It's not proposed for deletion, yet (I think). Generally, articles are only removed when their subject is completely insignificant.

Done.

Awesome!

Let's keep the ball rolling!

Thanks 30yearprof. Great. I suspect the good folks at

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

might also be willing to step up to the plate.

Good thing to watch, the rumor is that Wiki has been taken over by...um...how do I say this...left leaning types?

"Good thing to watch, the rumor is that Wiki has been taken over by...um...how do I say this...left leaning types?"

I've heard lots of comments about recent "editing" that, if true, would support this conclusion.

By accident while searching the web using AltaVista last week, I came across a dispute about content of the Wikipedia entry for the Second Amendment. I just now checked the main entry and it is protected from editing until disputes are resolved. I am not sure what the date of the dispute was on the page viewed last week, but the diputed point had to do with whether Noah Webster's commentary about the people having to be disarmed before a standing army could rule should be allowed on the page. I have no idea who the disputing parties actually were, but one was apparently against using any primary American historical sources regarding the Second Amendment.

Apparently the agenda driven politicized dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment and what sources should be examined to settle the dispute has arrived full force at Wikipedia.

How will it ever be possible to determine what the Founders meant if one cannot refer to what they said and did? It appears that an attempt is underway to fill the article with modern ideas from one side of the intent dispute and get rid of the historical materials that embarassingly contradict that side and of which there are a great many.

If Mr. Young's observations prove to be prophetic about a trend in Wikipedia management, we 2nd Amendment supporters might have to start dumping as much 2nd Amendment stuff as possible in the conservapedia.

By the way, I am very grateful for your work, Mr. Young, especially your latest--I gave half a dozen copies of it to family members for Christmas in 2007.

I also have your earlier (huge) work.

Keep up the fight.

Wikipedia's owner Jimmy Wales is actually libertarian. However, the site has attracted a lot of left-leaning editors (anybody and everybody is an editor).

As far as the Second Amendment goes, we are in relatively good shape and outnumber the anti-gun editors.

The best cure for the left-leaning editors? Become a Wikipedia editor! It takes a few seconds to sign up for an account and start editing. Start with simple fact and balance corrections and learn editing and policy as you go.

Please consider becoming a Wikipedia editor if you have good writing skills and want to make sure that our side of the story is fairly presented.

Incidentally, this particulary Wikipedia article was not flagged for deletion but for having many uncited claims. Several people including myself have added many citations and so the article is in much better shape now.

I've seen some good libertarian citations in Wikipedia articles that go back to Austrian Economics and Mises Institute and so forth. Combine that with the fact that Leftist professors and encyclopedia salesmen just hate Wikipedia so I think its going to stay a good start point for research.