Jump to content

Talk:First Amendment (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

titles

[edit]

Given that amendments are common to documents of all sorts, we may want to keep article titles to things like "US Constitution: First Amendment" or "First Amendment to the US Constitution." Bill of Rights had to be split up, similarly, I notice. -- April

Moved from article: Should this be an article like this, or just a redirect?

  • I believe there's justification for a separate article, despite my quibble over the title. It's been very important throughout US politics, and touches on any number of other issues. A discussion of those issues, along with some famous First Amendment court cases, certainly deserves an article, I think. Not that you'd want a separate article for every Amendment to the US Constitution, but this one is cited so very often that perhaps it deserves detailed discussion. -- April

I'm glad you agree on the need for the article. Every parent is pleased when their offspring is praised.

My admiration for the First Amendment comes from its usefulness for promoting goodness. It forbids the government from censoring good ideas. They can't stop me from expressing an idea, just because they disagree with it; if they could, there's a great risk that some unscrupulous people would promote evil ideas in the name of the government and force everyone to agree with them, or keep quiet. This has happened, in countries where some of my friends came from.

Ironically, the same law that prevents the censorship of good ideas also permits the expression of evil ideas. But that's okay, because as long as the good ideas get a fair chance to circulate, they will inevitably win out over the evil ideas. I'm quite confident of that. -- User:Ed Poor

merge

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We also have First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Shouldn't we merge this one with that one, and redirect this thataway? -- IHCOYC 00:21 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, done. Evercat 11:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WTF People?

[edit]

I want the First Amendment to the USA Constitution --- duhhh! What is this other shit?

I don't care about the First Amendment in India's constitution. No one cares about that. It is probably about the proper way to skin a sheep or something. Why must Wiki always be so fucking PC about everything?-- --149.152.34.38 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done.  Skomorokh  08:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment → First Amendment (disambiguation) — Although the above IP's tone leaves much to be desired, their essential point appears to be correct. Some searching suggests that the US Constitutional amendment is indeed probably the primary topic for this term and "First Amendment" perhaps ought to be made a redirect. I'm not 100% sure though, so: thoughts? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I personally think the US Constitution one is indeed far more known than any other (I would bet that millions of people who have never even been to the US know what it is due to how many TV shows and movies have mentioned it being the freedom of speech/press/religion, while I doubt any significant amount of people are aware of the other First Amendments). I'm not ready to fully support or oppose yet though because I would like to hear what others think. TJ Spyke 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am British, and my first thought was "the first amendment of which of the very many things that have been amended down history?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think it would introduce too much US bias, but it is probably primary usage. Can some people outside of North America besides Anthony care to comment? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although by no means decisive, I would suggest looking at the Google Test results. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move, take 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The question we should be asking here is whether First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the primary topic—i.e., whether it is substantially more likely than any other "First Amendment" to be the topic sought for when a reader searches for "First Amendment". We've had evidence here that this is, overwhelmingly, the case (cf. TJRC's tables). Those opposed to the move argue that having "First Amendment" redirect to the article most readers are evidently looking for would somehow further systemic bias, but such arguments seem to have no basis in policy or precedent; for example, we have White House and Boston similarly at their U.S. meanings. Ucucha 23:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


First Amendment → First Amendment (disambiguation) — First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the primary topic for the term "First Amendment" and the term should redirect there. Hits this month as of writing this:

Which makes the US Constitutional amendment 63 times as popular as the rest and this disambiguation page an unnecessary indirection and a (small) waste of most of our readers' time. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose per arguments from December. And if you delete all hits from the US, what do you get? (ie, when in the world outside the US, how many times does "First Amendment" refer to the US one? ) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The US is not the whole of the world. There might possibly be a case for fifth amendment to point to Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but even then I'd say don't be so US-centric. The First Amendment while important is relatively obscure compared to the Fifth. Google is a bad test for this, as it's so skewed towards US users. Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think it is educational and view-broadening to learn that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't the only one. --Tesscass (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that that's the objective of an encyclopedia. When an encyclopedia user is trying to research a topic, the encyclopedia should support finding that topic most easily. It's not the encyclopedia's role to try to "broaden" the reader's view that there are other topics unrelated to the one he is interested in that has a similar name. The goal is to get the reader to the most likely requested topic in the quickest way, while still allowing other topics with similar names to be found for those minority of users that need them. That's the policy behind the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. Furthermore, the {{redirect}} hatnote, which points to other uses, meets that objective, anyway, and it does so while keeping in line with Wikipedia guidelines and not inconveniencing the overwhelming number of readers looking for information on the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it would be similarly educational and view-broadening to move Paris (disambiguation) to Paris (to show that the French city is not the only one), it would not be helpful for our readers, most of which will be looking for the French city. The same applies here. This is exactly why we have WP:PRIMARYTOPIC instead of just redirecting every ambiguous title to a dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some numbers:
What Links Here analysis (as of 2010-04-14)
article no. links percentage source
First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1479 88% [1]
Australian referendum, 1906 (the first amendment to the Australian constitution) 120 7% [2]
First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland 38 2% [3]
First Amendment of the Constitution of India 18 1% [4]
First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan 15 <1% [5]
First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa 10 <1% [6]
Total 1680
Article traffic statistics (for most recent full month, 2010-03)
article views percentage rank source
First Amendment to the United States Constitution 186,173 98.7% 1593 [7]
Australian referendum, 1906 (the first amendment to the Australian constitution) 569 0.3% too low to rank [8]
First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland 422 0.2% too low to rank [9]
First Amendment of the Constitution of India 541 0.3% too low to rank [10]
First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan 412 0.2% too low to rank [11]
First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa 456 0.2% too low to rank [12]
Total 188,573
Analysis of existing links to DAB page ([13], as of 2010-04-14)
apparently intended article number of links percentage
First Amendment to the United States Constitution 19 100%
Australian referendum, 1906 (the first amendment to the Australian constitution) 0 0%
First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland 0 0%
First Amendment of the Constitution of India 0 0%
First Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan 0 0%
First Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa 0 0%
Total 19
By any of these measures, First Amendment to the United States Constitution is clearly the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least based on the facts presented so far, because of concerns of systemic bias. Yes, the U.S. amendment is the most frequently viewed topic, but is that because most of the views are coming from U.S. readers? Is the term "First Amendment" widely known or used outside the United States? If there were evidence that people outside the U.S. frequently use this term to refer to the U.S. constitutional amendment, that would be a different story.
    To comment on a few of the remarks above: "The First Amendment while important is relatively obscure compared to the Fifth." (Andrewa) I disagree. Although I haven't done any research on this, my suspicion is that if you took a poll, more people in the U.S. would be able to tell you what the First Amendment is than any other amendment, with the possible exception of the Fifth.
    "I think it is educational and view-broadening to learn that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't the only one." (Tesscass) That's a valid point. There is more than one way to use a paper encyclopedia. You can look up a particular article and ignore everything else around it, or you can scan through the pages and see what interesting facts you come across. There can be more than one way of using Wikipedia as well. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To plead the fifth is a figure of speech I hear occasionally even in Australian English, which leads me to believe it's in the public mind somewhere. On the other hand, many I've spoken to who are actively involved in the creation science debate and therefore speak knowledgeably about US law on the subject have no idea that separation of church and state wasn't in the original US Constitution, so the First Ammendment isn't the subject of similar awareness. Or that's my experience. Very interested in other views. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, the First Amendment is a far more significant than the Fifth. But I don't think its more important than those of the other countries to their people. --Tesscass (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, but that's not the issue. The queston is, in everyday English, does first amendent refer primarily to the US Constitution, or is it ambiguous? My belief remains that even fifth amendment is ambiguous, and first amendment even more so. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the issue is not whether it is ambiguous. The ambiguity is a given; that's why this DAB page exists. The issue is whether, given the ambiguity, there is a primary topic to which "First Amendment" refers. A mere ambiguity is not a reason to have "First Amendment" point to a disambiguation page. That's what we do when there is an ambiguity and no primary topic. TJRC (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this argument is that it ignores the question of context. There are certainly contexts in which the phrase is unambiguous, and others in which it is. The question is, does this ambiguity occur in contexts of everyday English? I maintain that it does, and that therefore, there's no primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Primary topic. WP:BIAS concerns article content; the ambiguous articles in question are not biased. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns facilitating the readership's usage; of the ambiguous articles in question, one is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire, my dear J. WP:BIAS starts with the sentence "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups." Note that it says "the Wikipedia project," not "Wikipedia articles." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the surprising thing is how well we deal with this bias overall. We really do try to be an international encyclopedia, and have for example rejected long ago the easy way out of splitting British English off into its own project, see WP:ENGVAR. But there are some hiccups from time to time, and we don't win them all. Andrewa (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the selection of primary topic (or no primary topic) does not change the coverage of any of the ambiguous topics. Each still has the same coverage it had in the article space. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's quite right. It just changes the relative prominence given to related topics. Andrewa (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just so we're clear, WP:BIAS is not a policy or a guideline; it's just an essay: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of $one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." It's certainly okay to refer to it, but it's just as okay to disregard it. An editor citing WP:BIAS (either directly or as piped to other text as in "systemic bias"), or any other essay, should be understood to be citing it as a viewpoint that he or she agrees with; not as an authority that supports his or her position. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per systemic bias (as explained by TJRC). CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have to admit, my first reaction was First Amendment of what, for God's sake? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per stats. If 9,500 Americans use X to mean one thing, and 500 Europeans use X to mean something else, naming the primary topic to be the one that 95% of people are looking for is not bias, it's common-sense facilitation of navigation. Propaniac (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear case of primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems this requires further explanation. The point of primary topic is directing the readers to the article they're most likely looking for. The statistics show that in a large majority of cases, readers are looking for the first amendment of the US constitution. Searches for the other first amendment articles, such as those of the constitutions of India, Ireland and so forth, are much more rare. This was determined with three different methods, all of which very clearly point to the same conclusion. While statistics are indeed not determining factors by themselves and should be used with common sense, no objective evidence to the contrary seems to have been presented. Jafeluv (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am British, and my first thought was "the first amendment of which of the very many things that have been amended down history?" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a section break because this section is too long

[edit]
  • Very strong support: Obviously primary topic. Has 7x everything else combined. If it's biased to believe in cold, hard facts, so be it. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To a USA citizen, obviously primary topic. Not necessarily so in other countries overseas. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparantly, people who live overseas don't really look up this topic, or else some other First Amendment would be getting more hits. Why should overseas countries be given undue sway relative to the number of hits they produce on a given topic? I believe that primary topic should be done solely on hits, not some "wah, this is US-centric" bunk Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, if non-Americans don't think there's a "the First Amendment", then they'd be rather unlikely to search for "First Amendment" anyway, so why do we need to weigh such opinion so heavily? --Cybercobra (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Disagree. Just as some Americans obviously assume the term to mean the amendments they learned in school, so some Indian citizens would know and even want to know only of their own constitution. This may not be very commendable, but that's not the issue. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you believe that the primary topic should be done solely on hits, then maybe raise an RfC so this proposed policy change can be discussed. You'll have some support I'm sure! But to me this amounts to setting up a US English Wikipedia, and I think that would be a shame. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests three ways to help determine the primary topic. Page view statistics are one of them, and the others are incoming links from Special:WhatLinksHere and search engine tests (eg. Google Web). Feel free to check yourself. All of those tests actually support the view that the first amendment of the US constitution is the primary topic here, don't they? Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also explicitly says that these three are Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors,... (partly their emphasis, partly mine). Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So in your opinion, neither of them is helpful in this particular case to determine the primary topic? Or did I misinetrpret your response? What method would you suggest for objectively determining which meaning is the most prominent in this case, then? Jafeluv (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • In my opinion none of the three is helpful in determining whether or not there is a primary topic. That's the issue. Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How would you determine the primary topic? I think we both agree that just counting how many people say "support, I'm American" or "oppose, I'm European" isn't going to result in an objective decision. Jafeluv (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In hindsight I should have qualified this by saying in this case none of them is useful for determining whether or not there is a primary meaning, for reasons I have given above. In other cases, they are extremely useful. I thought when I wrote the last-but-one response that this point was so obvious that saying it wasn't necessary, but I now think it's better spelled out, just in case. Andrewa (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've participated in these discussions before. Usually it comes to hits or Google Scholar (usually by the Americans) vs. "Oppose because I don't think that way" and "This is supposed to be a global encyclopedia" (usually non-American). You have no emperical evidence to show that the American Amendment isn't the primary topic for this Wikipedia, whereas I have article traffic, and apparantly the other two ways as well, to determine that First Amendment is the primary topic. Just sayin' Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 06:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, it's a well worn track, and we go around in the same circles. But since you again claim to have emperical evidence, I think I should again point out that this evidence is fatally skewed. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't forget people that we are dealing with a page that is clearly a disambiguation page, and the title should reflect that. However, I think that first amendment should redirect here. --WikiDonn (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would certainly be preferable to the proposal to regard the American topic as the primary meaning. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that would go against WP:DABNAME. We only add "(disambiguation)" to the title if there is a primary topic for the term. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True. It doesn't explicitly ban such practice, but it clearly doesn't authorise or intend it either. But an application of WP:IAR might be justified here if it brought this discussion to a consensus, which I think means making some sort of concession to US readers. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, except moving this page to "(disambiguation)" and redirecting the plain title there wouldn't really help any US readers, would it? :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, got to say it seems pointless to rename the page but still have "First Amendment" redirect here; I don't see the justification to go against policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I must be frank, at the risk of alienating you both and others. You see I don't understand at all why so many US readers react the way they do. Not those like you who are rational and respectful of others, nor the sad and rare case who posted the comment above about skinning sheep, but the vast majority who allow it to go without comment. Wikipedia is basically an American gift to the world, and a priceless opportunity. Yet it is tainted by ridiculous decisions such as the redirection of State University. If you were a student of Sumy State University, what would that tell you about America? (:-(
            • It's hard to put yourself in another's place, but I think if I were American I'd be arguing on the same side I am, and far, far more forcefully. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would it be a violation of WP:DABNAME? It says that a disambiguation page should have (disambiguation) in the title. If you actually go to the article itself, it has a disambiguation tag at the bottom. This isn't about helping Americans, its is more of a technical issue we are fixing. We are not even changing the signifacance of any article, this will make it work the same way as any other vague term entered into Wikipedia. --WikiDonn (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it says: "If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page, as in Jupiter (disambiguation).". If, as implied by your position, there isn't a primary topic, then: "The title of a disambiguation page is [just] the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term.' --Cybercobra (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jupiter goes to the planet because that is the primary topic, I get that part. Since First Amendment is ambiguous, and for neutrality purposes there is no primary topic, it should redirect to a page that has disambiguation in the title. In my Wikipedia surfing experience, that is how most articles work, and personally that just makes more sense to me. If that goes against a guideline, then most of Wikipedia does to. I have seen 2 articles that work the way you describe and I've gone through hundreds of articles. Not only does it make sense, but it would also be easier to add disambiguation to the titles of disambiguation pages that don't have them (because there are less of them), than removing them from pages you don't think deserve them. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • WikiDonn, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. If you take a look at Category:Disambiguation pages, you'll see that most disambiguation pages have no "(disambiguation)" in the title. For those that do, the plain name should always be a primary topic article, not a redirect to the dab page (and if you find a page where it redirects to the dab page, it should be fixed). Hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Jafeluv, I don't see a number anywhere on that page or in its links. What were you going by, the fact that the ones without disambiguation in the title get their own page for each letter? The A-K list for the ones that do was so long it crashed my browser, twice. Unless you can come up with an actual number, let's leave that alone for now. If you want to go with the old primary topic argument, I know what you mean now. But a note of caution: remember what I said about only seeing 2 articles that are disambiguation pages but don't have it in the title? And combined with what you said about their being more of those pages, well then maybe those pages are less important. Do you want to convey the message that The First Amendment of constitutions is an unimportant topic? What do you think about my theory? Try following the links to a few of your non-titled disambiguation pages, then see how major they are, and get back to me. --WikiDonn (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I said, a disambiguation page is never named "X (disambiguation)" if X itself points to the disambiguation page. The importance of the topic X has nothing to do with it. Jafeluv (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well fine then, if my convenient solution to solve this dispute somehow interferes with policy, then screw it. I will change my opinion to support the page move as described. Nope, that other rule about not letting policy get in the way of having a good article totally doesn't apply, nope, not at all. And another thing, that is not one of Wikipedia's better formatting rules, and if it is everywhere, I understand that here is not the place for my arguments, so I will take them to the disambiguation guidelines page later. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move it back

[edit]

This is totally stupid. It doesn't matter how many readers are looking for information on the US amendment, or whether "First Amendment" used unqualified on the internet tends to refer to the US one, this is no excuse for Wikipedia to pretend that the US is the most important country in the world and redirect "First Amendment", which should obviously be a disambig listing all the constitutions of the world's first amendments, to the US one. There are no doubt plenty of insular, half-witted American readers who expect that if they look up supreme court, declaration of independence or bill of rights they ought to find their country's versions of these documents prioritized over all others, but we don't indulge their idiocy. Grow up and move this one back and stop making this global encyclopedia look like an American nationalistic joke. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not take a pro-internationalist, politically-correct view; it doesn't take an insular, close-minded, pro-nationalist view either; instead, it strives for a neutral one, and in the case of navigation, a bit of a utilitarian one. And per above-cited policy/guidelines, prevalence of use is a quite relevant criterion. I honestly agreed with your position originally, but after reading the rules and doing the research, I reversed my opinion and hence proposed the move. I suggest reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and related rules, and finding some objective metric(s) to support your view. WP:Requested moves is the mechanism by which another page move would occur. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cybercobra. The data in the discussion leading to the move clearly shows that the U.S. constitutional amendment is overwhelmingly the primary topic. TJRC (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Amendment_(disambiguation)&oldid=1241329280"