This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Beland, the problem I see with this addition[1] is first, the summary is far to generalized and thus makes it hard to assess what specifically was disputed. Second, this is a legal decision so the legal facts are what matters. It's not clear that Ellis is versed in the legal questions vs just history. Perhaps it would be better to cite specific examples vs a generalized statement. Many people have had an opinion on the case but we need to limit which ones we cover. So far this one doesn't seem DUE to me. Springee (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: A legal opinion is received not merely as something which affects the outcomes of legal cases, but also as a work of literature, something that affects public opinion and culture, and so on. Wikipedia is not a law journal; it is written for a general audience, and so is concerned with the larger social context. Ellis is not commenting on whether the legal case made in the opinion is sound. He is complaining, as a historian, that the opinion engages in what he calls "law office history" which he says doesn't accurately convey the full historical context, and which he says diverges from the historical meaning of the "right to keep and bear arms" as understood by the founders. He also says the NRA sponsored historical research which seeded the academic record with histories of dubious accuracy. He doesn't go into much more detail than that in the podcast (relevant audio starts at around 20 minutes, 30 seconds), but he does say he goes into a lot more detail in his book American Dialogue: The Founders and Us. -- Beland (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the only reference to the views of a historian. We fail NPOV if you present only one side but not the other. In your comments above you say that Ellis claims the NRA seeded the historical narrative. Do we cite any of those sources or see what those opinions are? In addition to questions regarding the WEIGHT of this view, it fails NPOV if we only present one side when even Ellis makes it clear there are at least two sides to this discussion. Springee (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: In addition to Scalia presenting his view in the opinion itself, this article actually already does cite someone who asserts the history of an individual right is real, and that's Stephen Halbrook, in the Legacy section. You are correct that he is not a historian, and that may mean his opinion on historical matters is unreliable, but apparently he's a notable commentator. Ellis actually brings up the example of the 1689 English bill of rights in the interview (it's apparently also mentioned by Halbrook). I'm not sure why Halbrook would even need to say "the individual right to bear arms was not an invention of gun rights activists" unless there was someone saying the opposite, and Ellis does say the opposite. (Interestingly, both Halbrook and Ellis are writing a decade after the decision.) The historical notions are at the core of the originalist philosophy, so I don't see much of a WP:WEIGHT argument for dropping both Halbrook and Ellis, which would be another way to maintain NPOV on that question.
Would it make more sense to put these two contrasting authors next to each other in the same section? I'm not sure "Legacy" is the best section for reactions from Halbrook and Stevens; "Reactions" seems more natural. We can certainly add a citation to Ellis' book for readers interested in the detailed justification of his opinion and in deciding for themselves whether or not his complaints are merited. -- Beland (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been tagged for 7 years and probably needs its coatrack name change to help fix. But this needs to be a very short list of expert, informative analysis or by prominent directly-involved persons. And certainly not just a coatrack for opinions and talking points. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: What would you prefer as the section title? "Expert reactions"? Are there any reactions there you think don't belong, or are some missing, in terms of POV? -- Beland (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to think about the wording but my idea would be to split it into two sections:
Expert analysis With a pretty high bar on on who / what gets in there.
Reaction by directly involved parties
I'd zap the reactions to lower court rulings because that doesn't belong in this article. I think that the others are OK (and the section at a good size). But ideally, I'd like to see broader, more content-filled analysis from both "sides" substituted in.North8000 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of archiving everything up to the most recent thread into Archive 2, since even the most recent commentary is encroaching on two years old. I can roll it back if there's any objection, but Archive two starts in 2008, sooo....it seemed time. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.05:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
