is why does the 1689 English Bill of Rights 'having arms' pertain to 'keep and bear arms'? I think the global article content now needs to be moved into a new split out article. The article topic now is US based, and the global content (everything except the keep and material is presently off topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Have" and "keep" pertain to the possession of arms, which is a global aspect of the right (as has been noted ad nauseum) that a certain editor's American gun-control POV pushing seeks to excise from the discussion.[79][80][81] --tc2011 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not pushing a gun-control POV. I am asking for neutrality balance. There is prominent POV that "Keep and bear arms" means the maintenance (and arming) of a well regulated militia versus the possession of individual guns. Do you deny that this alternate POV exists? The POV balance was improperly skewed by the recent page move. The choice of the verbatim wording of the Second Amendment for the article title (omitting the first thirteen words) has been identified in reliable sourcing (see Hemenway book) a reflection of the influences of a pro-gun POV campaign. I don't seek to excise your pro-gun POV, only to give it neutral balance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK, I've moved the article

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

What to do with the section on the United Kingdom and the Civil Law/Roman Law, Religious Law and Chinese Law sections, which are now off topic? Split the article into a global and a US based article? Certainly, there is a huge difference between the global right(s) to arms and the US right to arms, perhaps such a split with disambiguation links makes sense. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
They're not off-topic, since the issues of possession and use indicated by the new title are global. See the article. --tc2011 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you hold that "keep" in that context means possession of firearms. But that it just one POV. Can you please acknowledge that other POV's than your own exist, and that Wikipedia must accommodate? Right to Bear Arms seems a neutral compromise between the various POV's. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English Law Contradictions regarding the Bill Of Rights

From the article:

The English Bill of Rights 1689 set out the right of Protestants to have arms suitable for their own defense as allowed by law.[20] This was because of the fear the Protestants had in England of being disarmed that led to the Glorious Revolution and subsequently their guaranteed right to self-defense.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 included the provision that "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law."[23] The words "as allowed by Law" indicate in England this is considered a qualified rather than an absolute right. However this provision, along with many other pieces of ancient law, has been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal, the Bill of Rights had no special legal protection as a result of parliamentary sovereignty.


These two points use the same source to make different points, and contradict each other quite seriously. One uses it to state that Protestants were given the right to bear arms, while the second uses it to states that a right to bear arms did not exist at that time. The original source (with context added) states that:

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, taking into their most serious Consideration the best Means for attaining the Ends aforesaid, do in the First Place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare,

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law."

I personally feel that the second of the above points from the article is correct. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Faerie Queene (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a bad case of original research going on here... The source cited for the second of the above points [23] is a primary source, and the interpretation drawn from it is not cited at all, much less cited to a verifiable secondary source. So, the former statement is the one that should stand, as it has a verifiable secondary source [20]. Unless the editor who added this has a verifiable secondary source to substantiate the latter interpretation, I'm deleting it per WP:NOR. By the way, does anyone know how to search the article history to see who's adding this stuff? Just curious. --tc2011 (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Actually, both statements are largely correct. Parliamentary sovereignty permitted Parliament to rescind the right, unlike in the United States, where the US Constitution codified the then extant English law into a form that the US Congress cannot rescind, short of the Constitution being amended through a rather lengthy process. The Right to have arms has long ceased to be true in the UK due to parliamentary sovereignty. The English Bill of Rights is considerably different than the US Bill of Rights; Parliament can rescind rights at any time, if they so see fit. We do need to find a source for the second statement, of course. But, it shouldn't be hard to find a source regarding Parliamentary sovereignty relative to this. Yaf (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh? The drafters US Constitution chose to put the militia under government control and regulation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source that specifically addresses the issue at hand and the interpretation of the phrase "as allowed by law?" It seems that's what we need here to avoid synthesis and original research. --tc2011 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, (while a bit of a polemic), it covers the origins of the English Bill of Rights with considerable detail. I think key points she makes are: Prior to 1689, there was no "right" for a militia comprised of the people, but rather a 'duty' for the people to serve the King in the militia. And, that at that time the question was; where does the power reside? (With an army of a Catholic king who didn't trust the Protestant militia) or with the Protestant militia. This tension fomented a revolution. (Plus, the people hated restrictions on their ability to go hunting with guns on royal land.) Bearing Arms (that is: the people make up the militia) and hunting with guns were closely linked. (The same guns were used for both.) That did not mean that "bearing arms" meant hunting. One does not bear arms against a rabbit. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So add the citation. A "quote=" in the footnote would be helpful. Incidentally, other researchers note that one can, indeed, bear arms against rabbits... "[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the...purpose of killing game."[82] But you knew this. --tc2011 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I hadn't read that Sayoko Blodgett-Ford paper before. Have you read her entire paper? I like her conclusion, and agree with her premise that the 'right to bear arms' has changed over time. Still hanging your hat on a snippet from a rejected proposal by a minority at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention is pretty tenuous. I agree that isolated exceptions can be found, but the overwhelming number of 18th Century usages of the term 'bear arms' implied military context. Are you doing your Google search research to prove your point? Have you read[83] Garry Wills or Uviller and Merkel on this topic? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really have nothing to say to you that hasn't already been said before.
For the benefit of those chancing by this discussion, please read this talk page and follow these informative links: [84][85][86] --tc2011 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice once again that you attack me with innuendo, and fail to answer my questions. Is that how talk pages are supposed to work? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The text is being tagged for citation needed. --tc2011 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you request a cite that "as allowed by law" is a qualifier? That should be obvious per simple grammar. You didn't answer me earlier, have you read the Joyce Lee Malcolm book? How about this cite in Peter Squire's book? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is misleading to portray the phrase "as allowed by law" as a limitation on the English right, because English rights were restrictions only on the Crown. The question of the degree to which Parliament might choose to restrict arms is completely orthogonal to the question of the scope of the right to have arms under the 1689 Bill of Rights. If the article goes to the trouble of pointing out that the right to have arms was "qualified rather than absolute," it tends to lead to a misleading conclusion on the part of readers who are unaware of the context, which is that there is no such thing as an absolute right in the English Bill of Rights. PubliusFL (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] global?

Regarding this recent addition Provisions for or abridgments of the right also appear in Mexican, medieval, Israeli, Spanish, Cuban, and Chinese cultures. Please provide citation so I can read it in third party reliable sourcing, it appears to be entirely original research. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. --tc2011 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There are sources. Do you perhaps mean it's a synthesis problem, or is this really a complaint about the title? Cool Hand Luke 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)