Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/1

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Only one concern of many seems to have been addressed in the last week. This still fails the GA criteria on multiple issues of sourcing, focus and neutrality. Geometry guy 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the talk page for discussion of neutrality problems with the article. There are several issues under discussion, any one of which would cause the article to fail to meet good article criteria. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is some relevant discussion of this question over at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dispute over addition of POV tag. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has a long history of POV tag bombing this very article. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution for more history on his egregious behavior. There was also an ArbCom activity after the failed MedCom addressing this very behavior by SaltyBoatr. The point of the POV tagline dispute at present is apparently a disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling on Heller by SaltyBoatr, not on the neutrality of the article itself. Yaf (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaf's Arbcom petition was unanimously rejected[1]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No reason to make this personal. There are several editors beyond myself who question the neutrality of the article. One of the editors that declares the article to have "pro-rights" bias is Yaf[2] "The tone of the article is currently pro-rights...". This amounts to a stipulation that the article has a pro-rights neutrality skew, and a stipulation that violates the neutrality criteria of Good Articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with the lede:

• Due to the way in which the technical term "individual right" is used in political discourse, it can be misread as asserting more than it actually says. Therefore its unexplained (though wiki linked) use in the first sentence is misleading.
• The second sentence makes contentious assertions about history that are sourced to the SCOTUS instead of an appropriate scholarly source.
• The explicit mention of an individual right in the first sentence makes it appear that there cannot also be a collective right. The second paragraph asserts that disagreement about this was ended by the Heller decision. This does not seem to be correct.

There seem to be some serious neutrality issues in the body of the article, but I don't have time to present them right now. In my opinion this article fails GA criterion 4. The extreme opinions of some editors make it appear likely that it is hard to correct this, and if done the article will likely fail criterion 5. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to fail the GA test for numerous reasons - It violates neutrality by presenting one particular point of view as fact in the lead; it contains original research; it's confusing to read and is poorly written to boot. I hope that other editors come and look at this article as it seems troubling to me that this article ever passed any kind of GA review. To give just one specific example of the clear policy violations in this article, I'll repeat what Hans said. The lead "makes contentious assertions about history that are sourced to the SCOTUS instead of an appropriate scholarly source." Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS is absolutely a Reliable and Verifiable source, probably the best, for interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Any other interpretation is a lesser interpretation, with no legal bearing on affecting court cases. That said, adding additional content from lesser sources with academic interpretations would be fine, too, if they can be found. Being that Heller is a recent SCOTUS decision, however, the number of published academic books/papers is going to be rather limited. If you feel that there is original research content, then that should be tagged so that it can be fixed. The article is not currently marked as containing any original research. It appears that the neutrality dispute is more with the SCOTUS ruling than with the article, however. Yaf (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence. I have no problem with using the SCOTUS as a source for saying that "protecting the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons". (There is a potential cherry-picking problem here, but that's a different matter and has nothing to do with the authority of the SCOTUS on interpretation of the constitution.) So let's shoot this strawman with a silver bullet, stake him and bury him. The question is whether the SCOTUS is an appropriate source for historical statements. The lede currently claims that "history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents". This is a strong and unusual claim about history, establishing some kind of natural law, not just saying that some people at the time felt like that. This is just like we can cite a court on whether it's legal to sell or use a certain drug, but not for a contentious statement about the drug's efficacy. Just like we can't cite the legal opinion of a leading historian (with no relevant qualifications). --Hans Adler (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that is precisely what the court said in Heller, as noted in the subsequent footnote:

District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller. 554 U.S. ____ (2008). "[H]istory showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents." (Page 25) "In addition, in a shorter 1840 work Story wrote: 'One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.'" (Page 36)

Is the court a reliable source for interpreting the Second Amendment, and then giving a reason why they interpret the Second Amendment this way. Yes. As a matter of fact, if one accepts the authority of the court to interpret the Second Amendment, then one must accept the reasons for the interpretation that the SCOTUS gave. This lede for the article does no more than this. Is this a point that causes certain individuals to cringe. Undoubtedly. But is it the interpretation of the court regarding the reasons behind the Second Amendment. Absolutely. We should not "cherry pick", to use your phrase, the parts of the interpretation that we like, while ignoring the parts that we dislike. The US Constitution is considered anachronistic by many, especially those without experience with a Constitutional form of Government, more attuned with a Parliamentary form of democracy. However, if one is to be intellectually honest and accurate in writing about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, then one must accept the differences that come with the turf, warts and all. This article does no more than this. (That said, I do not oppose the addition of other lesser interpretations in the body of the article, even with a summary of these other interpretations being inserted into the lede; but, we must be concise here, and not make the lede into a leaden monstrosity.) Yaf (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the idea that if we accept the legal authority of a court, then everything opinion uttered by the court must be irrefutable historical fact is very faulty reasoning. I can't think that any serious scholar would believe this to be true. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nwlaw63, and going further. Yaf declared about sourcing directly from the court ruling: "We should not "cherry pick"...while ignoring the parts we dislike", that said, the article does exactly the opposite. Many, perhaps all, of the selective direct quotations are selected to advance the personal theories of the POV pushing editors. It would be much wiser to rephrase the article from a the perspective of neutral accounting of the reliable third party sources and to remove the selective quotations. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The SCOTUS, with the Heller landmark ruling, was breaking new legal ground which is a hallmark of 'primary sources'. The ruling contains interior conflicts, on its face it overturns a regulation requiring trigger locks on handguns, and in the same ruling it says that the constitution does not prohibit the government from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The dust has not settled on the effect and meaning of what the SCOTUS ruled. Direct quotes from Heller risk being interpretive due to selectivity and are treading very close to the WP:NOR threshold. It is false that the available reliable secondary sources analyzing Heller are "rather limited". Countless academic journal and law review articles have already been written[3] and at least six books published[4]. There is no actual need to tread on WP:NOR thin ice by using a primary source as a faux secondary source at this time. We can do better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The primary source here is the US Constitution. The Heller decision is clearly a secondary source interpreting the primary source. There is no original research difficulty here. Besides, only the SCOTUS has the authority to issue interpretations of the US Constitution that become case law determining interpretations. It would be a false economy to ignore the best secondary source there is regarding interpreting the US Constitution. This is also this same precedent on Wikipedia used in the other articles on the other Amendments, too. Yaf (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

While the SCOTUS has the authority 'judicially', this is not a judicial court. It is a global encyclopedia. Here we use a different standard. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The SCOTUS fails on at least two out of three of these standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets see. The SCOTUS is clearly reliable, being very methodical in granting certiorari, in hearing testimony, and in publishing rulings. The members of the High Court are also selected by the President and either selected or rejected by the Senate. This one looks ok. It is clearly a third party, being a third branch of Government, separate from the Congress that votes on Bills and from the Executive that signs them, while also being separate from the States that voted on Constitutional ratification in the first place. This one looks OK, too. Published... Hmmm. Well, the SCOTUS publishes their rulings in official Government documents. This one looks OK, too. "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Yep, these look good too. If errors are published, then corrections are published, too. On the other hand, your preference for refusing to use the interpretations of the only body which can issue legal interpretations of the Constitution appears to be fraught with problems. Looks like it meets all of the requirements, with margin to spare. Yaf (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is just silly to suggest that the judicial branch, being the "third branch" of government is therefore a "third party" source in context of Wikipedia policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Fails criteria 1a, 1b (WP:LEAD and WP:WTA), 2b, 2c, 3b, 4, possibly 5.
  • This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy.[citation needed] In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Drastically? According to whom? And where is this statistic taken from?
  • The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker, also known as The American Blackstone. "Earliest" needs a source.
  • Another one of the most important early commentaries on the Second Amendment was the 1833 book Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution authored by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story. According to whom?
  • Justice Joseph Story clearly viewed the original meaning of the Amendment as a concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared federal control over the militia: "clearly" is unsourced analysis of the quote.
  • This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion. Whose perception?
  • The controversy of a standing army for the United States existed in context of the Continental Forces that had won the American Revolutionary War which consisted of both the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress and of State and Militia Units. In opposition, the British Forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia, and Hessian mercenaries. Incomprehensible unsourced prose.
  • Federalists, on the other hand, believed that federal government must be trusted and that the army and the militias "ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal" of federal government. This belief was fundamentally stated by Alexander Hamilton: Fundamentally? Where does the analysis and quote in the first sentence come from?
  • Reaching a compromise between these widely disparate positions was not easy, but nonetheless, a compromise was negotiated with the result being the Second Amendment. And Wikipedia editors were there at the time to observe just how difficult it was.
  • The Pennsylvania ratification convention was the second state convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution and the first at which there was significant Anti-Federalist opposition. One of the main opposition points of contention was the Constitution's omission of a Bill of Rights.
  • In the early months of 1789, the United States was engaged in an ideological conflict between Federalists, who favored a stronger central government, and Anti-Federalists, who were skeptical of a strong central government. This conflict was accentuated by the recent news of a brewing, potentially violent revolution in France with similar Anti-Federal tensions. Also, the conflict in beliefs continued between northern states, that generally favored Federalist values, and southern states, that tended to share Anti-Federalist values.

  Intense concerns gripped the country of the potential for success or failure of the newly formed United States. The first presidential inauguration of George Washington had occurred just a few short weeks earlier.

  Anti-Federalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached, and James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

  I'm impressed by the drama and by the fact that weeks were particularly short at the time (6 days? 5 days? Or just the regular 7?). I'm less impressed by lack of citations to support statements of opinion and hyperbole.

  • For over a century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and how the Amendment applied, drew less interest than it does in modern times. The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. The notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside, but Justice Story "misidentified"[56] it as the "5th Amendment." Uncited.
  • Initially, the act included handguns, but the complaints of women who could more easily handle handguns than long guns reversed this additional position, and handguns were not included in the National Firearms Act. "Complaints" needs a source.
  • The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was aimed at those involved in selling and shipping firearms through interstate or foreign commerce channels. "was aimed at" - according to whom?
  • The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns. "Key" according to whom?
• Overall, this is a sprawling article about a two line amendment, albeit a very controversial and topical one. The first sentence isn't neutral, and the whole article does not provide a neutral analysis, with some segments favouring one viewpoint, and some segments favouring another. That would be okay if the article presented, described and attributed these viewpoints without engaging in them. It fails to do so, and isn't a good article right now. There's also an excess of quotation and unsourced analysis, and a misunderstanding of what is a primary vs. secondary source. I perused the talk page briefly and found the claim that the Supreme Court is a secondary source for the meaning of the amendment. Well, maybe in politics it is, but not on Wikipedia. It is a secondary source for what the amendment says, but there are plenty of such sources. However, in terms of its reports of its own judgements on what the amendment means, it is obviously a primary source. Secondary sources analyse multiple judgements by the Supreme Court and place them in context.
• At the moment this article is engaging in such analysis, and it needs to stop. GAR cannot resolve content disputes, but as a fellow editor, I would suggest making heavy cuts, and making fairly minimal factual references to the June 2008 judgment and its fallout. Then there is a good chance that the rest will be not so hard to fix. This is an encyclopedia, not a news source or a soapbox. Geometry guy 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't delist. Those which are calling for this article to be delisted are doing so because they disagree with the interpretation given the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. If the reasons given by SaltyBoatr, and those who support him, are sufficient, then no article about a legal issue can ever be a Good Article. If the Supreme Court is not to be considered a legitimate source, then all law articles (especially those about the Constitution) need to give equal weight to all interpretations. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would need to give equal weight to those who claim the Amendment was not legally adopted. Titles of Nobility Amendment would need to give equal weight to those who claim the Amendment was adopted and then hidden. The precedent SaltyBoatr would set is that, when it comes to the law at least, there are no fringe opinions and all possible interpretations of the Constitution deserve equal weight. SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  You are the only one here talking about equal weight and the only one suggesting the Supreme Court is not a legitimate source. I am not siding with SaltyBoatr, or disagreeing with the interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling. Neither am I agreeing with it. Wikipedia articles describe disputes, they do not engage in them. This article should not be a GA right now because it contains a confused mess of unsourced analysis. If you want the article to stay a GA, stop fighting over most recent 0.5% of the amendment's history and fix it! Geometry guy 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  SMP, my opinion that this article should be delisted has absolutely nothing to do with whether I agree with the Heller decision. It has to do with opinions voiced inside of that decision being presented as fact instead of the opinion of the decision. Doing this would be equally inappropriate if the majority decision had been the opposite. Furthermore, the overlong, chaotic article with its overreliance on quotations seems a far cry from the prose of a good article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the recent edit to the article? SMP0328. (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Response Then tell me what you want changed, instead of simply claiming the article is not neutral and shouldn't have a GA status. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my above detailed delist comment??? Geometry guy 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

<comments moved to talk page>

• Please discuss the article, not other editors. Geometry guy 09:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)