Wikipedia

Talk:Gun control/Archive 3

< Talk:Gun control
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Nathan Johnson in topic RFC: Section on Association of Gun control with authoritarianism
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

The Journal in which the self-published article was first disseminated is a Student-directed project at the University of Arizona. As I stated in a recent edit comment it is not clear that this is a WP:RS for the claims made in the cited content. If any editor is familiar with this publication, its editorial policies, criteria for publication, etc. please share your view on its status as RS. In the meantime I feel that the tag is appropriate and that it should not be deleted but should remain until the original publication has been vetted. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that, SPECIFICO. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The article was written by Stephen J.Halbrook, a research fellow at the Independent Institute.[1] Although the journal is edited by students, the articles are not written by them, and it probably meets rs. (Cf the Harvard Law Review. But as Halbrook acknowledges, "The above topic has never been the subject of a comprehensive account in the legal literature." The text sourced to his account does not accurately reflect what he wrote. ("Once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the Jewish population and wipe out the opposition, and the genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" followed." In fact, he says political opposition was immediately disarmed, while Jews were denied the right to own weapons five years later. There is no reason to believe that any of the events described in this article are inaccurate. The problem is that the interpretation is fringe. TFD (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the article has been repeatedly cited, notably (for our purpose) by Harcourt, which we also quote, and the Harcourt article is intended as a rebuttle of Halbrooks. It would make no sense to include the rebuttle without the initial argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Now, please address the other points relating to this source and its use in this article, stated by TFD and others. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What issues. It is not self published. It is repeatedly cited (33x according to gs). It contains copious internal citations. That you disagree with its logic and conclusion is not a cause for non-inclusion. Enter counter-arguments (such as the already included Harcourt or ADL). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
What issues? The ones to which I referred immediately above. "...and its use in this article, stated..." Jeez, why not just read and respond the first time, if you don't mind my saying so. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to move on to our interpretation/summary of the source, do you concede that the source itself is a reliable not self published source, for the purpose of sourcing anti-gun-control arguments? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I was just saying that even if it were RS that would not be sufficient to use it as it is used in the current text. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@TFD : Not sure how you think that the interpretation is flawed. That the process occurred over 5 years in no way changes the fundamental argument, and as applied to jews, the timeframe between implementation of the disarmament and overt actions against Jews (Kristallnacht) was literally days. I can see a good argument however for qualifying Halbrook's statement as "Halbrook asserts" or "According to Halbrook" etc to indicate that this is his argument, vs settled fact.

A few quotes from the article supporting our current interpretation

  • However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime
  • Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution
  • Thus, over a period of several weeks, Germany’s Jews had been disarmed. The process was carried out both by following a combination of legal forms and by sheer lawless violence. The Nazi hierarchy could now more comfortably deal with the Jewish question without fear of resistance

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any expertise in law but as a U.S. higher education scholar I do know that most (all?) law journals are edited by law students (who have already obtained an undergraduate degree prior to entering law school). Good or bad, it's the norm so if you believe that makes a source unreliable then consistency demands that you take that stance against most (all?) law journals. ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Harvard Law review and the other university law reviews are the major journals in american law, and although edited by students are in no sense student journals in the ordinary way--the students are the most distinguished of their class, and the level of review is sufficient to make them reliable sources. But in recent years, most law schools have introduced additional journals on special topics--I would imagine in order to give a greater number of students the opportunity as editors. Somne such journals are very good, some are less so. Each has to be discussed individually. For this particular journal, I frankly do not consider it first-rate--I am judging by the criterion that most of its articles are written by people associated with the University or its own state's bar--this parochialism is never a good sign. I also point to its statement of purpose, especially pt. 1, "The Journal will provide an opportunity for all members to publish articles on international and comparative law topics." But Halbrook is an expert as author of several respected books from a variety of publishers, so his views can be used, wherever he might publish them. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." No evidence has been presented that Halbrook's views on this subject has any prominence. The only mention I have found of these views in mainstream sources is to debunk them. As the writer points out, this subject is ignored, which likely explains why the article did not appear in a more high profile publication. TFD (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is a reliable source for the proposition that at least one scholar has made the arguments contained in it—although if he's the only scholar to do so, spending much time on it might be undue weight.

In terms of relying on the article for factual and legal assertions, the article is full of citations and footnotes, so to the extent there is a dispute as to whether the author's contentions are accurate or not, someone could look up the materials he has cited and see if they support what he has to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


Did somebody seriously say JPFO is not Fringe?

Latest comment: 11 years ago32 comments8 people in discussion

Really? Seriously? Let's get that one reviewed at the Fringe page. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert on determining whether or not something is a WP:RS or WP:FRINGE. My criteria for such things are usually whether or not they have a Wikipedia page. A *lot* of editors watch for newly created articles and the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines are very demanding. So I figure that if it has an article, it is at least good for its own opinion. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Fringe can be WP Notable. There are many examples. But policy states, I'm paraphrasing here, that Fringe views should not be delivered with a straight face. There is way too much coverage of that particular fringe view -- equating totalitarian gun control with gun control in a democracy. That's not my opinion, that's WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be equating anything, just covering it. Conversely, merely covering different types and scenarios isn't equating them. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control laws actually relaxed under Hitler. So you can't say "historically" without qualifying who is saying it. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
We are not the ones doing the equating. JPFO is the equator. They say Hitler enacted gun control then "went bad" and slaughtered millions. Just like if Pres. Obama signs legislation in the US he might "go bad" on us and slaughter millions of Americans. Read the source material, or read the WP paraphrases in this article. They are the equator. And they are Fringe. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Where did JPFO say any of that? I'm not seeing it in the source material. Did you make it up? ROG5728 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you name some historians who..."Some historians and gun-rights proponents have asserted that gun control was used as a tool by Nazi Germany to implement the Holocaust" per the language you just edit-warred back in after my valid revert? Please undo your re-insertion of language replaced in my last edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you name any reliable sources who disagree with that statement? It's already thoroughly sourced, and it's practically common knowledge anyway. Hitler himself is on the record stating virtually the same thing. ROG5728 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess I was not clear. Name the historians and provide a citation for them, name by name. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The "historians say" disclaimer that someone tacked on there is just POV wording. The fact is, Nazi Germany implemented gun control measures to disarm the Jews prior to the Holocaust. That's a fact supported by a multitude of sources, including those already in the article. There's no "assertion" or "claim" involved in the statement. ROG5728 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ROG: Rog. Dude! Are you bothering to read my posts here? You, Rog, undid my edit and you restored what you now call POV wording. My edit had replaced it with the wording which I verified to be contained in the cited source. I had similar reasons, as stated in my edit summary, for the remainder of my edit which you undid. Now, please, follow BRD and restore my reversion of the unsourced text and state any further concerns here on talk. You can't edit in text that says "historians say..." when you do not have the list of historians RS shown to have said it. I know this is tricky, but give it some thought and please-- replace the text by undo-ing your recent edit. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The basics is that it meet wp:verifiability. IMHO, if you are not questioning the veracity of the material, that it is reasonable to consider that to be sufficient. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What historians? I have never seen or heard a historian present the thesis advanced in that paragraph. It needs citation or elimination. (Or both.) SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Like I said SPECIFICO, yes the current wording is still poor because it refers to the disarmament of the Jews as simply an assertion, which it is not. The reference to "historians" is also unnecessary. However, the wording you used was even worse, and was horribly non-neutral; the disarmament of the Jews is historical fact and has nothing to do with "opponents of gun regulation" or "assertions" of any kind. Actually, that entire sentence is unnecessary. The section should start with the line "Historically, a number of totalitarian regimes have passed gun control legislation..." ROG5728 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the sentence. Now that you mention it, it was added by Gaijan recently to try to give context and then AzureCitizen moved it to the top of the section. Long story short, the sentence is poorly worded and not really supported by the references it cites (because they were cited by someone after the sentence was added). So we can retain the references but there's no need for that sentence. ROG5728 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Further to my earlier warning on your talk page, you've now exceeded 3RR. Since you have requested I not post there I am putting this warning here. Please undo as many of your recent edits as you see fit and refrain from any further reverts without prior consensus on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How so? I've reverted 1 edit in the last 24 hours. Are you seriously pretending to take issue with me removing that sentence, after you essentially asked me to? ROG5728 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to undo your entire reversal of my well-justified edits as supported by my edit summary. That was your 4th revert and I ask you to get down to 3 or less. I'm not going to discuss it further here and since I'm banned from your talk page, the remainder of my warning will go unstated. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? Please provide diffs. This is the only diff where I reverted your edits. ROG5728 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that this sentence:

Some historians and gun-rights proponents have asserted that gun control was used as a tool by Nazi Germany to implement the Holocaust, and that if more Jews had access to guns they may have been able to give more resistance.

...was removed "because it refers to the disarmament of the Jews as simply an assertion"? Regard, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence actually has a number of issues. First of all, it doesn't really match what the sources say, because the sources were cited after the sentence was added. Second, as SPECIFICO pointed out, the sentence refers to "historians" and "gun rights proponents" but it doesn't seem to be quoting either of those. Third, since this is a historical section it shouldn't get into the subject of what people have "asserted" regarding gun control and the disarmament of the Jews. We have an arguments section for that. Ideally I think this section should just tell how, when, and why the Nazi regime implemented gun control, and skip mentioning the arguments unless they are absolutely necessary. ROG5728 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If I understand both ROG5278 and SPECIFICO correctly then, you're both in favor of removing all argumentry statements, which would include removing two of the four paragraphs (the Halbrook/Harcourt paragraph and the JPFO/ADL paragraph), and retain only a section that "tells how, when, and why the Nazi regime implemented gun control." Do I have that correct? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the JPFO/ADL paragraph for sure; that one is purely argumentative (on both sides) and doesn't really contribute any real information to the section. The Bernard Harcourt sentence doesn't really seem to constitute an argument one way or the other, though, so it should be kept. ROG5728 (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC) AZ: I said nothing of the sort, although I did propose and still endorse striking all of the content from this section. But as has been beaten to death here, if you like this kind of stuff, go hunt up some "historians" when you say "historians say." What could be easier? Assuming there are any such historians. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

In most cases, we should not use the term "some historians" per WP:WEASEL. It leaves vague which historians, how many are there, how respected are there. TFD (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree. When in doubt, lean towards facts rather than characterizations. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The point of "fringe" is that we should not use fringe sources extensively as sources for what their writers believe. In fact we should not even use mainstream sources extensively for what the author believes, but normally should use secondary sources that report those opinions and explain the degree to which they are accepted. RS is a different policy and relates to facts, including facts about opinions, i.e., explaining what opinions someone holds. Halbook's article is rs for facts, although it presents a fringe views. The JPFO is a fringe source and not reliable for facts. BTW Table Talk is not a reliable source, and even if it was, it is reporting comments by people who are not reliable sources, and arguing from it is original research. TFD (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Halbrook's historical analysis is not fringe, although it is used to support a more controversial argument. The article itself documents that gun control targeted towards Jews was used by Nazis as a tool to implement the Holocaust. This is not a controversial or fringe viewpoint, and even those who disagree with Halbrook (Harcourt etc) stipulate that fact "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide". The fringe/opinion element enters later when Halbrook makes a counter-factual argument that if the Jews had had more guns, they could have given more resistance that could have mitigated the Holocaust, and possibly saved lives. We are not making that argument in the text, so there is no fringe issue. Since that argument is also made by members of US congress, the NRA, Curcuit judges (Silveira v.Lockyer) etc, even if we WERE making that argument, it certainly is held widely enough to be mentioned as a widely held although controversial view. The fact that there are so many liberal articles (salon, mother jones, etc) attempting to refute that viewpoint give it notability Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
True, we are not making the argument that Jews with guns would have ameliorated the Holocaust, but we are putting the fact that gun control was a Nazi policy in a prominent place in the article, as if it were important. What justifies that? I cannot see how it is warranted. First of all, gun control in peacetime is distinct from gun control during revolutions, regime changes and armed conflicts. Second, while I agree it is a common argument, widely held, I think this suggests it should be in the argument section, not in a prominent section of its own.
To position the facts of Nazi gun control in a prominent section is to advance a position. Perhaps we should have a section called "Gun control is historically strongly associated with fewer homicides and suicides" and point out that the firearm homicide rate dropped 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell 65 percent, in the decade after Australia instituted strict gun control laws.Michaplot (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
"Fringe" does not mean that an argument is wrong, merely that no serious sources recognize it. If no serious sources pick up on the theory then it is by definition fringe. I do not want to argue about the validity of the theory here, because it has not relevance to what goes into the article. TFD (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several fundamental flaws in the above. One is failing to recognize the wp:fringe is a classification of ideas, not of organizations or sources. And then essentially implies / argues for deprecating sources or organizations based on that faulty premise.

The second is a straw man of some (non-existent) huge claims that it is huge, pivotal, etc. and then pretending that arguments against that straw man are relevant arguments to stifle coverage of relevant historical events.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should cover the historical perspective.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While browsing around I found Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States. Most of the more contentious material should go over there, I think. This would imply that sources in this article should be limited to historians and possibly other academics. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The material which attempts to link gun control to Nazis was under the "Arguments" section before ROG5728 completely re-wrote the article the article on April 11th,[2] an edit which created multiple NPOV violations and should have been reverted rather than praised.[3] — goethean 18:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream views

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (2010) has articles by 47 scholars writing about all aspects of the holocaust, including the conditions necessary for it to occur, how it was planned and carried out, and how people have interpreted it.[4] Nowhere does it mention gun control laws. Can anyone show that any serious writing on the holocaust has mentioned Halbrook's version of history? If not, then it is fringe and deserves no mention in this article.

When I search Google books with "holocaust"+"gun control", I find plenty of books about right-wing extremism in the United States, or discussions of how the holocaust has been exploited to promote political arguments.

TFD (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The NYTimes thought it was notable enough in 1938. The book Kristalnacht mentions it as well. Calling someone's viewpoint who has been quoted by SCOTUS fringe seems like an awefully high bar. Controversial views are not by definition Fringe. That gun rights researches are the majority of the research on this topic is also notable 3rd party POV and not fringe. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
None of your sources make any connection between the gun laws and the holocaust. The NYT article was published before the onset of the holocaust. (I assume you are referring to McDonald v. Chicago.) TFD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The NYT article was published during the events later known as Kristallnacht and was specifically about those events, and significantly after the implementation of the Nuremburg laws, yet you assert is not related to the Holocaust. The book entitled "Kristallnacht" specifically discusses the disarmament and its benefits during the pogroms. I'm afraid you have lost me.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
When the NYT article was written, the policy of the Nazi regime was to remove Jews from Germany and Austria. During Kristallnacht(9-10 November, 1938), for the first time the Nazis murdered 91 or more Jews and placed 30,000 in concentration camps, although many were subsequently released on condition they leave the country. Obviously the NYT was not writing about the "final solution", because that was still in the future. TFD (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's unsnarl this

Latest comment: 11 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

So we have the fatally flawed RFC, and a 'discussion" that just looks like a bunch a volleys, andd then people trying to get what the want in contentions under-discussion areas via editing. One part of the problem is that the discussion seem to be on a blend of questions. We should split this up into specific open questions, and then reasonably discuss this with article quality as the main consideration. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And we have you reverting[5] my removal of WP:FRINGE and unreliable material, for which you should be warned against flagrant violations of WP:NPOV. — goethean 14:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that your revert[6] could be safely characterized as tendentious. — goethean 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Quit the baloney like those false accusations. Let's try to get something done here. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
We can take this behavioral issue to another forum if you'd like. In the meantime, I suggest that you stop reverting edits which improve the article. — goethean 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick to quality-based arguments. Anything involving counting heads would need new advertising due to the damage done by the selective advertising for the fatally flawed RFC.North8000 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the main arguments have centered around these

  1. Quotes from the Holocaust survivors (2 opposing viewpoint) include/vs exclude.
  2. Opinion expressed by Halbrook include vs. exclude, and if so how to identify/frame it
  3. Opinion expressed by Harcourt include vs. exclude, and if so how to identify/frame it

North8000 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get much into this whole debate except to say that Stephen Halbrook has won TWO cases at the Supreme Court United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company and Castillo et al vs. the United States. He's on my list of individuals to write an article about someday...
Also, as in too many article, much of this debate probably could be solved by good research, including news.google archives. (go to news google, press the down triangle and it gives you archives). CarolMooreDC🗽 15:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


FPP/DR

DO NOT DEBATE THESE QUESTIONS HERE. JUST COMMENT IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL/DIFFERENT QUESTIONS FOR THE DR

I have requested FPP due to our ongoing edit war, and am attempting to open a dispute resolution case (although the submission template appears to be broken at this time). Here is a brief summary of the dispute questions I plan on asking, which I believe covers everything in the RFC and ongoing debates. If you would like something else added to the DR before I manage to open it, comment here and I will try and add it.

Overall we have some nested arguments (from the sources), and I think a major portion of our dispute comes from people arguing at different levels of the debate

  • Did the Nazis implement gun control against the Jews (I believe there is zero debate on this fact from sources, but we have debate on if this is notable/undue/etc)
    • Was such gun control incidental and orthogonal, or was this an intentionally implemented part of the Holocaust (not much debate here, but some)
      • Was such gun control effective/necessary. (Counterfactual argument - if the Jews had had guns would it have made a difference)
        • What do the above questions tell us about modern gun control efforts and effects (Major debate and controversy, but are (mostly) not including such debate in our text (see below for "severability")

Content disputes

  • Should gun control be a separate article from gun politics
  • Is coverage of historical of gun control by genocidal and authoritarian governments on topic for the gun control article, assuming such facts are well sourced
  • Is gun control which is by law, or by implementation, targeted at specific races, classes, or groups in a discriminatory manner still "gun control", or is the topic restricted to only "fair" gun control
    • Is such coverage undue?
  • Severability : Is discussion of such history by-definition argumentative and referring to current US gun control debates, or can the historical topic be discussed on its own.
    • Available sources are often covering both the historical facts/opinions, and using that as arguments for the modern debate. Can such sources that do engage in debate be used for just the historical portion.
  • Germany
    • Is there any dispute that germany did implement gun control targeted at the Jews
    • Is there any dispute that this was done as one part of furthering their goals of the holocaust
    • There is significant controversy regarding counter-factuals of "if they had guns" how effective such resistance would have been, should either side of the counterfactual be discussed
  • Halbrook
    • Are Halbrook publications self-published unreliable sources
    • Is Halbrooka notable commenter and expert on the topic (Expert does not mean right, or uncontroversial. Experts often disagree with each other)
    • Are Halbrookfactual historical assertions fringe
    • Are Halbrookinterpretations of those facts fringe
  • Harcourt
    • I don't think anyone debates including Harcourt, but what quotes should be included, and how should they be framed
    • Since Harcourt is responding to Halbrook, does one make sense without the other

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • ROG5728's complete restructuring of the article on 11 April[7] moved the Nazi section from "Arguments" to "History". He made lots of other changes in the same edit, and my guess is that the other changes that he made are of a similar, highly questionable quality.
I believe that this draft list/proposal is way too detailed. More importantly the content of is garbled and has the tone of a POV. I suggest you erase this section and solicit discussion as to next steps for the article. Brevity is essential. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have opened the DR at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Gun_Control I will proceed to notify everyone shortly. @Specifico : your comment came in too late, sorry, but we do have sustained debate on all of those issues. I thought my summary of the debate was exceedingly neutral, and in fact gave careful consideration of correctly phrasing the arguments of those who disagree with me. What do you think is POV about my post?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why solicit comment then preemptively go ahead with the unaltered draft? I am really shocked at how far this deviates from any conceivable model of collaboration, mutual respect, or constructive negotiation among dissenting editors. 15:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC) SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I only posted here at all due to my technical difficulty in submitting the DR. Such a notification or pre-discussion is not required, and frankly was unlikely to be useful, since the dispute has been ongoing without progress for some time. The technical difficulty was resolved more quickly than I anticipated, so the post here provided little value. No disrespect was intended, in fact quite the opposite. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I did not mean to say that you were under any obligation to post it here or solicit comment, only that, once having done so it would be reasonable to anticipate that other editors would devote some time and attention to providing their comments and that such effort would appear to be wasted when the unedited version was used minutes later. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether it becomes a point of discussion or whatever, I think that we also must address that we have skewed participation here at the moment due to the selective advertising (to put it nicely) for the fatally flawed RFC. Notice went to the political folks and not the firearm folks. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND] mentality. Nothing is preventing you from making valid arguments. — goethean 15:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
A false accusation followed by a comment that says noting relevant to what I just said. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Existing categories, FYI

Again, I don't want to get involved except to note that you all should be deciding in light of the existence and relationships of the following categories (a categorization which itself may not be perfect):

I am not familiar with the process by which the categories are tagged to the articles. Is this something done as part of the article editing process or are there criteria or authorized editors who make the assignations? SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In general categories are added as part of the normal editing process. There are some specific restrictions for categories of living people per WP:BLPCAT (religion, sexual orientation, etc) but I don't believe any of those would apply in this case. In general categories must be supported by the text of the article, as there are no references backing up the category itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization explains details. Another area to tread carefully as far as creating, changing, moving til one has learned the ropes. Some are products of long hard consensus, others are just somebody's idea that got stuck in there and no one bothered to get rid of. And you can't always tell since there's a separate page for discussion creation/moves of categories. It still gets my head spinning sometimes. :-) CarolMooreDC🗽 21:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed title of "gun control in Nazi Germany."

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

New title is "alleged gun control in Nazi Germany." This reflects the fact that it is contentious (to say the least) that gun control was practiced at all in Nazi Germany. (I submit that the mainstream definition of "gun control" as a broad, population-wide regulation of firearms excludes what was practiced in Nazi Germany (i.e., the specific stripping of ALL civil rights from people of a particular ethnic group). As a previous user has noted, virtually all mainstream accounts of the Holocaust/Jewish oppression in Nazi Germany never mention "gun control." To portray "gun control" as an uncontroversial representation of what happened in Nazi Germany is beyond ridiculous.) Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Restricting "gun control" to only non-discriminatory uses of gun control is WP:OR and excludes the extremely well documented and pervasive use of discriminatory gun control in the US. The holocaust and slavery/jim crow have many parallels. In both cases, many laws/policies were in place targeted against the racial groups (gun control, euthenasia, sterilization, segregation, murder, etc). In both scenarios, many tools/policies were used, and no single tool was "the one". Some are more important than others, but that does not disqualify the lesser from being discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be bold and replace the title again. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Gun control in Nazi Germany is not "alleged." That's a prime example of WP:WEASEL wording. Furthermore, please note that the absence of a mention of something in some source is not proof that it didn't occur; I keep seeing some of you try to use that argument and it's horribly flawed. Just because a source (or group of sources) doesn't mention something doesn't mean you can use that as proof that something didn't happen. ROG5728 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It is alleged. "gun control" has a specific political meaning (it doesn't have a literal meaning, or it would refer to all regulation of gun ownership, including a parent regulating his/her child) and most scholars don't believe the case of Nazi Germany fits. Steeletrap (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Which scholars? You also say on your edit to the article that it is a position put by "some conservative and libertarian thinkers". These are both examples of attributing opinions to unidentified people, which is weaselly. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Harcourt for one. I added another historian, but the material was immediately removed.[8] — goethean 20:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

sure. lets hold harcourt to the same standard as halbrook though. why is his opinion notable or reliable? Please provide sources showing so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Although in the interest of cooperation, I probably would be ok with the weasel statement as added by goethean. IMO we can be flexible with topic sentences as intorductions, as long as the statements there are backed up later in the section. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The Harcourt publication is published in the Fordham Law Review. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it notable and reliable. What is interesting to me is that originally, Harcourt was misleadingly quoted to make him appear to support the Nazi-gun control thesis. Now that fuller quotations show that he doesn't support it, and that he explicitly dismisses Halbrook, Gaijin42 questions Harcourt's reliability. — goethean 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition of gun control in lead paragraph absurdly broad

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the first sentence of the piece, gun control is defined as " any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms." This is preposterously broad. "Practices" that restrict or limit firearm possession include governmental limitations on gun ownership by violent criminals, prisoners, and children (including toddlers/babies); it also includes private behavior such as a parent banning her two-year old child from buying or using a firearm. This is obviously an absurdly broad definition, that just so happens to be designed to perfectly "fit" the nazi stuff. It needs to change to a more precise (non-literal) definition, hopefully one that equates with "gun control" as the term is understood in the contemporary political/colloquial sense and in mainstream academic discourse. Steeletrap (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Your accusation that the intro was intended to support the "Nazi" content is ludicrous. Here are the major intros over the last decade, all of which SIGNIFICANTLY predate the nazi content, and are substantially the same in meaning. If you think the definition is wrong, and that it does not meet the commonly used in legal and academic discourse, please provide sources for that and dont just use your own POV and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH
  • "The term "gun control" refers to attempts by society (generally by government or "the State") to control the production, importation, shipment, sale, possession, and/or use of "guns"--in this context, generally personal firearms: handguns and long guns. "
  • The phrase gun control refers to efforts to restrict the rights of private citizens and groups to defend their life with guns by limiting the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of "guns" -- in this context, generally personal firearms: handguns and long guns
  • The phrase gun control refers to efforts to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns by private citizens. In this context, the guns in question are generally personal firearms: handguns and long guns.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I didn't ascribe intent. I was sarcastically expressing how the definition is quite convenient for proponents of the "nazi" inclusion. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Many definitions, all substantially consistent with ours. That the commonly accepted definition disagrees with your POV would maybe be a hint?

Other encyclopedias

  • Britannica :politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms, particularly firearms.
  • Yahoo : government limitation of the purchase and ownership of firearms.
  • Columbia : gun control, government limitation of the purchase and ownership of firearms.

Dictionaries

  • Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through licensing, registration, or identification requirements"
  • Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns.
  • efforts to regulate or control sales of guns
  • laws that prevent people from keeping and using guns
  • regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns
  • government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms.
  • efforts to regulate or control sales of guns;
  • gun control, politics, legislation, and enforcement of measures intended to restrict access to, the possession of, or the use of arms, particularly firearms.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

First part of intro sentence

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

For a moment, forget any dispute over what belongs in the first sentence. Do you have any objection to this version of the first sentence, or do you prefer the current version? I edited it and then self-reverted after realising that I'd edited through full protection. I really don't like saying Gun control is..., because it just doesn't sound natural; any time we say "[abstract concept] is any [example1], [example2], etc.", it sounds as if we're teaching children the meaning of a word. The term "gun control" embraces... sounds much more natural. Yes, it makes it sound as if we're talking about the term itself, but the next sentence shows that we're talking about the concept that the term expresses. Let's make this decision regardless of the disputes up above, since it's equally an issue regardless of how we define gun control. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with some change starting with "The term Gun Control", or "gun control is a term" etc. but am not fond of the word "embraces" as that seems somewhat emotional and anthropomorphic, it also has a (unintended I am sure) tinge of POV to me as it could imply some sort of preference. "Is defined as", "is generally understood as", "concerns", or "encompasses", or even simply "means". etc. seem better, but I think this is a small matter compared to the other debates. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Or "includes"? I don't like "means"; it sounds too much like a dictionary and too close to the problem that I see in the old version. I'm raising it because we might as well fix the small things, if for no other reason than that it's good to have at least a little progress in a complicated and strife-filled article. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I think anything in that ballpark is acceptable probably, and it can get tweaked over time once FPP and existing conflict is over. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Or we can do it sooner if others come in and agree with you and me; non-minor changes during full protection are appropriate when there's consensus at talk. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, i wasn't clear. I meant we can do it now, and then tweak it later if its not perfect. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Section on Association of Gun control with authoritarianism

Latest comment: 11 years ago136 comments17 people in discussion
Per a request at WP:AN/RFC, this RfC is closed as closed. The proposal offered in the RfC is both vague and non-neutral. With no concrete proposal offered, it is impossible to gauge consensus on this topic. I would suggest that a new discussion be started with numbered, specific changes that other users can comment upon. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Is the section "Associations with authoritarianism" in Gun control neutral? An editor has suggested that:

  • the section is too long
  • the section is poorly sourced (e.g. one source is the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Protection, another source is Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership)
  • the section exists in order to imply guilt by association about gun control
  • the section includes extraneous, selective factoids, such as
    • an anti-gun control statement made by a non-notable Holocaust survivor, which is in the article in order to "balance" a pro-gun control statement by a notable Holocaust survivor
    • various selected studies done by anti-gun control groups which "prove" the association of gun control with authoritarianism (here primarily meaning Nazism). — goethean 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL The section be removed from the article. It is off-topic, based on cherry-picked opinions, and relies on non-WP:RS content. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose invalid proposal The only relevevant criteria are whether the sources meet WP:RS - which it appears that they do, and whether Undue weight is given to a fringe position -- as the section covers all aspects of the issue per WP:NPOV that argument also seems to fail. I can see why the "Lethal Laws" might be queried as to being RS, but the NY Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law article appears to fully meet WP:RS to be sure. [9] It is a "scholarly work" cited by multiple others. Collect (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The question is, however, whether parts of it are relevant. The thing about the Jews not being allowed to carry guns is spun into a gun control-issue when it clearly is antisemitic legislation, nothing more. If including this makes sense to you then you might as well include a paragraph in a discussion about drunk driving laws that describes how women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive and how the state is Muslim and Pakistan, also Muslim, allows local tribal councils to gang-rape and execute women for adultery — therefore, suspending someone's license for drunk driving is the same as gang-rape and beheadings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Please read the article I cited - and note that it appears to make no irrelevant asides. Meanwhile, this article is about guns and not about drunk driving, so that aside is not only not relevant, it is an absurd straw man argument. Secondly - if a source meets WP:RS attacking it because you disagree with it is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not an argument of any weight whatsoever. So we are left with RS sources making statements, and balancing sources to provide NPOV. Which is how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Read what it says. It's not balanced at all. Unless you seriously believe that one side is truth and the other is a mere claim. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Interesting tactic - arguing on an RfC because a person presenta a law journal article which is unarguably RS! And it is not what anyone here WP:KNOWs to be the WP:TRUTH -- Wikipedia specifically only uses what reliable sources say, and balances to reach NPOV as nearly as possible. And that is something which your argument seems to fail to accept. Collect (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • A more "interesting" tactic is yours, which seems to imply that because there is at least one reliable source in the section, that the section should be left as is. — goethean 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Note that I show a substantial number of reliable sources, not just "one", and Wikipedia policy is that where reliable sources exist, removal of an entire topic is violative of NPOV. NPOV is not created by denyin the existence of sources, but by seeking balance of points of view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose & the RFC is fatally flawed The RFC is to blank an entire section, something which has never even been discussed. It is also worded as a total manipulative mess. The title doesn't match the arguments, it has arguments buried into the proposal, and the proposed item doesn't match the arguments. This is fatally flawed form the start. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You oppose what, the RFC? If you think that the section is perfectly neutral, then just say that. — goethean 14:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I oppose both the fatally flawed RFC, and also blanking the entire section. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You oppose me seeking community input on the neutrality of the section? Interesting! — goethean 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The "Proposal" is not that, it is to blank the entire section. Please see "PROPOSAL" in caps and bolded above....it's hard to miss. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Then maybe you could come up with an alternative proposal. If you think that the section is perfectly neutral, then your proposal would be to leave it as it is. — goethean 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"Perfectly" anything is a straw man. My "proposal" would be to evolve the section in the normal manner. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
RFCs are not abnormal. I suggested some changes, my suggestions were rejected. I am seeking community input. — goethean 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written There are good ideas in this RfC but this is actually a set of multiple proposals which ought to be considered independently. Also, User:Collect is correct in saying that representing what the sources say is Wikipedia's judge of NPOV, so the both the sources which say these things and the sources which provide counterpoints must be included. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Really? Sources such as Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide? That's what Wikipedia is supposed to represent? I don't think so. — goethean 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose RfC, Keep section, but... - I think the section, as a concept, has merit. But it should be kept to its barest minimum. Since this article should discuss the concept of "gun control" over its history, notable uses (or misuses) should each have their own section. So perhaps...
  • Lead
  • History
  • GC in Australia and New Zealand
  • National Firearms Agreement
  • GC in the United Kingdom and Europe
  • WW2 Germany
  • GC in the United States
  • Arguments
  • Associations with authoritarianism
  • Mortality rates
  • Social and racial bias
  • Etc.

Oppose this invalid proposal for reasons already made clear by myself and others. Also, the manipulative/deceptive wording in this editor's RFC is absurd. ROG5728 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Bad wording, bad proposal. Rewrite the article if you like, but don't slant it towards your POV. Shii (tock) 07:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Re-name It should be called "Conspiracy theories" but retained because they are widely believed by large segments of the U.S. public. The SPLC lists "door-to-door gun confiscations" as the fifth most popular conspiracy theory of the radical right. However, WP:FRINGE applies meaning we must not present the views as mainstream and should use reliable secondary sources. Instead of beginning, "Historically, totalitarian regimes have passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation", which is misleading and sourced to a fringe group, we should write, "Extreme opponents of gun control believe..." and source it properly. TFD (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The use of gun control by totalitarian regimes throughout history isn't a "theory." It's fact. The statement you quoted from the section is not misleading, nor is it sourced to a "fringe group." It's established history. ROG5728 (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. That stuff all happened, it is a matter of known, documented history. I think "fringe" would be to pretend that it didn't happen. North8000 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
History is not a list of all true statements. That's why we need WP:RS secondary statements from qualified individuals who tie the content to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
...rather than studies selected in order to prove a partisan point. This is basic, basic stuff. — goethean 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You can read about the actual history in "Gun Laws under Nazi Germany" (Gun Laws in American Society, p. 455). The Nazis's first gun control legislation, five years after they attained power, was to abolish the requirement of permits for hunting rifles. Later they took away Jews' rights to own firearms, but never confiscated firearms from the general public.[10] But this came long after they had locked up or killed most of the leaders of their political opposition. And soon they would be supplying firearms to almost all adult males as WW2 began. So too would the Soviet Union. The same writer, Michael S. Bryant, who is with the Holocaust Museum, explains the tendentiousness of the argument in "Holocaust Imagery and the Holocaust" (p. 565)[11] The JPFO is certainly a fringe group, note their dispute with the ADL. TFD (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing against TFD's "door-to-door confiscation" which is not even in the article. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bad section. Most of the sources are synthy, and the ones used to tie the subject to the article topic are too poor to use. As well, the better sources dismiss the claim of gun control being just like the Nazis, but the way the section is written, they're mined for scaremongering incidents with their main point demoted to a throwaway reference, which is a totally inappropriate use. FYI, the "Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law" appears to be a student journal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC response - I'm gonna dive right into the shit storm here and make some edits, fully expecting them to be reverted. Here are my explanations.

  • Delete quote by Theodore Haas - goethean was correct in that this person lacks notability. My personal test for notability is whether or not a Wikipedia page exist for this person. We can't take Bob Gunowner's opinion on gun control and insert it into the article. This is trivially undue weight. This is not a rejection of the position he takes, and editors supporting it are encouraged to find reliable sources to state his opinion, but as it stands, this quote clearly has to go.
  • Delete Stephen Halbrook quote - this also fails WP:RS as it is a self published source being used for information about something other than itself. Just look at the URL. Again, not a rejection of the information, but the sourcing is not what we need in a controversial article such as this. Supporting editors are again encouraged to fire up Google and find better sources than a lawyer with a website.
  • Delete last sentence - This doesn't really add anything to either side.

Now I know this is going to upset a lot of editors, as this is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people, but it is that very reason that we must be particularly cautious when adding material to the page. Reading something somewhere online is not enough cause to add it to the article. The sources must be reliable. And editors are completely justified in removing material when the sources are not reliable. The WP:ONUS is on adding or restoring editors to provide reliable sources, so you should be looking for better sources before you revert. I will be very impressed if more sources are presented before a revert happens.

I do believe this accusation has a place on Wikipedia. It is a very common argument against gun control, whether or not it is valid. Thus it should not be difficult to find notable and reliable sources for the points supporting editors want to make. If we can put our rage aside for a few hours, I think it would be easy to find something that everyone can live with. But we have to work together, cooperatively and with the assumption of good faith, which, alas, might be too much to ask.

One more thing which I won't do immediately, I think the second paragraph should go. It doesn't really add anything other than to give specific on how Nazi Germany took guns from Jews. NINJA EDIT Also, I think the section should be moved to a subsection under #Arguments. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, both of the Holocaust survivor quotes could probably be removed without significantly harming this section. The other material is fine. In the meantime, the tags being added are completely unnecessary. We aren't going to say a section has multiple issues unless it's agreed that it has multiple issues. So far, that is not necessarily the case. Discuss your concerns here. ROG5728 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not really how it works. Disputed sections get disputed tags until the dispute is resolved. You have made 0 attempts to resolve any of the issues we've brought up, so the tags will stay indefinitely until you make good faith attempts to address our concerns. PraetorianFury (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not right either, but let's just see if we can work it out. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

With the RFC being so flawed that it's probably wp:snow on a resolution as framed, maybe we could just work out something here. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an alternative. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Take out the Holocaust survivor quotes, take off the tags, considered it to be settled, but still continue to improve the section. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
...continue to use cherry-picked, laughably unreliable sources for a clearly partisan agenda, etc. — goethean 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This is false equivalence. Your "some holocaust survivor" is not equal to "a leading critical theorist with a specialization in the area of punishment and political economy". You seem to think this is a game and you can negate our reliable sources by presenting any sources of your own. No, if you want your arguments presented you need to go online and find good, reliable sources to support them. And like I said, this is not hard. I don't understand why this is even being argued over. Many many prominent Republicans and Gun Control advocates have made these claims. Why do you persist in this childish edit warring when the internet is rife with sources that support your claim? Find some experts or notable politicians and quote them. Just reverting over poor sources characterizes every POV pushing dispute I've been involved in. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Who are you arguing with? That "leading critical theorist with a specialization in the area of punishment and political economy" is already quoted in the article as saying the Nazi regime used gun control as a tool in their genocide of the Jews. And since when is that "your" reliable source? It was in the article before you entered this discussion, and since then you've actually done nothing whatsoever to contribute to the article in any way. The source flatly disagrees with you regarding gun control in Nazi Germany. In the meantime, this RFC is horribly worded (obvious POV pushing) and way too broad to be of any use in improving the article. ROG5728 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)As I said earlier, deleting both holocaust survivors' quotes assumes false equivalence. One is notable and a reliable source. The other is not. This RFC has been open for over a week and not a single source have been provided by editors supporting the section. This is blatantly aggressive behavior definitive of POV warriors. If you are unable to provide reliable sources for the information in the article, then the information should be removed. That is how it works on Wikipedia, and that is how it will work on this article. On the other hand, your attempts to delete material that undermines your beliefs by equating it with that poorly sourced material is transparently biased. I have no problem with writing about the allegation made by gun rights activists and others. But it needs to be done in a way that is supported by reliable sources, and it is your responsibility to provide those reliable sources before contentious material makes it into the article. What I've seen so far I can only assume is childish laziness. You don wanna get no sources so you revert and revert to get your way. Grow up and start researching like an actual editor. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Well that's false, because removing the section completely would improve the article quite a bit. An article is not improved by the inclusion of obviously POV, highly slanted, poorly sourced material. — goethean 18:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Nazi Germany used gun control as a tool in their genocide of the Jews. That's a fact supported by plenty of reliable sources in the article (and elsewhere). You're the only one pushing a POV here. ROG5728 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
What is at issue here is a section in this article which purports to describe gun control's "association with authoritarianism". THAT thesis is an argument, not a simple or obvious observation. And it is an argument made by lots of right-wing think tanks, not by mainstream sources. It is really interesting how this article treats gun control's "association with authoritarianism" but stays weirdly silent on the topics of gun control in liberal democracies or other societies. It doesn't take an Einstein-level genius to see what is going on here. — goethean 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There's an issue with the name of the section, then. I agree, the name of the section should be changed. Actually, I did change it; then PraetorianFury changed it back. Not surprising, for an editor that has done nothing but WP:DISRUPT the article since entering this discussion. ROG5728 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you whining about a rollback after having just made one? Feel free to make one undisputed change at a time if you actually want it to stick, but don't think you're fooling anyone by alleging hypocrisy because I don't sift through all the changes to try to find the few good ones. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Suppose that were true. If that were true, how would it be relevant to an article on gun control? Does the article on Mayonnaise discuss Nazi use of Mayonnaise? SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
How is the history of gun control relevant to an article on gun control? Good question! NOT. ROG5728 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
That was not the question that I asked, as I presume you are aware. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

JPFO non-arbitrary break for ease of editing

PraetorianFury just added the Holocaust survivor quotes back, asking for better sources. Funny, because just a few comments earlier he said "WP:ONUS is on adding or restoring editors to provide reliable sources, so you should be looking for better sources before you revert." Make up your mind Praetorian... you can't have it both ways. If you want better sources for the Holocaust survivor quotes, get to work finding them. You're the only one that wants to keep them. I think they should be removed either way, as I stated earlier, because they take up a lot of space in a section that's already too big. ROG5728 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not ironic at all. I've maintained that only one of the holocaust survivor quotes needs to be deleted due to its unreliability and overweighting. When I made the change, it was reverted. So we will keep both, tags and all until a better solution is found. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the ADL is no more reliable a source than the JFPO, nor does it deserve more weight; actually, the quote that reliable sources happen to agree with is the one from the JFPO interview. Regardless, both Holocaust survivor quotes need to go because the section is too big; actually, it's much bigger than even the section on Gun control in the U.S. ROG5728 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is an issue with competency or just plain old WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. The issue with mentioning Theodore Haas is that he is not an expert. He is not a politician. He is no one. He is just some guy. Abraham Foxman is the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which calls itself "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency". This has everything to do with gun control and it is certainly worth mentioning here. The issue has never been with the reliability of either source, but with their WP:WEIGHT. The national director of a civil rights organization should give infinitely more weight than some guy. I can't really explain it any simpler than that. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Really? Explain how this Abraham Foxman is an "expert" on gun control. He's not. More importantly, you keep complaining about weight but you don't seem to understand how it even works. Go back and actually read the policy you just linked. We give weight based on the prominence and acceptance of the views, not based on who specifically is voicing them. Your ADL quote is at odds with accepted historical fact. Period. In other words, if anything is undue, it's that quote, not the other one. ROG5728 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Because I am editing in good faith, I will provide you with sources. Perhaps this will inspire you to follow my example, but I doubt it.
  • Politico reports on the Foxman quote: [12]
  • Newsmax reports on the Foxman quote: [13]
  • Huffington Post reports on the Foxman quote: [14]
  • Here's a book that mentions Foxman and the ADL supporting gun control, which says, "Anti-semitism has a long and painful history, and the linkage to gun control is a tactic by Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership to manipulate fear of anti-semitism toward their own end." [15]
Did you want anything else? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, you found a multitude of sources that mention his quote. So what? How does that invalidate anything I said? ROG5728 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It establishes that he has been widely reported on in the context of gun control. The ADL in general was even more widely reported on:
The point is that the ADL has been repeatedly connected to the gun control debate and Foxman is their director. He is relevant to this discussion. How about you show me some additional sources reporting on Theodore Haas? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the ADL has been "connected" to the gun control debate doesn't prove anything either. The issue is not relevance. Obviously both quotes are about gun control so they're "relevant" automatically. The point is, the ADL guy is no more an "expert" on gun control than the other guy is. As for finding "additional sources reporting on Theodore Haas" -- I couldn't care less. I think both quotes should go. They unnecessarily bog down a section that is otherwise fact-based and historical. ROG5728 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Wide reporting determines weight. Politicians may or may not be "experts" on gun control, but we often report their remarks on it as they are notable figures. We often report on the opinions of organizations as well. PETA, Pink, the Teaparty, etc. All of these things are noteworthy. Some guy in his shack being interviewed by a 24 hour news network trying to kill time or push an agenda is not notable. As director, we can infer that Foxman speaks for the ADL. The ADL is a civil rights group. Gun rights falls under the umbrella of civil rights. Therefore, Foxman should be mentioned as a representative of the ADL with regards to gun control. If he is not mentioned by name, other quotes taken from the ADL are also acceptable substitutes. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. The fact that a few sources mentioned the quote doesn't prove anything. That's not how weight works. Sorry, the ADL is no more reliable or neutral or relevant with regards to gun control than the JFPO. And we aren't going to give weight to either organization's opinions without a better reason. The section is already too big and neither of those quotes are noteworthy. ROG5728 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
That many sources mention the organization and the quote does indeed prove that it should receive coverage. And you continue to show no understanding of the issues brought up regarding the quote by Theodore Haas. This is clear failure to get the point. Don't think that your childish rhetoric is convincing or original. I've been here for over 5 years and I've seen every sort of subtle manipulate to push an agenda. Nor should you think that your aggressive and bad faith editing will be rewarded. One editor has already been blocked. It will be interesting to see how far you decide to let your tantrum go. I have outlined steps for you when and if you decide to join editors who are working with sincerity: find reliable sources. Until then you are just a revert machine with nothing to contribute to this discussion. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a few sources mention the ADL doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of sources that mention JFPO as well, including the "leading critical theorist with a specialization in the area of punishment and political economy" you were bragging about earlier. The point you keep missing is that I don't care about keeping either of those two quotes so I don't need to find sources. And the fact that you're not addressing my argument and instead attacking me just goes to show that you don't understand WP policies or procedure (after five years nonetheless), and can't make a valid argument in favor of your changes. You're the only editor that wants to keep the Holocaust survivor quotes, so actually you're the one conducting "aggressive and bad faith editing" and you're also the one that needs to look for sources. Sorry, you can't spin reality. Gain support for your changes or they won't stick. Or I could just quote your comment earlier, when you hypocritically said: "WP:ONUS is on adding or restoring editors to provide reliable sources, so you should be looking for better sources before you revert." Get to work. ROG5728 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm knowingly wasting my time correcting you because your fingers are miraculously in your ears and over your eyes, even as you type.
  • "The fact that a few sources mention the ADL doesn't prove anything." - False. It proves that the organization and possibly the quote have received significant mainstream coverage and deserve a mention for discussing this exact topic.
  • "There are plenty of sources that mention JFPO as well" - How many sources mention Theodore Haas? It is not the JFPO that I have a problem with, it's Theodore Haas.
  • "The point you keep missing is that I don't care about keeping either of those two quotes" - If you don't care about the quotes, would you accept deletion of Theodore Haas's quote as I attempted to do originally? Or are you still assuming false equivalence, attempting to trade one shitty source to negate a better one. You think this is a game? You want to trade a pawn for a queen? How about I find a forum post somewhere by some guy on the internet who says there is no connection between Nazi Germany and gun control. If I try to add it to the article, do I get to remove one pro gun rights sentence? Is that how this works?
  • "Or I could just quote your comment earlier..." - I have provided you with multiple reliable sources. You have provided me with none.
Right, and the fact that the organization and/or the quote has received some coverage from a few sources still doesn't prove anything. Again, that's not how weight works. The content is still WP:UNDUE. And you're the one that added the Haas quote back to the article so it's your responsibility to source it if you want to keep it. A number of other editors have already voiced support for removing both quotes prior to this RFC. The current source for the Haas quote (JFPO) is already valid anyway, but that doesn't mean it should stick. Regardless of how many sources we have for it, it's still unnecessary clutter and so is the ADL quote. Again, I couldn't care less about sourcing for either of them. If this were an article dedicated to gun control in Nazi Germany, then both quotes should be included, but the scope of this article is supposed to be much more broad. The article currently gives WP:UNDUE weight to two individuals that probably don't deserve to be mentioned here. Are you so intent on assuming bad faith that you can't understand that? ROG5728 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
So we agree that the Haas quote is given undue weight. Yes? You want reliable sources for the Haas quote. I "refuse" to provide them. Therefore you are justified in deleting it, or since I am acting in good faith, I can do it too. Is this summary correct? PraetorianFury (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We already have a source for the Haas quote, and there are others available. Here is one example. Again, the sourcing for either quote is not the issue. YOU are the only editor taking issue with the sourcing. My stance all along has been that both quotes are unnecessary and should be removed. You don't seem to understand... just because something is sourced doesn't mean it needs to be included. To include either quote is undue because they're both essentially nobodies giving their opinions, and obviously they can't speak for all Jews or all Holocaust survivors. ROG5728 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, as you mentioned earlier, politicians -- there are lots of them with strong opinions for or against gun control, but you don't see us quoting all of those individuals in the article. It would be absurd to do so. Just because someone says something doesn't mean we have to put it on Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe this was your third attempt to misrepresent my point. I will say it again. I have no problem with the reliability of the source for the Haas quote. I have a problem with the weight given to someone whose only qualifications are that he is a holocaust survivor. The book you linked to says that he was simply the "first Holocaust survivor to draw a connection between German gun control and the horror that followed it." Again, no notability established for this individual. He's just a guy who agreed with what JPFO founder Aaron Zelman on gun control. Those are the only two reasons he was interviewed. You are correct, he is a nobody. You are incorrect that the head of the ADL is a nobody. He has his own Wikipedia article which means that he passed the rigorous qualifications specified at WP:NOTABILITY which are specifically designed for new articles. He is notable. His positions deserve weight. When he and his organization are both mentioned in multiple reliable sources. They specifically mention the exact argument made here. Let me quote WP:WEIGHT for you:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

So we have significant coverage in reliable sources for the Foxman quote. It should go in. Haas is a tiny minority. Policy says he should not receive any mention at all. Can you tell me how I am interpreting this wrong? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A number of problems:

  • Again, we don't assign weight based on who a statement is coming from or whether the person in question has his own Wikipedia article.
  • Coverage for both of these Holocaust survivor quotes has been slim to non-existent, and it's fair to say that no one would know about either quote if it were not for this Wiki article. No one looks to the ADL guy for his expertise on the subject of gun control. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, no one even knows about the ADL's stance on guns. Sure, you can find sources if you search for them and try to find them, but that doesn't mean there's broad coverage. Even Joe Biden's comments on gun control have been much more widely reported and are much more well-known, and we don't include those in the article (and for good reason).
  • The view by Haas is the "view of a significant minority?" How so? A majority of Americans actually see gun rights as protection against tyranny, so Haas's view is not some fringe minority view that doesn't deserve mention. Speaking of being "misleading as to the shape of the dispute," it would be incredibly misleading to quote the ADL guy while deleting the Haas quote and ignoring the JPFO. So that snippet from WP:WEIGHT essentially undermines your own argument.
  • Again, just because someone says something (even if it's in some valid sources or the guy has good credentials) doesn't mean it needs to go on Wikipedia. See also: Joe Biden's well known "double barrel shotgun" comments.
  • This is a section on the history of gun control, not people's arguments for or against it, so it should stick to the bare facts and leave out the opinions of both of these two individuals. We have a dedicated "arguments" section for a reason. ROG5728 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a section on the history of gun control, not people's arguments for or against it, so it should stick to the bare facts and leave out the opinions of both of these two individuals.
What complete and utter hogwash. This is a tiny snippet of history, using partisan sources and placed into this article in a shameful partisan effort to associate gun control with totalitasrian regimes.
A majority of Americans actually see gun rights as protection against tyranny], so Haas's view is not some fringe minority view that doesn't deserve mention.
This is a crazy, disingenuous argument. Should one argue that because a majority of Americans like the Beatles, every criticism of the Beatles should be balanced by a partisan quotation from some unknown person? What nonsense. — goethean 01:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control is going to be inextricably associated with totalitarian regimes whether you like it or not, because that's history. Do we need to include gun control quotes from Hitler and Mao in order to satisfy you? Because they're both on the record stating that gun control was an important means to their political ends. I suppose that's all "partisan" nonsense too? As for the Haas statement, a strong majority of Americans hold that view, as I said, and it's our job per WP:NPOV to balance opposing views. And as for the Beatles article, yes, of course criticisms toward them should be balanced. Actually, criticism sections in general should be avoided because they tend to distort reality. ROG5728 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments like this make me think that WP:COMPETENCE is going to be a real bottleneck here. It shows no understand of policy or the arguments which have been brought forward. To answer your question, YES, Hitler and Mao are notable figures whose opinions are worth mentioning. Just about anything is better than the disingenuous hack writing that we have in the article currently. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the are more globally notable people to quote on the topic of gun control. The dissent in Silveria, Heston, etc. However, I can see a good argument that the "bar of notability" is lower in this case due to the narrow context. We are specifically discussing gun control and the holocaust. Therefore opinions of Jewish organizations are of increased relevance. The ADL is certainly more notable as a Jewish organization, but isn't really focused on gun rights/gun control. A Jewish gun rights (or Jewish gun control) group is a very precise intersection, directly relevant to the topic at hand. Similarly if we were writing an article on any random topic "French lesbian poetry in the 1800s" etc, an otherwise un-notable person may be suitable for inclusion if that was the subject of their dissertation etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
STILL missing the point. I mean seriously, what can we do when you guys just can't seem to understand the most carefully worded explanations? I've lost count of how many times I've said this: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RELIABILITY OF THE JPFO AS A SOURCE TO COMMENT ON THIS. But that's not what's happening here. This is not a spokesperson for the JPFO. This isn't their director. This is just some guy they interviewed on time. If the JPFO repeated his claims, that's great. In that case we should quote the JPFO. But just finding some guy on the street to state your opinion is such transparently biased journalism, it's completely unacceptable for us to do it here. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, Gaijin, but what WP policy states that we cherry-pick individuals' opinions on policy or poetry because we deem them to be part of some privileged population? I'll refrain from characterizing that viewpoint other than to say it is morally repugnant and, incidentally, not WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
An interview, published on the JPFO site, conducted by the JPFO founder, and prefaced by an introduction from "The Editors", where the founder specifically asked the subject the question we quote. " this one conducted by Aaron Zelman, founder, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, with Theodore Haas, a JPFO member and a former prisoner of the infamous Dachau concentration camp...". If you concede that JPFO is a reliable/notable enough source to use, then why do you object to their own editorial judgement as to how best to present that view (in this case via an interview with a direct victim of the Nazi policies we are discussing). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Because they are and advocacy group. They are not journalists and their editorial judgement has exactly one goal in mind: pushing their agenda. Our goal is different: representing as accurately as possible the reality of the debate. Why are you so determined to have this one person's opinion stated in the article when there are so many other options available? Why don't you demonstrate your good faith and replace the Haas quote with a statement by the JPFO. This is what I've been asking for since my very first comment. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they are an advocacy group.The ACLU is also an advocacy group. You have already stipulated that their opinion is relevant and notable enough. This is the way they have chosen to express that opinion. Their POV is not WP:FRINGE and per policy should be represented. However, I have provided some more directly editoral quotes, and trimmed the Haas quote the most relevant portion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
STILL missing the point. Man this is truly amazing. I want to do a case study on this discussion. "How strong opinions turn editors into deaf lunatics". I have never disputed that the ADL (not the ACLU) is an advocacy group. But the person we are quoting is a direct representative of the organization, its director. He is speaking for the organization. Not only does the organization have a Wikipedia page, but he does himself trivially proving that he is notable. Haas represents no one but his own opinion. We do not care about the opinion of some guy on Wikipedia. We care about the opinions of groups, experts, or notable figures (those with power, probably). That is the problem with the Haas quote. Perhaps the millionth time saying this to you will be the charm? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
How the group chooses to present their view is not our concern. The editors published that interview, with commentary endorsing it. You are creating a bar that does not exist. If it did, virtually EVERY SOURCE wikipedia uses would be disqualified, because it wasn't a direct statement from the leader of the organization. They chose to do the interview. They chose to publish it. It IS their content. I am baffled by your statement that Haas is irrelevant. He is a living primary source, directly subjected to the policies at hand. He is notable, by the degree virtue that the JPFO and others have chosen to interview and quote him, just like every other interview subject ever. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I am waiting to read the opinions of the French Lesbians on Nazi gun laws. Let's take the JPFO to the fringe review talk page and get an opinion as to how much space to devote to their opinion. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Their editors can play all sorts of games with inclusion and omission. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than something that is pro or con anything. Because they did it is not enough justification for us to echo it. I have no problem with stating the opinion of the organization, but we are not an extension of their publication department and we won't blindly copy and paste any manipulative drivel they decide to put to paper. Yes, he is a holocaust survivor, but this does not grant him instant notability or expertise. There are people still alive who lived through Segregation, yet this does not automatically give every African American the right to be quoted on Wikipedia. We quote civil rights leaders, politicians, experts, etc. We don't quote bob protester. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The way that the mayo analogy is irrelevant is informative here. Gun control largely IS instances of it, mayo is not instances of it being eaten. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, North. Have a looksee: Petitio principii. Capiche? SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You are going to have to be more specific if you are trying to imply applicability. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The feeling is mutual. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Mine didn't imply anything, it was a short direct statement about one aspect discussed. But to expand on that, gun control is largely an action, not an object. And so coverage of examples of gun control (e.g. of major ones in history) is coverage directly of the topic. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Using mayonnaise is an action -- like regulating gun usage. [20] SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The section heading and the content of the section are a ham-fisted attempt to equivocate and refer to "gun control" by authoritarian police states as if it has the same meaning as "gun control" in various representative democracies. Next, let's write an article comparing the Affordable Care Act to human vivisection under dictatorships. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
So you want to remove the bad gun control to make gun control look better?  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
One of the arguments against gun control is firearm ownership as protection against an authoritarian state. Conversely, authoritarian states woudl implement gunn control to counter this. I think that both make it germane.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That is a great summary of right-wing, fringe beliefs. It is not a summary that a mainstream historian would endorse. THAT is the big problem with the article. It reflects a right-wing, fringe view. Unfortunately, there appears to be a consensus at the talk page to violate Wikipedia policy and to enshrine fringe, right-wing, (and false) views in this article. So until a quorum of policy-abiding editors appears, this article will probably have to stay in its current, policy-violating state. — goethean 14:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This thread (and my comment) is about someone saying that we should exclude authoritarian gun control from the article because they claim that it is inherently different, and I'm saying that it should not be excluded. It is not about the straw-man / mus-characterizaiton of enshrining some belief throughout the article. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The section is titled "association with totalitarianism". That's an ARGUMENT and not something that you will find in a non-right-wing history book. It was organized as an argument until ROG5728 reorganized the article, suddenly attempting to make it part of history. This change flagrantly violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and must be reverted. — goethean 14:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That is also a different topic than my post which you were responding to, albeit a good one to discuss. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Another good topic to discuss is why you reverted my edit which undid ROG5728's flagrantly POV changes to the article. Your reversion is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and if you respected Wikipedia policy, you would undo yourself. — goethean 14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Man up, North. Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst? Here's a novel idea: Consider ending this discussion in your favor by locating and citing WP:RS references which explicitly state, without additional interpretation, synthesis, or speculation, the views you wish to insert in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@Goethean. Your question has multiple false implied premises and accusations buried it and so would take a lot of dissection to answer. If you have a question about a specific edit and can stick to the question, (and let me know which edit you are talking about) I'd be happy to answer. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, I'm not trying to insert anything into the article, much less "views". If you would like to know what I am firmest about retaining in the section under discussion, it is coverage of the historical events / instances of gun control which it contains. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
REVISED...Man up, North. Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst? Here's a novel idea: Consider ending this discussion in your favor by locating and citing WP:RS references which explicitly state, without additional interpretation, synthesis, or speculation, the text you wish to retain in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
See previous answer. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
North, Please review WP:HEAR. I didn't ask you what you wish to retain. I asked you to find RS that connects it to the topic of the article. Please re-read my statement above and go find the kryptonite citations that will win this debate for you. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Quit the crap with the blank unsubstantiated linking. And whether you intended to or not, that is one of the worst cases of a common POV warrior tactic. Trying to make it as time-consuming as impossible to prevent your preferred result from happening. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
North, my good friend: I apologize if we commoners fall short of your own standard, but let's move on...

Far from trying to prevent anything, I stated the simple action you can now take to end the RfC, retain the content you feel should be in this article, and conserve your valuable time. Regardless of whether you feel that would be too time-consuming or even if it angers you to the point of expletives, the fact remains that WP policy is very clear as to what text may appear in articles here. The shortcomings of the current text have been enumerated by several editors here and in light of your concern, why not consume a few moments of your time by conforming the text to WP policy by furnishing [refer to remedy stated by me, as REVISED above]. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How 'bout we 'genuinely' be friendly?....despite sarcasm in your post, having seen your work/discussions elsewhere, I think that that is possible. BTW, as I said, the only thing that I was calling crap was your sentence linking to Wp:hear. And I am not willing to to do that lobsided unusual amount of work for every piece that I think shouldn't be take out. I just want an informative article where nothing is taken out to serve a particular POV. And so I want an article that is not POV'd either way. And so I lean towards information, and away from characterizations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Support I would like to see this section removed. If we include the range of arguments for or against gun control in the article, I think some of the points made in this section could be included, with sources. As currently written, this section is an argument and a tendentious one at that, placed in a prominent place, as if it were overwhelmingly important to the topic. Get rid of it. Obviously, oppressive regimes attempt to impose arms control, just as they aim to control the media, the flow of information, travel, education, commerce, food, etc. The fact that repressive regimes may use gun control as a tool has really very little bearing on the issue of gun control today.Michaplot (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Again, Immensely flawed RFC It has the argument for one side embedded in it. The inclusion and exclusion from the advertising is forum shopping. It would need a complete do-over to have any validity. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Support. This section conflates "gun control" (that is to say, a broad-based, non-discriminatory attempt by govs to limit or regulate private gun ownership) with persecutions of particular "enemies of the state" (Jews or dissidents) by genocidal regimes, that included violations of the gun rights of certain minority groups. This characterization is as misleading as referring to the seizure of private property from Jews as (to support Nazi causes and Aryan families) an example of economic redistributionism. The section also utterly fails to provide evidence of any causal between gun control and authoritarian governments; it just asserts the connection bereft of any empirical support. It needs to go. Steeletrap (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing gun control in Nazi Germany section

This section is egregiously biased and distorted, and should be removed entirely. To make the claim that gun control was material to the persecution of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany is not merely to claim that Jews were disarmed; everyone knows they were deprived of all civil rights. When people think of gun control, they think of a broad (non-discriminatory) governmental policy of limiting private gun ownership. If just Jews were subject to gun control, the most descriptively characterization is not to say something like "strict gun control was practiced in Nazi Germany" but to say "Jews were deprived of all of their civil rights, including the right to bear arms." (Similarly, 19th century America should not be described as practicing "strict gun control" simply because it deprived African-Americans of the right to bear arms; this is a misleading, descriptively inadequate claim.) To imply that "gun control" (as we understand the term) led to the Holocaust, you have to show that policies of gun control was imposed independently of this general prosecution of Jews (i.e., that "Aryans" were disarmed) and that this gun control facilitated the agenda and atrocities of Nazi Germany. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with Steeletrap. A key issue is the fact that the material on Nazi gun control, even if adequately sourced, does not belong where it is. It is not so relevant that it deserves to be emphasized. It should be moved to the arguments section.Michaplot (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We already went over this in the RFC. And no, it's not an argument, so it does not belong in the arguments section. ROG5728 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The RfC is still open, and about evenly split. Steeltrap, please review the RfC above and, if you wish, record your view there. ROG: If you wish to close the RfC please notify an uninvolved party to arrange that through the appropriate channels. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have made a post on the requests for closure noticeboard for the RFC. Evenly split would indicate a lack of consensus, therefore WP:STATUSQUOGaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So folks are basically arguing that we should exclude any coverage of gun control where the gun control was not a good thing and / or implemented by bad people. North8000 (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. We are saying that "gun control" as the term is commonly understood (i.e., the sort of policies that the U.S. Senate is currently debating, and which characterize the vast majority of Western Europe) is not a descriptively accurate characterization of what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany. We already know that Nazi Germany was anti-Semitic and stripped Jews of all civil rights, including gun rights. There is little evidence, however, that Nazi Germany was "anti-gun", or sought to impose strict gun control on its non-Jewish citizens, which is the implication of the notion that it practiced strict gun control (similarly, it would be inaccurate to say that there were strict gun control laws in the U.S. South during the 1850s, even though African-American were virtually banned from owning guns. The accurate characterization here is to say "there was widespread discrimination against African-Americans, including the denial of the right to bear arms." Since the colloquial meaning of gun control consists of a non-discriminatory attempt to limit (all) citizens' access to firearms, it's misleading to say the Nazis (or Confederates) practiced it. There are, however, many ex-Communist states -- which reasonable people would deem "bad" -- that andclearly practiced gun control. You can talk about those. However, you should be wary about drawing dubious causal connections (i.e. no guns--> death/misery/"fascism"), as people have (absurdly) tried to do regarding "gun control" and the Holocaust. Steeletrap (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In both the US and German cases, the widespread discrimination (which is absolutely true) was cloaked as perfectly justifiable and unobjectionable gun control measures. IYou are trying to re-define gun control as gun control that applies equally to everyone, which ignores almost all pre-1980s instances of it. The article is not making the causal connection you object to (although many of us probably do hold that view to some degree). We are documenting the historical fact (which are uncontested), and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion as to the implications of that fact. there are ZERO sources and ZERO arguments of the opinion that the Nazis did not use gun control to aid in their efforts. The only controversy s in what the effect of the counter-factual "if Jews had been armed" would have been, which is a topic which this article DOES NOT DISCUSS. We are not making any arguments whatsoever in this section, therefore it does not belong in the arguments section. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
"Youare trying to re-definegun control as gun control that applies equally to everyone, which ignores almost all pre-1980 instances of it." That is quite wrong. Excluding parts of the United States (and perhaps Great Britain in regards to the Irish), I do not know of any Western nation (unless we count South Africa) that had statutory discrimination against any ethnic group regarding gun control after World War II. Most importantly, that's what "gun control" refers to today. The notion that modern Democratic "gun control" measures are analogous to what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is grotesquely misleading. Steeletrap (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Even using your timeframe of WWII, restricting the concept of gun control to that timeframe would be WP:RECENTISM since the concept is several hundred years old (thousands if you consider the broader topic of arms control). Further, your argument is apparently "the English phrase "Gun control" does not mean what it means in the US and UK, (the primary English speaking countries in the world)." The 1968 gun control laws are widely acknowledged as being discriminatory. Robert Sherrill notable anti-gun researcher and author of "The Saturday Night Special" said "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns to but control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time". General Laney of the National Black Sportasman's association (admittedly, not a super-notable group) "Gun control is really race control. People who embrace gun control are really racists in nature. All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people, mainly black people" Further, discrimination is not only by race, but by class. See this article from the NYTimes discussing current handgun permitting discrimination. article or this one. who else thinks that gun control in the US often has discriminatory roots? Why the Supreme court! In the most recent SCOTUS gun control case (striking down a "modern" "gun control" law, in McDonald) the justices specifically commented on the racist and discriminatory history of gun control in the US "The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that "no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife."Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion of various instances of gun control in the gun control article is not a statement that they are "analogous". North8000 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You are saying they are analogous in some respect insofar as they are both instances of "gun control" as you conceive of the term. Steeletrap (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Only in the same way our article on Morphine discusses its medical and illegal uses. Every tool can be used for good or ill, you are trying to censor discussion of the ill. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Your language constitutes a personal attack. Please note that, according to WP:PA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," such as your claim that my aim is to "censor" examples of gun control that speak ill of it, as opposed to improving the piece on encyclopedic grounds, are personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to complain to the relevant noticeboard and get reprimanded for wasting their time. Why dont you go read the Personal Attacks policy A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Please re-read the WP:PA policy. You are being criticized for imputing a motive of bad faith onto me (i.e., a desire to "censor") not for disagreeing with my changes. I'm not obligated to take time to post to a noticeboard because you personally attacked me. Steeletrap (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Very well, I have reported myself on your behalf. Lets nip this in the bud. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well that's okay because a more neutral presentation of the same topic already exists at Gun politics in Germany, and this article can simply link to that one, the appropriate place for this material. — goethean 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a different topic. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Gun politics in Germany is a completely separate topic from gun control in WW2 Germany? That's your claim? — goethean 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


@Steeltrap, if we cover both a Poodle and a German Shepherd in a "dog" article, that is not any claim that that are analogous. And, in fact, it is clear that they are very different. But both are dogs. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is because it is universally accepted that those are two breeds of dogs. It is not at all widely accepted that the German persecution of the Jews is a breed of gun control. — goethean 16:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course they are "analogous." They are "analogous" insofar as they are both dogs. I do not see what happened in Germany as substantively analogous to the modern Democratic measures that the term "gun control" refers to. Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
@Goethean My post isn't about a claim that " German persecution of the Jews is a breed of gun control" , is that German gun control (controls and restrictions of firearm ownership and usage) at that time is gun control. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Euthenasia was used by the Nazis. It is also (some places) an accepted medical practice. The Article on Euthinasia covers Nazi misuse. So dose the article on CO2 poisoning, and many other articles. This is not "incidental" to the Nazi actions. It was a specifically implemented strategy of oppression and genocide, to which there are NUMEROUS primary sources including diaries from Himmler, Helldorf, Hitler, etc all discussing how useful disarming the jews is. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because "euthanasia" has a clear and specific meaning related to ending a life. Gun control is a more nebulous term, and therefore we have to take into account colloquial and (contemporary) political understandings of that term, according to which the Nazis did NOT practice it. (There is a reason you are so hard-pressed to find credible historians (conservative or liberal) who claim this.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control/Archive_3&oldid=1073140009"