User talk:Felsic2/Gun use

no consensus

Note: At this time the essay was moved from User:Felsic2/Gun use to Wikipedia:Gun use by Dlthewave. –dlthewave ☎ 15:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Dlthewave: Why did you move this essay? I don't think you have consensus to move this screed into WP namespace. Please revert. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Is consensus required? –dlthewave ☎ 20:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: It is. The page was wrongfully moved into WP space by a sock and deleted, and then "restored to original location at User:Felsic2/Gun use pursuant to consensus and move protected." You already know this so I don't see why you'd do this knowing there's disagreement. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no disagreement over where the page should go. The original move to Wiki space was only reverted because it was carried out by a sock. Consensus was to simply revert an improper G5 deletion and restore the page to its pre-sock state. This does not mean that this page needs to stay in this state, in fact several editors mentioned that it can be moved or edited as normal after the reversion is carried out. I moved the essay to Wiki space on my own accord and editors are welcome to discuss or challenge this action as they would any other page move. –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: At this time the essay was moved from Wikipedia:Gun use to User:Dlthewave/Gun use by Chris Troutman. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I resolved the problem. You have as much time as you need to flesh this out and gain consensus. Otherwise, we can take this to MfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: At this time the essay was moved from User:Dlthewave/Gun use to User:Felsic2/Gun use by Dekimasu. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A essay does not require any consensus to be in project space. It can be merely one single editor's view. Nor is lack of agreement with it a valid reason to delete it at an MfD discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: At this time the essay was moved from User:Felsic2/Gun use to Wikipedia:Gun use by DESiegel. –dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the move out of Wikipedia space, which is where essays generally belong, Chris troutman. Now as per WP:BRD anyone who wants to discuss the proper fate of this essay may do so here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC) @Chris troutman: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on location?

Let us look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 7 the deletion eview, the only place that I know of where moving this page to project space was discussed by a significant group of editors. Dlthewave, opening the deletion review, said I would have moved it to essay space myself if somebody else had not done it. Jclemens said Sounds like it should probably be put back in the original location, maybe move protected if it's a sock target. Hut 8.5 said, We can restore it to userspace or potentially to some other title in project space. RoySmith said I have no particular opinion about whether it should stay in the original userspace, or be moved to WP space, but given that it seems to be a target for socks/vandals, some sort of (less than full) protection seems like a good idea. I said whether it should be moved and where, represent normal editorial decisions. The others who commented did not directly refer to a move to project space or away from it. I find it hard to see a clear consensus that this belongs in user rather than project space. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• The relevant policy here says that "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace". The author is inactive, so it's down to whether there is some sort of widespread consensus against the message of the essay. If there is then it ought to be in user space, if there isn't then it can stay in project space. The essay doesn't have to gain general acceptance and it's fine if lots of people disagree with it, as long as other people do agree with it. Hut 8.5 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Above I mentioned, and therefore pinged, all those who, in the DRV discussion, expressed a view on whether this nshould be in usere space or project space, no matter what view was expressed. But to avoid any sugestion of bias or canvassing, I will now ping all those who commented in the DRV, but did not express an opinion on the location, and so were not pinged above.@Berean Hunter, Springee, Stifle, K.e.coffman, and Lankiveil: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on a move, just that, if moved by a sock, a reversion of that move (with move protection if necessary) is far more preferable than a deletion. A community discussion on location is obviously appropriate if there's disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Restoring it to userspace in pre-sock state nullifies sock edits which is what I was trying to do. Where consensus decides that it should go beyond that is a different matter that I'll leave up to others.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The essay was controversial when first proposed

This opinion essay gets a lot of things wrong. It suggests that the only legitimate reason for rejecting something from a firearms article is due to violations of guidelines and policy. It was previously discussed here [[1]]. Pinging the involved editors @RAF910:, @Felsic2:, @Mike Searson:, @Mike Searson:, @Thomas.W:, @Miguel Escopeta:, @Thewellman:. I would support MfD. Alternatively, if we are going to keep it then I think we need to correct many of the issues in the essay. At that point it might as well be the Firearms project page recommendations... which would make this redundant and thus prime to suggest for deletion. Springee (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee:Looking over the short discussion you linked, the only involved editors were Felsic2 (proposer), Thomoas W (oppose inclusion), @CuriousMind01: (support), RAF10 (oppose). The other editors you pinged were involved in a separate discussion about the WP:Firearms essay so I'm not sure why you pinged them but not Curious01. –dlthewave ☎ 12:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion continued into the next section so I notified editors in that area as well. Missing CM1 was an oversight. Thank you for pinging them. Springee (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion being linked to is not compelling, with language such as POV-pushers' how-to-guide. I don't see how it is Firearm's project page recommendation, either (?). The latter (WP:GUNS) is more of a MOS guide, while this essay is different. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. - I changed the subject header to be more neutral.

We can start with the topic of the essay, notability. WP:NOTE doesn't apply since either the topic of the article has NOTE or it doesn't. Adding or removing a crime from a gun article doesn't make the gun article notable. In this case we do need to use the WP definition of notable, not the vernacular definition. What this essay is trying to argue is inclusion based on weight and other factors. Springee (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree on this point; the essay seems to be more focused on WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT. This is easy to fix though. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the issue it really addresses is a combination of WP:WEIGHT / WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV. It can and should be edited to make that clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Many essays take positions that do not command wide support. Some are polarizing, some are endorsed only by a comparatively small group of editors, or may remain primarily a single editor's view. I am by no means fully persuaded by this essay myself. However, nominating an essay for deletion because one disagrees with its arguments, and considers them "wrong" is not the usual response, and is, in my view, not supported by the deletion policy. Instead the usual -- and IMO better -- response is to marshal opposing arguments, perhaps on the essay's talk page or perhaps in a countervailing essay. I would hope that those who feel that this essay "gets it wrong" would follow that approach. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What DES said. Essays are opinion pieces. You can disagree with an opinion; that doesn't make the opinion wrong. If you disagree with this essay, write your own rebuttal. I'd even support renaming this to be Gun use is FOO, and you could call yours Gun use is not FOO (for some suitable value of FOO). Have each one see also the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

DES, do keep in mind the overturn of the deletion was as much about a procedural issue as anything. It wasn't an endorsement of this essay's quality. Also, if you are going to ping editors who participated in the review, please ping all to make sure they get a chance to voice their views. Springee (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Springee, yes, the DRV discussion was largely procedural, and did not imply a strong endorsement of the quality of this essay. But then it did not need to. Several participants expressed a view on where the essay should be placed, and I quoted (in a section above) the relevant parts of the discussion on that issue only, as well as linking to to full discussion, above. I have now pinged all remaining participants in the DRV discussion, although several had already found and commented in the discussion here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with DES and RoySmith that essays don't need to meet some sort of suitability or neutrality criteria to be moved to wiki space. The original proposal at WP:GUNS was to include the essay within a Wikiproject, which does warrant a consensus-building process. Simply moving it to Wiki space as a standalone opinion piece is a different process which doesn't require community endorsement. If it's controversial, that's OK. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Title

The title "Gun use" is rather broad, and does not clearly indicate he subject matter of this essay. Its major point is to advocate that, in articles about specific types of firearms, violence, particularity criminal violence, which employed those firearms, should be mentioned. I therefore suggest a more specific title, such as: "Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Now that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use has concluded as "userfy back to User:Felsic2/Gun use" (courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos), this discussion seems moot. Additionally, taking WP:USERESSAY into account, it seems that this page is best left at the title which the author chose. Anyone is free to unilaterally overturn my close and reopen this discussion within one month of the closure date if they disagree. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Gun use → Wikipedia:Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles – This essay is not about how gun use in general should be discussed in Wikipedia articles. It is very specifically about whether incidents of gun violence, particularly criminal violence, should be mentioned in articles about particular types of guns, advocating in favor of such mention. The title should reflect that. As with many essays, the proposed title is in the imperative to indicate the position for which the essay advocates. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I can only assume the author of this "essay" seeks to demonize firearms so as mention of violence shall not be avoided. This is the same thing Kecoffman is at ARBCOM at, making sure we can't talk about WWII flanking attacks or encirclements without reiterating that all Germans are Nazis and therefore evil. Whoever wrote this partisan tripe seeks to ensure we can't talk about firing pins or magazine springs without reiterating that all guns are evil. I'm sad that politics influences these articles. I'd prefer to delete this "essay" and upbraid the author. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:USERFY instead - Perpetually divisive and will never develop further than an essay. Even at its best, it would not be appropriate for the Project namespace as it is too specific, gives advice which could breech core policies and general guidelines for what we include in articles. Such a discussion must be made on a per-article basis, judging the weight of sources. We would never have an essay about handling of other specific sensitive topics - imagine a Wikipedia:Mentioning race in crime articles. Alternatively, turn this over to WP:WikiProject Firearms. I'll ping them. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to note for the record that I am not the author of this essay, and do not fully support its views. That said, a previous attempt to delete it, and then to userfy it after restoration was unsuccessful. Netoholic says that this will never develop further than an essay. Why should it? Why would anyone want it to? An essay attempts to persuade people to do things in a particular way. It is not an embryo guideline, or should not be. It also need not have wide support. There is nothing wrong in a Wikipedia editor posting an opinion on how we should or should not edit articles. I do not see how this essay advises us to breech core policies and general guidelines. There is nothing in core policies forbidding the mention of verifiable violent incidents in articles about gun types. Nor is there anything requiring such mentions. It is purely a matter of editorial judgement, and the author of this essay hoped to influence that judgement. That hope may well be vain. But the author can still make what case s/he can for it. Disagreeing with an essay is not a valid reason to delete it. It is a valid reason to write a counter essay giving the count-arguments. If these are as persuasive as you believe, then the original essay will have no significant effect. An essay has no force unless it persuades people. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagreeing with an essay is a reason to userfy it. The WP namespace lends credibility to a minority opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and userfy - The original deletion discussion already concluded it should be userfied and the editors went out of their way to specifically mention this instead of putting it in main space. Renaming it is unnecessary as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Userfy, if not, rename.Delete, Userfy, rename in order of preference. My thoughts are largely above in the previous discussions. Delete would be my first choice but userfy or a "truth in advertising name" would be second and third. Springee (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Partial Support. I semi-agree with User:Chris troutman's partisan tripe comment. I don't think it's tripe, but it's certainly partisan. And that's OK. It's an essay. It's allowed to be partisan, and not subject to WP:NPOV. I encourage those who disagree with it to write a rebuttal essay, which I assume will also be partisan. And given the high caliber of people who work on this project, I also assume it will not be tripe. And, now that I've re-litigated the DRV, let's talk about the name. The current name sucks, because it doesn't give anybody a clue what the essay is about. I'm not sure I like the proposed name, because it doesn't quite reflect what the essay is saying. Maybe Include notable crimes on gun articles (from the first section head) would be a better alternative? I disagree with User:DESiegel's moving it out of userspace into project space. The DRV was closed with a consensus to restore it to user space. Unilaterally overriding that consensus was somewhere between WP:BOLD and WP:POINTy. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC

• RoySmith I must disagree with your contention that The DRV was closed with a consensus to restore it to user space. Exactly five editors in the DRV mentioned its final location. Of those, exactly ONE felt that in should be in userspace and nowhere else. One said that it should wind up in project space, and that s/he would have moved it there had the sock not done so. The other three (including you, and including myself) said or implied that it might properly end up in either location. All 5 comments are quoted above in full, on this page. I cannot construe them as a consensus that the essay was to be put, and to remain, in userspace only. Nor was my move to project space unilateral. It had the support of several other editors, as can be seen above on this page, and in my view was supported by policy as well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Partial Support - I would prefer "Include notable crimes in gun articles" or something similar. Userification might be the best option at this point. Remember, the function of the deletion review was to put the essay back where it was before the improper speedy deletion, not to decide where it should go. Regardless of the outcome we do need to make sure that all necessary redirects are in place, as the various related discussions contain links to multiple page names/locations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Felsic2, the author of this mess, seems intent on saying that the criminal use of guns should be mentioned in articles, as there's no other logical reason for anyone to either write or read an article about a weapon. That said, a fitting title might be Demonize gun use, Articles about guns should mention crimes, or Guns beget violence. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no other logical reason for anyone to either write or read an article about a weapon ... Demonize gun use ... Guns beget violence None of these things are even hinted at in this essay. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. That's exactly what it says. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate title, or perhaps delete the parts of the essay that insist on discussing how guns are used in crimes despite all the arguments against. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest an alternate title Please see my !vote above. –dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm not sure how I overlooked that. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTSOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda.." This essay is in breach of that policy, and advocates adding further breaches of the policy to articles in guns.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• DELETE...I 100% agree with Toddy1. Well said, Sir. --RAF910 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete As the above stated, it sets a bad precedent. -72bikers (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I must point out, this is a page move discussion, not a deletion discussion, nor has proper notice been given of a deletion discussion, and a previous attempted deletion was undone. Deleting an essay because one disagrees with it would be a much worse precedent, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional comment DES is correct, this isn't a deletion discussion. I certainly don't like this essay (see above) but I want to make sure the previous deletion and restoration history is kept in perspective. The essay was deleted because a sock editor moved it from user space to WP space. To deal with the sock an admin simply deleted the essay. The The previous deletion discussion was restore based on improper procedure. It was then sent to the user space and unconfirmed users were locked out. I believe the conclusion of that discussion was that we were basically back at square one. The previous deletion discussion neither biased for or against promotion to WP space. Essentially once another editor took the essay under their wing, the previous discussions were meaningless (at least that's how I read it). Thus, even though I think the essay is crap, I can't claim the previous discussion says we need to keep it in user space. We just have to hash it out as if it were a new essay. Springee (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the proposed title is more accurate and descriptive of the content. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Moral support but "gun violence incidents in firearm articles" is somewhat wordy. How about Wikipedia:Gun crime or Wikipedia:Mention gun crime in firearm articles? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• I am certainly open to alternate suggestions, but Wikipedia:Gun crime is really just as vague as Wikipedia:Gun use. This is a very specific, narrowly focused essay, and in my view needs a quite specific title. Wikipedia:Mention gun crime in firearm articles might do. There could then be a shortcut, such as WP:MGC for quick typing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

As a native speaker of English, my approach to grammar is largely, I know what sounds right. I never studied formal grammar until I (nominally) learned Spanish, and (sort of) learned how to convey subtleties of meaning via the various conjugations. With that disclaimer, I'll dive with wild abandon into a grammatical analysis of how this should be named.

The essay is stating an opinion, and trying to persuade people to do things a certain way. Opinions are conveyed with subjunctive mood. Commands are conveyed with imperative mood. I'm not 100% sure which applies here. Is the essay expressing the author's opinion (I think gun articles should talk about crimes), or is it expressing a desire that other people also do it that way (You should talk about crimes in gun articles), or commanding them to do so (Talk about crimes in gun articles)? I don't know the answer, but it seems like we need to answer that before we can intelligently discuss a title.

Another issue is that titles need to be reasonably short. All of the suggestions I've seen fail on this score. Of the three examples in the previous paragraph, the last is certainly the shortest. And, I think the use of the imperative also matches the intent of the author. But, we can tighten it up a bit (Mention crimes in gun articles). That's short enough that it's easy to remember, and, I think, adequately describes the content. It's also got the nice property that it's easy to invert, so when somebody writes the rebuttal, the title will be obvious: Don't mention crimes in gun articles.

I'd love to have input from people with a better grasp of formal grammar. But, please, let's try to talk about the grammar, and not about whether you agree with the essay or not. The job of a title is to let the reader judge whether the content will be of interest to them. If the content of the essay makes you angry, having the title make you angry means the title has done it's job well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia essay title4s are rarely in the subjunctive, in my experience. They are not infrequently in the indicative, such as Process is Important and not uncommonly in the imperative, such as Wikipedia:Be neutral in form, Wikipedia:Deny recognition, Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!, Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, (and many others starting with "Don't") Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions, Wikipedia:Keep it concise, and Wikipedia:Use modern language among others. My intent was to propose a title in the imperative, in the tradition of these, which is why my proposed title starts with a verb. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Deletion

4 editors, myself User:RAF910, User:Springee, User:Toddy1, and User:72bikers believe that this page should be deleted. Therefore I have started the process. Please see...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use.--RAF910 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace pages go to WP:MFD not AFD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone, but User:Chris troutman already fixed it.--RAF910 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• He fixed it about half-way -- the discussion page still uses the AfD templates. But that will be a problem for the eventual closer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)