Talk:United States Bill of Rights/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on February 24, 2019

The first cite-note points to a broken link: [1]. I think it should point to this URL from National Archives: [2]. Not sure if this is the exact URL the broken reference was pointing to earlier, but it can be a safe replacement. Gayatri 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayatri9876 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing-out the broken link. Given that this is the first sentence of the lead, a citation isn't really needed. Therefore, I have simply removed it altogether. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• United States Bill of Rights → Bill of Rights
• Bill of Rights → Bill of rights (disambiguation)

– Overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in RS for the capitalized, stand-alone phrase. The first of these moves could also instead be done as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which would be WP:CONSISTENT with First Amendment. As for the second move, some entries at the DAB page have sometimes been called bills of rights but never been named "[Something] Bill of Rights" or "Bill of [Something] Rights" in capital letters, so the DAB page should not have a capitalized title, which is misleading and a WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:NCCAPS failure (it is not a proper name in this case). The purpose of the DAB page is to list everything notable sometimes referred to as a bill of rights, but only some of which have "Bill of Rights" in their actual names.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yes, "Bill of Rights" in my experience has most often been used for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but not exclusively so. It's also has been used in legislation like a "patient's bill of rights", "consumer's bill of rights", "taxpayer's bill of rights", etc. Not to mention the English Bill of Rights, the practice of calling the first ten amendments a bill of rights likely comes from appeals by the former colonists of America to the English Bill of Rights. Going beyond American english speakers and writers to the larger English speaking world that uses the English Wikipedia, the term "Bill of Rights" may not be as quick to mind towards the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it might among Americans. Libertybison (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need to put a US-centric PoV here. As can be seen from the dab page and from Libertybison's comment, there are other Bill of Rights in the world. Having a title clearly spell out what it is does not impact negatively on anyone and only offers more clarity to our readers. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, there are many bills of rights, some of them much older. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - obviously other ones exist, but this one is primary; obviously WP:DIFFCAPS would exclude things like "patient's bill of rights"; obviously this is never going to happen on Wikipedia, but we can dream Red Slash 20:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

UX issue: first table is not the contents people are coming here for.

User experience issues are important. A lot of people are going to come to this page and initially see the table of articles with "first", "second", etc and presume that it's the list of amendments, which is given less structure and is less prominent below it. That borders on intentionally misleading. You're going to confuse a lot of kids and make a lot of pointless arguments over dinner unless you bring the important contents up to the top and give them proper prominence. I was confused because I know that's not the 4th, but this is going to be an obvious pitfall for others. I know it's a standard form to start with the history of a thing, but there's already a 'background' and the 'proposal and ratification' isn't part of that section, oddly. Maybe that's simply because it's huge. So huge it's detracting from the actual content of the page. I propose it move below the main contents or be split off into it's own page. It's interesting stuff, but it's getting in the way. 4.31.13.17 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019 — remove unnecessary possessive

Change "Madison's proposed the following constitutional amendments" to "Madison proposed the following constitutional amendments" Benji York (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideau^talk 13:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2019

The second sentence within the introduction to this article contains a grammatical error. It reads (bold emphasis mine): "Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over ratification of Constitution," which should read either "over the ratification of the Constitution" or perhaps more minimally, "over ratification of the Constitution." I tend to prefer the former, but either is better than the current typo. Can someone correct this? I have a very new account, so cannot edit it.

-Thanks Emteemirror (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, a good and obviously missed find, thanks. Please keep editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Coronavirus question

Should it be noted that the current state of affairs in the US is essentially that the First Amendment has been indefinitely suspended? People are being arrested for protesting the restrictions that prevent them from going to work, so the "right of redress" has essentially been eliminated. The "social distancing" rules enforced by fines and arrest have also eliminated the concept of freedom of association, and Easter was basically cancelled in the US for the first time in history and church services are prohibited in most areas, eliminating the concept of freedom of religion. This does seem to be a historically significant moment that might deserve mention in the article.174.28.227.60 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that would be beyond the scope of this article. It might, perhaps, be germane to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article, provided it was addressed from a neutral point of view. Cheers.Drdpw (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)