Talk:Gun control

DR

I have opened a DR on the Nazi issue. Everyone who cares is included, and should be notified shortly by the DR bot. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not include you as an involved party, so you won't be notified, but certainly have no objection to you adding yourself. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think one of my comments is missing above.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I will note that this (only) relates to one (#4) of the 5 questions. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be the main concern though. If this helps the situation I'm all for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute over if the content should be included is mostly irrelevant to what the overall article title/location is. Wherever the primary article is that is discussing gun control, under whatever name, would gain "ownership" of this dispute. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I should probably mention that there is an open AN/I over the dispute (or part of it at any rate) and that DR/N declines fillings when there is another open DR venue/discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The question posed at the AN is on merging, not on what content belongs in any given article (although certainly the discussion has veered into that direction, it is not the formal point of the AN) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When an article has a dispute ongoing at AN or AN/I, the case is always declined until the AN or AN filing closes. Perhaps if you drop a line to the DR/N talk page explaining that you feel an exception should be made here and for what reasons it may be allowed. If that AN/I filling looks close to closing perhaps they will just allow it to stand with the hope that the AN/I case will be resolved before the DR/N case is formally opened.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The AN is the wrong venue and a dead end, as the admins there are starting to point out. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The only problem with that is, as the DR/N volunteer mentioned, the AN filing is only two days old and does not appear to have a formed consensus as yet (even if it looks like it is moving in a certain direction). It seems one volunteer (transportationman) may be inclined to allow the filling while another (Guy Macon) feels the AN filing is a concern for opening the DR case. I'll await their decision before adding any opening myself.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gun Control DR/N, and everyone in invited to comment there, but only on the narrow question of delaying a DRN filing while there is an ongoing AN discussion, not about gun control or content forking.

I am hoping that this does eventually end up at DRN, and I plan on asking if anyone -- DRN volunteer or disputant -- objects to me volunteering to try to resolve this. I will speak of this a bit more on the DRN talk page, and invite comments there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The night Raleigh died

Found this at Thompson submachine gun, where it got deleted, & it seemed like saving it might be worthwhile.

"For example, North Carolina restricts fully automatic weapons except for soldiers, law enforcement, and merchants with a permit who need them to defend their business."

Anybody want to try & work it in? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Homicide" / fluid terms

While the common meaning of homicide is murder of one human by another the technical one is the killing of one human by another. Folks who want to make the homicide figures look higher can use the latter definition, which includes, for example shooting of people by the police or military, or in self defense. For example, if someone kills someone in self defense using a gun, this is counted by some of them as a "homicide" and of course "due" to the presence of the gun. Additions regarding studies should explore and clarify exactly what the study used as a definition of a "homicide".

(BTW, another common one is counting suicides as "use of a gun against a family member" because technically a person is a family member of themselves.) North8000 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And please don't forget that this is the global article. It's not just about the USA. It covers the other 95% of the world's population as well. You will find it very difficult to get precise definitions for the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess what I meant is that these two are cases where there is available a technical meaning which is very different than the common meaning and that some utilize that disparity. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. It's possible to find statistics that will support almost any view. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there do not appear to be any stats in the article, the discussion appears to be moot. However, police typically only report figures for cases they treat as criminal homicide, which would include cases such as George Zimmerman who was found not guilty based on self-defense. In 2007 U.S. police killed 391 people and citizens killed 254 people in self-defense.[1] It is not a major part of the approx 10,000 gun homicides per year and does not explain why for example the U.S. gun homicide rate is five times more than Canada, which itself has a relatively high gun homicide rate among industrialized countries. TFD (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The FBI includes both sets in their numbers (though they are relatively small as you state). Suicides are also included, and that however is a very large number. That still does leave the 10k number. In comparing to Canada, I am somewhat surprised the delta is not higher (its only 5x) considering how much lower Canada's gun ownership is. "—In 2010, 31,672 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.5 percent of all injury deaths in that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2 percent) and homicide (35.0 percent). The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) was 10.1 in 2010, unchanged from the rate in 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide increased 3.4 percent in 2010 from 2009, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3 percent." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Injuries from lawn mowers are also higher in countries where more people own lawn mowers.North8000 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Canada's gun ownership rate is 30.8 guns per hundred people compared with 88.8 in the U.S.[2] But a number of those homicides are gang-related and they are able to buy guns smuggled from the U.S. TFD (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The USA also has about 160,000 deaths per year from doctor errors. Much more than countries that have few or no doctors. More doctors = more deaths from doctor errors.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be that high levels of gun homicides are perfectly acceptable. If you find a source that says that is a significant view, then we can add it. But it is not a conclusion we can make among ourselves and add to the article. TFD (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

North - neither lawn mowers nor doctors are the subject of this article. Please drop that nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it was germane to the tangent that this thread has gone off on.  :-) :-) The thread was really about just clarity of terms, especially when a "technically true" definition is available which conflicts with the common meaning of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

North8000, this talk page is for discussions of the article, not to chat about whatever you want. You've made several comments have don't appear to have any relation to improving the article. Please keep your comments on topic, or your comments may be removed. — goethean 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hilo, you misunderstand North's point. He is using an "analogy", not trying to make the article about lawn mowers or hospitals . For examples Suicides are the majority of US firearms deaths. Firearms are one method of suicide and the data suggests that a total absence of firearms doesn't change the rate of suicide death much, but rather the method of suicides. The real suicide number relevant and attributable to firearms in the US is between 200 to 1,200 (the studies show an elevation of between 1 and 6%.). Slightly less important but also notable are say firearms accidents. Hunting is an outdoor sport with health benefits like bike riding, kayaking etc. Yet owning a bike or Kayak when counting individuals against general pop, or jurisdictions with higher ownership rates, creates an elevated early death risk from those activities. Thirdly there is very god evidence that when it comes to gun murder the vast majority (80 to 90%) of victims are criminals. If people are engaging in a very high risk lifestyle (gang membership, meth production, part time mugger, armed robber, etc). In other words there is a different set of rational number than the aggregates thrown out there. They would be, say 600 suicides that occur because of guns; and 1,500 to 3,000 murders of non criminals.13:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.227.93 (talk)

108.48.227.93, how does this relate to improving the article? — goethean 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It indicates that "homicide = bad" is something that should not be implied, even though it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to actually use that in the article in regard the homicide statistics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

IP, those are anti-gun control arguments which may or may not belong in the article, but we need to take arguments from sources, not make them ourselves. See "No original research". Research btw shows that there is a link between gun ownership and suicide.[3] TFD (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control Statistics should be presented that show that Violence in America has decreased significantly over time while many other countries have simply hit a plateau.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dab1994 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Progress?

Can we finally get rid of the templates at the top? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not, considering that User:North8000 and User:Gaijin42 just removed the merge template through edit warring. This article is clearly a POV fork of gun politics.

Why is there a history of gun control in Germany both at this article and at Gun politics in Germany? Because certain editors find it amenable to their ideology to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis, which is propaganda straight out of the NRA playbook. Shameful. — goethean 00:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the false accusations against editors.North8000 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Gothean, wait a minute, we've debated, lambasted, argued, cajoled, and ridiculed that subject to death. There's no clear consensus (or apparently compelling evidence) that either is a fork of the other or that either is a distinguishable sub-topic of the other.

Are there subjects regarding gun politics that have nothing to do with "control", yes. Are the subjects related to gun control all "political" in way or another, yes. We all seem to agree on this, but it doesn't get us any closer to a solution. Interested in trying to take a strictly clinical approach to this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How about starting by providing a reliable source that explains why and how discourse over the regulation of firearms can usefully be subdivided into 'control' and 'politics'? Or is asking for a source too 'clinical'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Andy, just curious, but how much effort have you put into finding one since you are the staunchest of the editors asking for it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. TFD (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, conversely, ask for one that says they are the same topic. WP:RS's do not write about Wikipedia disputes, which is what such a specialized question would be. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since clearly there is still a dispute over whether the articles should be merged - and there will continue to be unless and until it is demonstrated in reliable sources that there are two different subjects - the templates must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, probably inadvertently you have tried one of the oldest tricks in the talk page book. Which is to try for "my/a view automatically/by default stands unless the other guy meets a very high bar for proving his". And to illustrate, I stated the equally (in)valid converse. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in responding to your repetitive stonewalling BS. It is a fact that there is a dispute over whether the subject of the regulation of firearms can legitimately be subdivided in the way it is - and therefore the templates must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you not be so nasty and rude? Including mis-stating and mis-characterizing my comments. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, your demand is backwards. Sources do not address the infinite pairs of topics that are disparate. Can you find a wp:rs source that says that a Ferrari is a different topic than a goldfish? A claim that they are one and them same is what would need to be supported by sources, and such would plausibly exist if such were the case. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This article clearly not a POV fork. Type Gun Control into Google and you get 700million returns! How can anyone for a second, with a straight face, attempt to argue that this does not merit it's own article????? All the major newsinfotainment providers have sections dedicated to gun control. It's a POV push to try to delete or fold this article into something else. Some people out there are trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" and the term "gun control" doesn't quite fit with their new brand. Tough, it's what society calls this to the tune of 700million articles! The template can go, this is an established topic and it is stand alone. Now even if in some bizzaro world this were a pov fork, it's big enough and diverse enough to merit it's own article. Look at Climate Change there is an article for global warming and an article for global cooling and an article for global warming politics. I mean, seriously, can we stop this nonsense. Gun Control is an article. It might be related to gun politics but it merits its own article.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Then it needs to follow WP:SS rather than creating a hodgepodge of NRA propaganda bullshit in an attempt to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis. — goethean 15:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I've been advocating a significant rewrite of this article for some time - just look at the archives. The problem is that it's very contentious and editing this is difficult. As an aside, I just reverted your removal of 4,000+b of data from the article. Please get consensus on the talk page before starting to make radical edits, especially deletions of this magnitude. Please don't edit war. Let's figure it out here.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We could rename this article "gun control conspiracy theories", then we could keep the nazi stuff and add door-to-door gun confiscations. TFD (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious forum about improving this article. I'm for rewriting the article. Let's get consensus on the direction of the article here and then we can edit. Ridiculous statements are not constructive. Let's be constructive.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's be constructive. I removed the Nazi material from the article. You added it back in and (somewhat hilariously) accused me of vandalism. If I vandalized the article, then you need to start a WP:AN/I thread on my vandalism. Otherwise, I will regard your accusation as just another piece of nonsensical rhetoric.

The addition of the material is indefensible. It was added in order to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis. It is NRA bullshit propaganda. Anyone replacing that garbage is guilty of flagrantly violating the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Removal of the Nazi material is non-negotiable. — goethean 16:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, my statement was that your actions could be described as "close to vandalism" -- let's be precise but they were inappropriate because you didn't have consensus here. There are other editors here who value the large block of information you deleted summarily without consensus. Let's get consensus. Please feel free to open up a talk section on the edits your propose and see what the other established editors here have to say. Have a good day. Note, my talk page is off limits to you for use of profanity and vulgar language. Please discuss the article improvements here. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't see the letters NYC is sending out confiscating .22 bolt action rifles then. The information is sourced. MANY MORE sources are readily available User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments There have been multiple RFCs none of which indicated support for removal of this information, except for the cabal of you 3. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that's well sourced Gaijin42. It's happening in NYC. Thank you for your patience in dealing with these contentious articles. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NOT THE NYC BOLT-ACTION RIFLES!! OH THE HUMANITY... — goethean 16:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not a forum for your general comments goethean. Please discuss article improvements.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, you have clearly demonstrated what I've been arguing for some time - that this article, which purports to be giving a multi-national perspective on the issue, is instead driven exclusively by U.S. discourse. This is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy, and a further reason why this article is problematic. We already have two U.S.-based articles on the subject, and there is no justification whatsoever in having more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

1. Are authoritarian uses of gun control (in particular Nazi, but others as well) sufficiently sourced by reliable sources (See list of possible nazi sources [[4]])
2. Is coverage of such gun control appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article

Survey

• Yes and yes, as nominator. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to both, at least a paragraph. With all those refs it could have it's own article. Though a lot more links to (or, if not available, quotes from) sources on your talk page would help advance your argument. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• 1. Yes and 2. Yes - Well sourced examples of gun control in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (all regimes for that matter), both present and historical, are appropriate in an article of this nature.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and yes. Well sourced and relevant. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nein & Nyet. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment This is the english language Wikipedia. Please use english language. Also the use of German and Russian in a topic that touches the holocaust could seen as an affront and be misconstrued or construed as a hate speech. We might want to remove this vote in a non English language. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It would take a seriously warped mind to construe an emphatic "nyet" as "hate speech". No one is being oppressed here. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda put about by fringe elements of the NRA. The suggestion that firearms regulation was in any way a significant issue in the establishment on Nazi control of Germany is entirely rejected by all serious historians - and the efforts of crude pro-gun propagandists to imply a linkage should accordingly be treated as the pseudohistorical fringe viewpoint it is. Which is to say, ignored entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gee, look at all those contemporary news sources like the new york times and le monde discussing jewsish disarmament. I had no idea the NRA had such influence back then! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is the NRA being mentioned? Andy you wouldn't be looking to suppress historical facts just because you don't agree with them would you? THis is not about politics. It's about an article, the facts, notability, and Wikipedia. If you have an agenda, please leave it hanging on the hook by the door when you came in.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes & Yes It should be straightforward coverage of history and situations. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously not. Anyone remotely familiar with the topic can see that the "History" section was put together in order to paint supporters of gun control in the worst light possible. This is not how Wikipedia should be written. The section clearly needs to be completely re-written from beginning to end with the goal of neutral description and the use of good sources rather than the indefensible hack job we have now. — goethean 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The need for a rewrite and editing is an entirely different topic than that under discussion in the RFC which is if the information should be included (or as you argue, excluded by policy). That the current content may be poor is not a valid reason the say the information cannot be included in some other form. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, what we have here is a piece of shit article written with the very worst of intentions and which flagrantly violates Wikipedia's core policy. You insist that the very worst part of it must stay. Your insistence on keeping the very worst of a very bad article is what is standing in the way of a better article. — goethean 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - and so noted in many reliable sources [5], not even listed so far and Yes for that same reason. Ascribing scholarly articles and authors to being from "fringe elements of the NRA" would require specific and strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Collect, you know who Stephen Halbrook is, right? (...not really considered to be a neutral player in this game, to put it mildly.) Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Drmies ;) As you are no doubt aware, reliable sources are not required to be neutral or objective, but in any case, per the link in my RFC post halbrook is but one of the many sources discussing this topic :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

...and you seem to have deliberately avoided using neutral sources when plenty are available, instead using one which supports an extreme political ideology. — goethean 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes --but it would have to be rewritten to include non-authoritarian regimes that practice gun control. Markewilliams (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly not Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform for fringe NRA elements trying to sell historical revisionism about gun control. MilesMoney (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes & Yes. There are two approaches to gun control. One approach would be to simply outlaw types of firearms much as land mines are being outlawed. The second is to restrict ownership and/or use of such firearms to a privileged class of individuals. The second type of gun control will inevitably generate divergent points of view depending upon perception of the privileged class by the person stating that point of view.Thewellman (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• No and well that depends. See below. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse: My only previous involvement on this topic was as a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer, and I only volunteer to work on cases where I am neutral. I really do not favor one side or the other in this dispute. I do, however, insist that whatever the result of this RfC is, all sources used must conform to WP:RS and the article must conform to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. These are community standards and can not be overridden by an RfC on a particular dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have notified previous RFC commenters (both pro and con), and will shortly also notify the relevant noticeboards and wikiperojects so to get a wider audience for this discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a survey is a good idea. In addition there is well established policy such as WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and many others that support inclusion of relevant content regardless of what a majority survey would return. Frankly it's sad state of sophistry in the Wiki that we're having to talk about this.-16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanonymous (talk • contribs)

• Well, gee...let's see. What if we described Italian history by only talking about Mussolini? Would that be neutral? What if we described Spanish history by only talking about Franco? Would that be neutral? What if we described English history by only talking about the Boston Massacre? Would that be neutral? What if we only described the Republican Party by talking about Abu Ghraib? Would that be neutral? What if we described the history of the United States by only talking about My Lai? Would that be neutral? Well here we are describing the history of gun control by talking about gun control in the USSR and when the Nazis took guns away from German Jews before they gassed them in the Holocaust. And you think that that's neutral. — goethean 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we add Nazi Pro Gun Rights for Jews in the 1930s? Can you add some links here to that research please? I think we might be able to get consensus on that but remember this article is about gun control. It might be more appropriate in a gun rights page. Also please remember that 4-6 million jews lost their lives during the holocaust. Let's be respectful in dealing with this subject. It touches the personal lives of many. Joking around and nontopical entries are very inappropriate. Some editors here might have lost a family member to the holocaust and WWII or some other genocide.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

'Respect' would start by not exploiting the deaths of millions for crude pro-gun propaganda purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the Jewish community would ask that we remember these atrocities and to write about them so it's not forgotten. Regardless, according to Wikipedia rules, this merits inclusion. So your comment is irrelevant.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What rule is that? Please link to the Wikipedia policy you have in mind. — goethean 17:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm proposing that you consider beginning to follow Wikipedia NPOV policy rather than using this article as a propaganda tool. Get a history of gun control written by a neutral scholar, rather than some NRA-funded hack. Summarize it neutrally. Follow Wikipedia policy rather than taking a dump on it. — goethean 16:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is one section in the article. It would also be a noticeably lack of NPOV to describe italy WITHOUT mussolini, or spain without Franco, etc. You have repeatedly advocated the complete censorship of this material - there is the lack of NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The section is not neutral. It was designed to propagandize, not to follow Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is unacceptable. Write a neutral history section, don't pick and choose things which support an extremist ideology. — goethean 16:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, the facts of history are facts and are notable. There is no NPOV violation just because you don't like it or it uncovers some part of history that you don't like or just because it doesn't fit with your little agenda. Noting historical facts are not an NPOV violation in and of themselves.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the facts of history are facts, huh? Mussolini was Italian. That's a fact. Therefore, all of Italian history can be summarized by talking about Mussolini. And that's neutral. No NPOV violation. Okay. — goethean 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is just about gun control, you can't be serious about summarizing all of Italian history here? And no we are not defining all of Italian history as the history of Mussolini. There were just some things that happened during his time that might be notable here. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My analogy is exactly spot on, if you will take the time to read it and understand it. This article attempts to tell the history of gun control. No neutral historian would ever list Nazi Germany in a neutral, balanced overview of the history of gun control. But there it is! Because we want to paint gun control supporters as Nazis! Let's just let Wayne LaPierre write Wikipedia articles, shall we? We'd end up with a better result than this garbage that you call neutral. — goethean 17:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So add Australia or other places where gun control has brought about a more fruitful society. I don't care. I just don't want us to censor valid history. If there are peaceful stable societies under strict gun control regimes, put it in. Modern day Australia seems to come to mind. Is that in there already?-Justanonymous (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NRA propaganda is not valid history. Start over. Use history books rather than political pamphlets. Stop defending garbage. — goethean 18:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Depends entirely on how it is included. Disarmament of groups of citizens considered a threat to the state is much more widespread than just authoritarian states and Nazi Germany, this should be clear. As should the fact that arms are also restricted in many of the least authoritarian states in the world. most of the sources listed at Gaijin42's page are primary sources, and they would be good if Gaijon42 wanted to write abook about gun control - but they are of no value when trying to assess the notability of a particular fact. The only ones that should be counted are the ones in the section "Modern neutral gun control secondary sources", they are also the ones that should decide how the argument is included and the various views weighted. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus With respect, contemporary secondary sources (the 10-20 newspaper articles) do not suddenly become primary sources due their age. You also skipped over the bottom academic section. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical newspaper articles are not secondary sources. They are historical primary sources. So yes they do, as any historian would know. As for the last sections they look mostly like series of polemic primary sources (research articles are primary sources for their own research and views (and can be used as secondary sources for the views of others), review articles are secondary sources).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus The academic thing I think needs to be discussed in two parts 1) factual analysis of history 2) implications of #1. There is basically ZERO disagreement that the disarmament actually happened, intentionally, as part of the oppression and eradication of jews. Harcourt, arguing against halbrook directly admits this in his articles (along with the other secondary sources) . 2) You are correct that the latter part (what are the implications of these historical facts) is a source only for the views of the author, but as those represent a significant minority viewpoint, including that content as their viewpoint is part of WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The question of course is not whether authoritarian (or non authoritarian) regimes have used guncontrol. The question is how relevant that fact is for the topic of guncontrol in general. The answer to this question should depend on how much coverage e.g. Nazi gun control gets in objective reviews of the field, and how it is treated. I can imagine two views, both of which are probably notable but the second of which I think is the dominant view, namely 1. that it is relevant because it suggests that guncontrol is a characteristic strategy of a authoritarian state, and 2. that it is relevant because it is a common meme used by American opponents of restrictive gun legislation. So, yes, I think it is probably relevant, but I think that the second view is likely to be the one that should characterize the coverage. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• It would help for those of us dropping by a diff or discussion link to the uses you want to make of this material that is different from what is in thearticle already. So many articles to comment upon, so little time. (Tripled my wikipedia budgeted time again today!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion above the RFC, the opposers insist on the complete and permanent removal of the entire section and demand it not be mentioned again. More surgical changes are therefore irrelevant until the core question is answered. Gaijin42 (talk)

The history section needs to be re-written from beginning to end based on neutral sources rather than NRA propaganda. — goethean 17:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for rewriting and improving. I'm not for blanking without consensus like you did.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You committed a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's core policy. That's what you did. Own it. Take responsibility for your actions. The history section of this article is a joke. It is a joke, and you are defending it. — goethean 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I've been clear that there's always room for improvement. You blanking it summarily is unacceptable and borders on vandalism. Your profanity and vulgarity make it even more distasteful.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You say that I vandalized the article? Report me. Escalate it. Let's go. WP:AN/I. Start a thread. I'm waiting. I say you're full of it. — goethean 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The second question was about mere inclusion of coverage of gun control under those regimes....the arguments against mere inclusion so far have been quite telling, essentially these are:

• All kinds of nasty stuff saying that such mere inclusion makes the article a propaganda piece.
• Impugning the motives of any editor that wants to include it.
• Answering a question that was NOT asked as if it were answer the question that WAS asked, (raising straw-man concerns) about (farther reaching) statements that such control in significant in establishing Nazi control.
• An analogy that makes no sense...that this particular instance should be censored because failure to censor it is like improperly narrowing the coverage of a topic to one non-typical item. Huh?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So, you are unable to recognize that the current version of the article is a flagrant NPOV violation. Is that what you're saying? — goethean 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. And there is nothing 'ntasy' about describing crude pseudohistorical propaganda as crude pseudohistorical propaganda. And excluding propaganda from encyclopaedias isn't 'censorship', it is appropriate editorial control. Nobody is restricting anyone's rights to publish such material - but you have no 'rights' to use Wikipedia for such purposes, any more than any other political lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have no right to redifine historical facts as propaganda because you disagree with their implications. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy and Geothean don't like it because of the points raised above. Their arguments are weak. All articles can be improved but summary blanking like Goethean did followed by profanity and vulgarity on my personal talk page is just distasteful. Now we're wasting time here. If you have RS statements and good contributions, let's discuss them here and then let's add. None have been forthcoming. The survey above is very telling. It speaks to the inclusion of this content and per Wikpedia policies it's notable. Andy and Gethean don't like it.....tough.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you must have posted in the wrong section. The RFC question is about mere coverage. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @Goethean, responding, that's actually a falsehood stated as an implied premise, and then a claim that failure to agree with the falsehood means "unable to understand" And all about a diversion to something that is not even the topic of the RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned with the objectivity of this article. I'm not going to throw around accusations about NRA membership and stuff, but I think Maunus's objections, above, are relevant. Moreover, the current note on restricted gun ownership for Jews in Nazi Germany is indeed easily read as an indictment of gun control (suggestion 1: Nazis proposed gun control, so gun control is evil), but Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act is insightful: if that article is accurate (who the hell knows, it's Wikipedia), then the restrictions on Jews owning guns really takes a serious backseat to the loosening of rules for many categories of citizens: "Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition"; the legal age was lowered from 20 to 18; permits were valid for three times as long as before; and many groups were exempt from having to acquire a gun permit. In other words, there's another quick conclusion to draw, with much more meat to it: suggestion 2: Nazis proposed gun deregulation, so gun control is good. Both suggestions are invalid, of course, but the way I see the article suggestion 1 is right there, front and center, because our article only includes one out of five main points of the 1938 law. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis of the loosen/tighten situation, which indeed is directly discussed by halbrook and harcourt's articles (harcourt arguing against halbrook) - however, easing weapon restrictions on a favored group (like the SS and SA who were completely exempt from the regulations) and then sending those same groups after the recently disarmed doesn't seem like an argument that the nazis did not in fact disarm the jews as part of their oppression. Part of the issue is the current state of the article - Older versions (say here [6] attempted to put this into context as a presentation one of the notable POVs of gun control, but certain editors continued to delete everything that was an actual argument, and left us with the abbreviated history. (And certainly that POV should be balanced by POVs about how gun control has ushered in golden eras of peace into Australia and the UK (which are ALREADY in this article!) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Admitedly, there are significant issues with the older revision I linked to there, but at a minimum the nazi-control meme is a significant minority viewpoint on gun control and excluding it is also a violation of npov (how that pov should be worded is of course a matter for the consensus to decide, but first we must settle the issue of inclusion at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The version you linked to is obviously even worse than the present version, which is a POS. "The History of Gun Control" including a large section on...."Gun control's association with totalitarianism" Gee, so gun control is associated with authoritarianism, you say? Shucks, that sounds pretty bad! Oh, and Nazis had gun control and communists did too? That does it! I hate gun control! Gee, thanks Gaijin42! You've really set me straight! I'm going to run out and buy a Luger right now! — goethean 18:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty creative....you get all of that out of mere coverage of instances of gun control. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Goethean probably put too much sarcasm in their morning coffee but, North, I don't disagree with the basic sentiment: those inferences are clearly easy to draw, even from our current version. You wouldn't want another section added, one which argued that eminently wonderful and reasonable countries like The Netherlands have very strict laws on gun control, since the suggestion clearly is that rationality favors gun control. (Which is true, of course, but that's another point!) Or, Goethean, please take it easy: no need to hand them more ammo. And that's my final lame joke for the day. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm for tightening the article up and for improving it reasonably. I'm not for deleting valid historical information even if one party here thinks that it's propaganda. I will acknowledge that we have a challenge because much of the research that is being conducted today is not being conducted dispassionately. For better or worse, many of the notable researchers have a political agenda. So we have to be very careful. That said, we shouldn't just arbitrarily delete valuable content without us reaching consensus here. That is what Goethen did that started all of this - that and a bunch of expletives from him on my personal talk page. He simply blanked 4,000+b of WP:RS content. That's not the way to do it. If it's loose, let's tighten it up. If it's biased, let's make it neutral. But we can't just blank the page and then blow a gasket when their edit is reverted.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

we have a challenge because much of the research that is being conducted today is not being conducted dispassionately

That's simply false. There are many, many neutral, mainstream, non-ideological books available on gun control. The problem is that the authors of this article decided to use none of them, instead depending on extremely ideological, non-neutral material, and writing a history of gun control that is almost funny in its departure from reality. — goethean 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)