Jump to content

Talk:Second Amendment sanctuary: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 85: Line 85:


Re: #2 The stand-alone list should use a strict set of criteria for inclusion. Either the article or the list or both could make mention that there are exceptions that didn't make the cut. The measures that fall short of "sanctuary" status are not noteworthy enough to warrant listing them all. --[[User:Mox La Push|Mox La Push]] ([[User talk:Mox La Push|talk]]) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: #2 The stand-alone list should use a strict set of criteria for inclusion. Either the article or the list or both could make mention that there are exceptions that didn't make the cut. The measures that fall short of "sanctuary" status are not noteworthy enough to warrant listing them all. --[[User:Mox La Push|Mox La Push]] ([[User talk:Mox La Push|talk]]) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

: For #1, I think separating the article about 2A sanctuary areas from the list of 2A sanctuaries may be helpful. Right now, the article reads more like a list than an article on the topic.
: For #2, I think areas should be included on the list if they make a clear commitment to impede/prohibit enforcement certain federal/state laws as described by the article's lead. An area which simply reaffirms the second amendment isn't evidence to a clear commitment and shouldn't be included on a list of sanctuaries. Although I think this criteria still leaves some room for interpretation, it leaves less room than the "or similar" criteria that the article currently uses to determine list inclusion.
: I understand a lot of effort has gone into this page and recognize that using the criteria outlined in the article lead may require significant effort to implement. [[User talk:Mox La Push|Mox La Push]], was this supposed to be tagged with <nowiki>{{rfc|pol}}</nowiki> to get the opinions of other editors? --[[User:Scottk|Scottk]] ([[User talk:Scottk|talk]]) 16:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


==Nebraska==
==Nebraska==

Revision as of 16:57, 29 February 2020

Caps

I believe that this article should be renamed, from "Second Amendment Sanctuary" to "Second Amendment sanctuary" -- that is, the word "sanctuary" in the title should not be capitalized. The guideline for this is at WP:NCCAPS, where it says "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." Furthermore, the word "sanctuary" should not be capitalized in the text of the article either. (Note however that "Second Amendment" is considered a proper noun.) Mudwater (Talk) 11:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection.Terrorist96 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone else will object either, so, I'm going to go ahead with this. Mudwater (Talk) 21:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Maps and Content

There has been significant activity in Virginia, with counties and towns passing sanctuary resolutions. I have been adding more counties, as well as citations. However, I have not updated the map as I don't know how to do that. Can someone provide guidance?

Also, the citations are generally pointers to news articles. Should it also be a goal to provide references to the actual document if available?

This article could also be improved by providing summarizing Pro's and Cons that are being discussed (with references). Additionally, there has been 1 City in Virginia where a sanctuary resolution has failed. Should we also begin tracking those in order to balance out the article?

Thanks in advance. Richfromvirginia (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original creator of the map (and this article) and I have kept the map updated. If you don't see the latest update, refresh the page bypassing cache. Both types of sources would be sufficient. A pros/cons section would just be purely editorial and would not add much to the article. And I don't think it's worth the time and effort to track failed attempts.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I am new to editing wikipedia pages and will of course follow your lead. I'm happy to help update the successful passages by counties/cities/towns as they occur. Thank you.

Hello Terrorist96, I have noticed that some jurisdictions in VA are passing "Constitutional sanctuary" resolutions. What are your thoughts on adding links to the actual passed resolutions from each municipality? Similar to what you have done for State laws, adding "The text can be read here" (and of course a link to the official document for each location). Richfromvirginia (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richfromvirginia: Sure, that can be a supplemental reference footnote link. I don't think it would be good to follow the same format as the state laws section as that is more of a prose whereas this is more of a list. It could just be a footnote reference, otherwise the list would be full of "text can be read here" on each line and would not look good.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

I opened one source and read this "Several Hanover supervisors debated over the board’s exclusion of the word “sanctuary.” Henrico supervisors also avoided using the term, one that some government officials worry could be interpreted as an intent to subvert state law and judicial processes." Do you think it is appropriate to list Hanover and Henrico as Sancutuary counties when neither passed that resolution? I believe we need to be more nuanced, neutral, and follow the sources. Perhaps there is a way to footnote or asterik cities that only passes 2nd amendment support resolutions, instead of full on 'sanctuary' status? I hope we can all agree it is not appropriate to call Henrico a 'sanctuary' when they specifically edited the resolution to remove that language, right? And then sourcing, I feel like we can do better than ammoland and keepva2a. I'd highly recommend upgrading the soucing there. Please take my advice under consideration to build a more neutral, encyclopdic article. Thank you. -Andrew c [talk] 12:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid point, but also comes with a lot of extra analyzation. Some websites distinguish these counties/cities while others don't (like VCDL). I think it's too much effort to analyze each single resolution and make those notes. Also regarding sourcing: I've only used keepva2a when no other sources are available at the time, but have updated the sources as the news sites catch up. And ammoland isn't being used as the only source for anything, just as a supplement.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington state

The counties in the State of Washington don't fit the 2A sanctuary definition used in the article. The map should be edited to reflect that none of them are sanctuary counties. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the placement of Washington. However, unless actual gun sanctuary measures have been adopted in Washington state the state should probably be removed from the article altogether as the verbal pledges of sheriffs re: I-1639 falls far short of sanctuary legislation and it is misleading to indicate otherwise. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington is a special case. It already has different wording at the beginning of its section ("sheriffs that have vowed to not enforce I-1639 while it is being challenged in court" vs. "adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions") and is grouped among other Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions; example.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"X out of Y counties have Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions"

I notice that the current year/date isn't being included when the number of sanctuary resolutions is given. That may make it harder to maintain this page in the future. I suggest editors add "as of 2020" (or something like that) to help for the future. Jusadi (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm 2A is different than sanctuary status

The citation for Marquette, Michigan clearly states that they did not vote to become a sanctuary county but instead voted to reaffirm the second amendment. However, it is incorrectly placed in a list that says that it has passed a sanctuary resolution. A county reaffirming the second amendment is distinctly different from the definition of sanctuary at the top of the article. Marquette county has not passed (as far as I know) anything which "...prohibit or impede the enforcement of certain gun control measures perceived as violative of the Second Amendment such as universal gun background checks, high capacity magazine bans, assault weapon bans, red flag laws, etc." (definition from top of article). I don't think it is "too much effort" to clearly and accurately report what different resolutions do when one of the major points of this page is to apparently document which places are sanctuaries. I fully agree with User:Andrew c here. Scottk (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just counted 707 localities in this article. Would you like to volunteer to go through every single one and determine the exact scope of each resolution?Terrorist96 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist96, you added Marquette County, MI on 02 Feb 2020 even though the article you cited clearly says the County did not adopt a sanctuary resolution. It's clear you're passionate about this subject. That's great but you're not doing anyone any favors by adding information that fails verification and then proposing to shift the burden for checking your work to someone else.--Mox La Push (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we added "(or similar)" to account for the variations of resolutions being adopted.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article, as indicated in the title, is about "Second Amendment sanctuary" measures not "Second Amendment sanctuary or similar" measures. Moreover, folks such as Rob Morse at ammoland.com, who apparently doesn't realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, are seemingly relying on this WP article. For example, Morse writes: "The second-amendment-sanctuary movement spread over the next few years from Illinois to Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and to Texas." The last time I checked, in late December, that was simply false as not a single Washington county had then adopted a 2A sanctuary measure. So, including non-sanctuary jurisdictions on the map or listing them under the vague "or similar" rubric without clearly pointing out which ones don't actually have 2A sanctuary measures is misleading, at best. Arguably, from an advocacy point of view, it may also give some 2A supporters, misled by this article or the map and unwittingly living in these "similar" jurisdictions, a false sense of security that their local elected officials have already taken substantive action when they have not. As an aside, this article should probably be broken up into an article about 2A sanctuary and a separate list of jurisdictions with 2A sanctuary measures. --Mox La Push (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to keep the Michigan section accurate by making sure only counties that actually became sanctuaries were on the list. I left multiple notes in the section and by the map but my notes were ignored and everything I removed was added back. I only add counties that have passed sanctuary laws. Only 21 counties in Michigan have sanctuary resolutions but the list on here shows 31. If you want to update the list/map, the counties that should not be on the list include: Alcona, Antrim, Bay, Berrien, Eaton, Emmet, Marquette, Otsego, Sanilac, and St. Clair. --Farmboybello (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To echo Mox La Push, Tri-County Times also is citing information in this article. I don't think adding "(or similar)" is the best fix since it is open to interpretations that are not in line with the selection criteria in the lead. WP:LSC indicates that selection criteria should be unambigious. Marking all of the items in the list as "(or similar)" makes the selection criteria ambigious. If we wish to document which counties reaffirm the 2A, shouldn't that get put into some new article titled "List of US Counties which Reaffirm Second Amendment"? Scottk (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

It looks like a majority of editors who have weighed in on this talk page may share concerns about inaccurately or misleadingly mixing categories of measures under the rubric of Second Amendment sanctuary. Therefore, I have two questions:

1. Is there consensus to split the list of jurisdictions off from the article to make it a stand-alone list to be included in the Lists of U.S. state topics?

2. If so, should the list include only actual jurisdictions that have adopted some form of sanctuary measure, clearly defined, rather than the more amorphous collection we have now?

My thoughts: Re: #1 There should be a stand-alone "List of states with Second Amendment sanctuary measures" (or something similar). The text of the article needs expansion and I have already put some work into it previously. I would be willing to do so again as I am able. Here is a list of recent articles that may be used as sources:

Re: #2 The stand-alone list should use a strict set of criteria for inclusion. Either the article or the list or both could make mention that there are exceptions that didn't make the cut. The measures that fall short of "sanctuary" status are not noteworthy enough to warrant listing them all. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, I think separating the article about 2A sanctuary areas from the list of 2A sanctuaries may be helpful. Right now, the article reads more like a list than an article on the topic.
For #2, I think areas should be included on the list if they make a clear commitment to impede/prohibit enforcement certain federal/state laws as described by the article's lead. An area which simply reaffirms the second amendment isn't evidence to a clear commitment and shouldn't be included on a list of sanctuaries. Although I think this criteria still leaves some room for interpretation, it leaves less room than the "or similar" criteria that the article currently uses to determine list inclusion.
I understand a lot of effort has gone into this page and recognize that using the criteria outlined in the article lead may require significant effort to implement. Mox La Push, was this supposed to be tagged with {{rfc|pol}} to get the opinions of other editors? --Scottk (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska

Cheyenne adopted a resolution February 18, 2020. I keep hearing rumor of other counties do so but have not seen anything official from them yet. Kewalaka1 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]