This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Jlevi ( talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
Should the list of Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions be moved to a stand-alone list and limited to jurisdictions that actually have adopted measures that fit a stricter definition of sanctuary jurisdictions? -- Mox La Push ( talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
{{
rfc|pol}}
to get the opinions of other editors? --
Scottk (
talk) 16:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 08:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ Drmies: Hello. About your substantial reduction of the article, here, that's quite a big change, and we can already see that not everyone agrees with it. So, I think it should be discussed here on the talk page first. — Mudwater ( Talk) 02:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I was considering splitting this section alphabetically into two: (A-M) and (N-Z). How does that sound? zsteve21 ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2021 (BST)
I think that would be too many splits. I think the article is ok as is for now. Maybe if it gets much bigger we can split. Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Another proposal is that the in the local laws section, the Virginia section could be split into its own article. zsteve21 ( talk) 17:57, 29 September 2021 (BST) (Updated at 20:47, 29 September 2021 BST)
Why give the Virginia one its own section? The point of this article is to have a comprehensive list. Not have people go to multiple scattered articles. Terrorist96 ( talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Because Virginia is the largest portion (50,000 bytes) and therefore large enough for it to be its own article. While lists should be comprehensive, when articles get bigger than 400,000 bytes, article size, loading times, readability and the time to scroll the whole page should be considered. zsteve21 ( talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (BST)
The maximum article
WP:LENGTH is 2 million bytes. This article isn't even half a million yet. What's the
WP:HASTE? Additionally,
WP:SIZERULE says that Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.
The rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.
The article prose itself is less than
2500 words. Most of the size comes from references.
Terrorist96 (
talk) 03:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, I'll try to reduce the number of references first where by deleting excess references, every or nearly every reference is unique. However, I try to get all articles under 400,000 bytes and apart from inclusive scope, haste, readable prose or half a million bytes boundaries, I don't really see any other compelling reason that convinces me not to split Virginia. zsteve21 ( talk) 09:56, 1 October 2021 (BST)
@ Terrorist96: I found that a few states are both in state laws and local laws section. The state laws say that a governor signed the Second Amendment sanctuary, but the local laws say a fraction out of all counties signed it. Are some of the local laws information outdated? If not, please explain. zsteve21 ( talk) 10:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the previous map because it was 2 years old and not showing accurate info. For example, California has 3 counties with laws, the map shows 2; Iowa has 14 counties with laws, the map shows 0; Louisiana has 5 parishes with laws while the map only shows 1. I didn't bother to check the others, but based on these examples, the map is clearly out of date. Ideally someone will update it so it can be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:498C:1500:6438:63C6:8833:A6 ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Just passed in New Hampshire. https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1178/2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:1D45:6F00:D521:29A6:8040:A4A ( talk) 14:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
https://sanctuarycounties.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2A-Sanctuary-Counties-National-Map-Update-18SEP2021-Blog-Resolution.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.17.63 ( talk) 19:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Why does it say as of Feb 17, 2023, when it certainly doesn't appear current past 2021? 2607:FB91:16C9:7B48:ADB9:94CE:FC47:69D7 ( talk) 21:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Jlevi ( talk) 13:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
Should the list of Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions be moved to a stand-alone list and limited to jurisdictions that actually have adopted measures that fit a stricter definition of sanctuary jurisdictions? -- Mox La Push ( talk) 07:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
{{
rfc|pol}}
to get the opinions of other editors? --
Scottk (
talk) 16:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 08:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ Drmies: Hello. About your substantial reduction of the article, here, that's quite a big change, and we can already see that not everyone agrees with it. So, I think it should be discussed here on the talk page first. — Mudwater ( Talk) 02:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I was considering splitting this section alphabetically into two: (A-M) and (N-Z). How does that sound? zsteve21 ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2021 (BST)
I think that would be too many splits. I think the article is ok as is for now. Maybe if it gets much bigger we can split. Terrorist96 ( talk) 02:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Another proposal is that the in the local laws section, the Virginia section could be split into its own article. zsteve21 ( talk) 17:57, 29 September 2021 (BST) (Updated at 20:47, 29 September 2021 BST)
Why give the Virginia one its own section? The point of this article is to have a comprehensive list. Not have people go to multiple scattered articles. Terrorist96 ( talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Because Virginia is the largest portion (50,000 bytes) and therefore large enough for it to be its own article. While lists should be comprehensive, when articles get bigger than 400,000 bytes, article size, loading times, readability and the time to scroll the whole page should be considered. zsteve21 ( talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (BST)
The maximum article
WP:LENGTH is 2 million bytes. This article isn't even half a million yet. What's the
WP:HASTE? Additionally,
WP:SIZERULE says that Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.
The rules of thumb apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.
The article prose itself is less than
2500 words. Most of the size comes from references.
Terrorist96 (
talk) 03:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, I'll try to reduce the number of references first where by deleting excess references, every or nearly every reference is unique. However, I try to get all articles under 400,000 bytes and apart from inclusive scope, haste, readable prose or half a million bytes boundaries, I don't really see any other compelling reason that convinces me not to split Virginia. zsteve21 ( talk) 09:56, 1 October 2021 (BST)
@ Terrorist96: I found that a few states are both in state laws and local laws section. The state laws say that a governor signed the Second Amendment sanctuary, but the local laws say a fraction out of all counties signed it. Are some of the local laws information outdated? If not, please explain. zsteve21 ( talk) 10:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the previous map because it was 2 years old and not showing accurate info. For example, California has 3 counties with laws, the map shows 2; Iowa has 14 counties with laws, the map shows 0; Louisiana has 5 parishes with laws while the map only shows 1. I didn't bother to check the others, but based on these examples, the map is clearly out of date. Ideally someone will update it so it can be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:498C:1500:6438:63C6:8833:A6 ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Just passed in New Hampshire. https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1178/2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:1D45:6F00:D521:29A6:8040:A4A ( talk) 14:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
https://sanctuarycounties.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2A-Sanctuary-Counties-National-Map-Update-18SEP2021-Blog-Resolution.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.17.63 ( talk) 19:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Why does it say as of Feb 17, 2023, when it certainly doesn't appear current past 2021? 2607:FB91:16C9:7B48:ADB9:94CE:FC47:69D7 ( talk) 21:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)