Bad Elk v. United States has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 4, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Buffbills7701 ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Addressing:
This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google search result as a direct source. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I am moving this section here for discussion:
The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. [1] The most commonly quoted version is:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." [2]
In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest. [3]
References
What authority do state courts or legislatures have to override a Supreme Court ruling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.14.14 ( talk) 23:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This section is WP:OR - specially WP:SYN, and doesn't belong in the article. If there were a secondary source that discussed the internet memes and discussed current law, that would be great, but as far as I can see there is not. Note - I also removed content on this from the lead, for now Jytdog ( talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry i am kind of crabby tonight. but this is one policy-violating mess and GregJack is not providing any actual answers. So to DR we go. see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bad_Elk_v._United_States Jytdog ( talk) 04:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment and suggested resolution. I believe this issue can be resolved with some minor rewording of the content. The Cubby source should be in the article, as it is a reliable source, and it does not give undue weight to one position over another. There is no need to remove the bulk of the "internet meme" section. However, I think part of the problem lies in Greg's recitation that most "cases" citing Plummer and Bad Elk .... a more accurate phraseology would be, "modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to ...." In such manner, Greg's various sources, in addition to caselaw, properly support the cited premise. Hope that helps. Minor 4th 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much the only reason any reader would land on this page is because there are a lot of internet sources (none of them reliable, most of them very heavily read) that make the claim
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed. [2] www.infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/ unreliable fringe source? [3]
You can find thousands of such pages by doing a Google search on [ "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life" "Plummer v. State" "John Bad Elk v. U.S" ].
Another editor who I highly respect and nearly always agree with recently removed the quote from our Plummer v. State article [4] and our Bad Elk v. United States article. [5] These sections have been unchanged since we came to a consensus in 2015. [6] [7]
I would like to open a discussion as to whether to remove this material. If we cannot reach an agreement I will post an RfC.
I would suggest that we discuss this at the Plummer v. State talk page and not the Bad Elk v. United States talk page in order to avoid duplication. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bad Elk v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
If the Infowars fake quote is genuinely notable, there will be a reliable independent secondary source that quotes it. This should be used instead of infowars per WP:OR. If no such source exists, regardless of what we "know", Wikipedia should not include it. This is fringe content WP:PRIMARY sourced from a canonically unreliable source. We are providing traffic to racist nutjobbery. Guy ( Help!) 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The above is in reference to this section of the article:
Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. [1] One version is:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." [2]
Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force; under contemporary law in most jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest. [3] The Plummer quote has been noted to be a fabrication, not appearing in the text of the opinion. [4]
References
A google search on "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." shows many, many sources -- some with millions of readers -- that quote those words -- more than enough to support the "The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest" claim. Many are unreliable political blogs reporting the misquote as if it actually exists, but a fair number discuss the fact that it does not exist.
This has been discussed at length on this talk page and on the Plummer v. State talk page. I suggest reviewing those discussions before going over the same ground again. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed, and the result was to keep the material in. See Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Bad Elk v. United States has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 4, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Buffbills7701 ( talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Addressing:
This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google search result as a direct source. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I am moving this section here for discussion:
The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. [1] The most commonly quoted version is:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." [2]
In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest. [3]
References
What authority do state courts or legislatures have to override a Supreme Court ruling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.14.14 ( talk) 23:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This section is WP:OR - specially WP:SYN, and doesn't belong in the article. If there were a secondary source that discussed the internet memes and discussed current law, that would be great, but as far as I can see there is not. Note - I also removed content on this from the lead, for now Jytdog ( talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry i am kind of crabby tonight. but this is one policy-violating mess and GregJack is not providing any actual answers. So to DR we go. see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bad_Elk_v._United_States Jytdog ( talk) 04:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment and suggested resolution. I believe this issue can be resolved with some minor rewording of the content. The Cubby source should be in the article, as it is a reliable source, and it does not give undue weight to one position over another. There is no need to remove the bulk of the "internet meme" section. However, I think part of the problem lies in Greg's recitation that most "cases" citing Plummer and Bad Elk .... a more accurate phraseology would be, "modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to ...." In such manner, Greg's various sources, in addition to caselaw, properly support the cited premise. Hope that helps. Minor 4th 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much the only reason any reader would land on this page is because there are a lot of internet sources (none of them reliable, most of them very heavily read) that make the claim
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed. [2] www.infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/ unreliable fringe source? [3]
You can find thousands of such pages by doing a Google search on [ "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life" "Plummer v. State" "John Bad Elk v. U.S" ].
Another editor who I highly respect and nearly always agree with recently removed the quote from our Plummer v. State article [4] and our Bad Elk v. United States article. [5] These sections have been unchanged since we came to a consensus in 2015. [6] [7]
I would like to open a discussion as to whether to remove this material. If we cannot reach an agreement I will post an RfC.
I would suggest that we discuss this at the Plummer v. State talk page and not the Bad Elk v. United States talk page in order to avoid duplication. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bad Elk v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
If the Infowars fake quote is genuinely notable, there will be a reliable independent secondary source that quotes it. This should be used instead of infowars per WP:OR. If no such source exists, regardless of what we "know", Wikipedia should not include it. This is fringe content WP:PRIMARY sourced from a canonically unreliable source. We are providing traffic to racist nutjobbery. Guy ( Help!) 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The above is in reference to this section of the article:
Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. [1] One version is:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." [2]
Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force; under contemporary law in most jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest. [3] The Plummer quote has been noted to be a fabrication, not appearing in the text of the opinion. [4]
References
A google search on "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." shows many, many sources -- some with millions of readers -- that quote those words -- more than enough to support the "The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest" claim. Many are unreliable political blogs reporting the misquote as if it actually exists, but a fair number discuss the fact that it does not exist.
This has been discussed at length on this talk page and on the Plummer v. State talk page. I suggest reviewing those discussions before going over the same ground again. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed, and the result was to keep the material in. See Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)