Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state

Solutions

I think we have established some ground that everyone can agrees with. I would like everyone to refrain from lengthy discussions in this section, as I would like to keep it clean and focused on moving forward with editing. Let's take small steps and we will get there. Movementarian (Talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to remove the maps from the page. Movementarian (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Proposed removal of all maps

I propose that all maps be moved to the talk page under the RfC heading. Discussion on reinserting them in the article is encouraged, but I think this is a good first step forward. Please indicate your opinion by stating Support or Oppose and sign. A short explaintion of your opinion is appropriate, but please try to avoid lengthy discussions in this section.

1. Support. Movementarian (Talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The article needs summary information. More is needed, but the maps are the only thing that provide it. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. The Brady state scorecard map violates NPOV by pushing a political agenda, and does not objectively summarize the restrictiveness of different states' laws. The other maps are also at least somewhat questionable. This straw poll is a good idea, but it's clear that a significant number of editors think that the Brady map should never have been added. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. I was one of the first to remove maps from this article. People are naturally drawn to graphics and when they promote a POV, that creates a NPOV issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - There is no place for biased summary or analysis in this article. These maps are already posted on the various articles (Brady map in the Brady article, Open Carry map on the Open carry article, etc) which is exactly where they belong. Rapier (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Let's be honest here, the grief is that the first map is linked to the Brady Campaign, and there is opposition here to including even one citation to Brady in this article. The five other maps linked to pro-gun sourcing were added as "balance". (If 5:1 is considered not undue!) This entire article is heavily skewed to pro-gun sources, and is riddled with systemic bias from personal selection bias of the editors attracted here. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Strongly Oppose The maps provide a clear and concise quick overview for a casual user. They're a great visualization. As for the controversy over the Brady map - whatever. They're a...well...I hesitate to say "reputable" source, but they're at least well-known. They seem to have the only map that gives a comprehensive overview of all gun laws in the state, however biased. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
8. the Brady map needs to be removed unless an NRA map is put beside it. but removal is probaly best. I have no probalem with the CCW map its only stating laws Finch590 (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose I just came to this article, and to be honest, I don't understand why this is such a big issue. I found them informative. I can understand the problem with the PoV of the Brady score map (why are background checks worth 7 points rather than 6 or 8?). However, if the issue is just balancing out the political alignment of the references I don't see why anyone cares. The Brady Campaign and opencarry.org probably agree on whether New Jersey has a 1 handgun per month limit. --Selket ^Talk 16:30, 1 July 2010 (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.

• Support. The maps simply push POVs. Let the facts speak for themselves, properly cited with references, but without maps drawing summary conclusions. -- Yaf (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Split the article

The article is currently over 200kb long. WP:TOOLONG recommends no more than 50kb. I propose that the States be spun off into their own articles, beginning with the larger sections, such as New York and California (California would be a merger). At the end this article would consist of the lead paragraph and a list of links to individual State articles. The majority of the maps would remain (and be used in the State articles) with content providing context for each. As with the above proposal, please indicate your opinion by stating Support or Oppose and sign. A short explanation of your opinion is appropriate, but please try to avoid lengthy discussions in this section.

1. Support. Movementarian (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Remove original research The largest portion of the size of this article involves editors here doing original research (combing through primary documents) about state gun laws, and publishing their research here. The first step should be the removal of the original research, then we should evaluate the need for a split, or not. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Weak Support I don't like the idea of keeping POV and agenda-driven summary maps from either side of the argument, and I dispute Salty's claim of WP:OR, obviously. Stating a law is not "original research". If he wants other laws tracked, that's fine, but simply stating that because the laws currently tracked are original research or biased because they are quoted in what he considers "pro-gun" sources is patantly false and his continued insistance on this track smacks of tendentious editing. However, I cannot argue that this article doesn't need to be split up Rapier (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
4. On the fence - argh! It looks to me like almost every source in this article would fail WP:RS and/or WP:OR. I think I'd have to agree on cleanup before splitting and propagating the mess. Can someone find a serious disinterested source that has discussed this issues? More likely a series of sources because each state probably has their own set. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. I disagree with SaltyBoatr's contention that stating the law is "original research". To quote the little article thing on OR, "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." The state is a reliable source for the state's laws. It's also hardly synthesis to state an area's laws. It's just brute repetition. As for the proposed split...yeesh. It would make sense to give each state its own article, but it'd be a pain in the ass to do. As long as someone else does it, it's a logical step, though I think this article should be left around as a quick summary article. Splitting each state into its own article would make them more manageable. Perhaps an infobox for gun laws would be in order? It would help to make the information clear and concise. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. I think that makes sense. This article would provide a summary of the state gun laws across the country, describing the types of gun laws that exist and how they vary from state to state. The state articles would provide the details that are included in the state sections here. However, I do not think the maps would make sense in the state articles; that belongs here. — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose There needs to be a single article summarizing and detailing the laws. Forcing readers to search through multiple articles when planning a trip crossing state lines would not be appropriate. Without the maps, the article looks fine. Yaf (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is not a travel guide. SnottyWong ^speak 05:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose. For a Wikipedia article, this one is longer than average, but that's not a problem. It's very worthwhile to have one article, this one, that summarizes the gun laws of all the states, without requiring readers to look at 51 different articles. A few of the sections, such as Arizona and Virginia, should probably be shortened, by removing extensive direct quotes of the laws. Optionally, if a state section is made significantly shorter, a separate article could also be created for that state, as was done with California. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - The only way to comfortably squeeze all of this information into one article would be to make a single table that encompasses all 50 states. This would almost certainly require getting rid of the "Notes" section of the existing tables. If this is not agreeable, then splitting the article into 50 articles is the next best solution. SnottyWong ^speak 05:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - As a reader and an editor of this article, I think separate state articles will make both more difficult. If we can standardize on the types of laws included, the format of all state sections, and use collapsible sections where appropriate, then the article will become very easy to navigate, read, and edit. Luftegrof (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Brady scorecard and other maps, continued

In the Proposed removal of all maps subsection, Movementarian said that there is no consensus to remove the maps from the page, however it's equally true that there is no consensus for retaining the maps. In the straw poll in that subsection, 4 editors supported removal of the maps, 4 were opposed, and one said that removal is "probably best". The maps have been added and then removed several times in the last few months. They're there now because it happens that the last edit was to add them again, and also, for the last couple of weeks, to allow other editors to see and comment on them as part of the Request for Comment. It seems to me that we're unable to reach a general agreement on the maps. It is therefore best that the maps not be added, i.e. that they be removed, because a significant number of editors, about half, feel quite strongly that they violate NPOV, and that they are also factually misleading, while the reasons for adding the maps are much less compelling. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is all of this drama because of the Brady map? Hell, the Brady map makes sense. Unless we can come up with a better system for categorizing the overall level of firearm freedom in a state, let it stay up. For a quick glance, it's completely adequate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

——————

There was no consensus for removal, and the claim that they violate WP:NPOV is not supported by the language of that policy. I am restoring the maps. — JPMcGrath (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding the maps, and about half of the editors who have commented agree, after very extensive discussion of the subject, that they do in fact violate NPOV. Therefore the maps should not be added to the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way in hell the maps describing concealed carry, open carry, and firearms transport laws violate NPOV. They're simply stating the law as it stands. The only map with NPOV issues is the Brady Campaign map, and it would be best to balance that out with a map of overall restrictiveness from another source, rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater. The maps are a concise, visual representation of the laws across the United States - which is what the article is about, right? Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article gives undue coverage to the laws of interested to the editors in charge here, which is mostly of laws related to the carry of handguns. Missing is weight of coverage of laws of interest to the opposite POV, such as illegal gun trafficking laws, child safety laws, tracing of criminal use of guns, reporting requirements for stolen guns, criminal gun trace data tracking and guns in the workplace/schools. This is evidence systemic editor bias which violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mudwater: The maps certainly do not violate WP:NPOV, but your removal of the maps does. The policy is absolutely clear: It "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly". It further says "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'".

If you remove the maps based on a claim that it violates NPOV, you must show how it does. That should be based on what NPOV actually says, not what you imagine it says or what you want it to say.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

After a very extensive discussion lasting several months, quite a few editors are in agreement that the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the NPOV policy. The reasons have been explained at length and repeatedly on this talk page. As most of these editors have also stated, the best way to keep this article neutral is to factually describe the actual gun laws of each state, without adding any biased opinions that promote a particular political agenda. Let the arguments about whether the laws are good or bad be included in other articles, not this one. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course this isn't about good versus bad. Neither is it about bias. The issue is whether all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing are represented proportionately in the article. Mudwater here is misusing WP:NPOV policy, misinterpreting it to mean that a POV that he doesn't agree with needs to be removed. The fact now is that Mudwater has removed all mention and all references to the major significant voice of the opposite POV. Yes, zero mention of Brady Campaign in an article about USA gun law! Wow, is that neutral balance? Meanwhile, the article contains WP:UNDUE attention to the pro-carry of handguns viewpoint. (And, the most used source is owned by a company that sells handgun holsters needed to carry these handguns raising WP:COI questions.) This is a NPOV mess which needs fixing if we are to follow policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, this isn't about "Point of View" at all! This is an article that is supposed to be a listing of gun laws. Feel free to add any (as per the discussion below), that you feel ar not represented here - I'll agree that this focuses on carry laws and leaves others out - but if you want to include "point of view" in an article, bring it over to Gun politics, because it does not belong here. Rapier (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mudwater, several people have asserted that it violates NPOV, but nobody has pointed to any part of NPOV that says it does. At the same time, I have pointed out language in NPOV that says it should not be removed, and again, nobody has offered any rationale for removing the maps in violation of NPOV. — JPMcGrath (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, several us us have pointed to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP reasons for these not to be here. Please stop edit-warring. There is established precedent for not including article information that is not agreed upon by consensus, so I will ask you to undo your edit and remove this material. Rapier (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you please quote or point to the relevant parts from WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP that you think supports this? — JPMcGrath (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't see why we need the maps here, regardless of whether they comply with wikipedia policy. Every anti-gun and pro-gun web site has maps out the wazoo already.
2. The first issue that I see with the Brady map is the use of the word "restrictive." The person who created that graphic, and it wasn't the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, added that word. WP:NOR
3. The NRA-ILA map for Concealed Carry was also modified from its original version to read "may issue; license often granted" and "may issue; license often not granted" and "no issue" in place of the original "rights restricted" and "right infringed." WP:NOR
4. The cited document "2009 Brady Campaign Scorecard" does not contain any references to what the law actually is. It is simply their statement, to be taken on faith, that a State has or does not have a law that complies with the policy and agenda of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
   1. It qualifies as a WP:POORSRC in that the BCPGV does not appear to have a reputation for accuracy, does not provide any means for verification of the data, and the Scorecard consists of views that might be extremist, data that is certainly promotional, and also relies heavily on personal opinion.
      1. The Brady Campaign Scorecard expresses an opinion of what the laws should be and assigns arbitrary point values to each type of law.
      2. The use of this data within this article attempts to describe whether the laws of a particular state are more or less restrictive of keeping and bearing firearms. That amounts to synthesis of published material WP:SYN because the cited source does not use those terms. In fact, the map on the bradycampaign.org site uses the words "strongest" and "weakest."
5. The NRA-ILA and OpenCarry.org resources appear to be better at citing to actual and reputable legal sources, however their produced data are not different from the BCPGV in that they are also potentially extremist views, contain promotional data, and also rely heavily on personal opinion. They, too, are a WP:POORSRC.
   1. For example, the OpenCarry.org map assigns a value of "Gold Star" to states that comply with their policy and agenda regarding the open carrying of handguns.
6. There may be other resources from these organizations usable in this article, but the only valid use of the following sources are for WP:SELFPUB in articles such as Gun politics in the United States.
   1. Brady Scorecard Map from bradycampaign.org (due to lack of cite to authority, accuracy, opinion-based, and promotion of an agenda)
   2. Gun Registration Laws from opencarry.org (due to describing registration of "so-called" assault weapons; promotion of an agenda)
   3. Concealed Carry Map from NRA-ILA (due to the actual source using the terms "Rights Restricted" and "Right Infringed"; promotion of an agenda; opinion-based)
   4. Open Carry Gun Laws from opencarry.org (due to assignment of "Gold Star" label; opinion-based; promotion of an agenda)

The best sources for this article will be .gov resources including published statutes and common law accompanied by supporting case law, Judges' opinions, Attorneys' General opinions, and Law-Enforcement Agency memorandums; those accompaniments being your only truly reputable secondary sources on law. If the bradycampaign.org or opencarry.org happen to host a copy of an official document from one of the aforementioned secondary sources, then I don't see a problem with using such a link for your reference. Luftegrof (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't see why we need the maps here". Because they're a clear and concise visual reference.

" The NRA-ILA map for Concealed Carry was also modified from its original version to read "may issue; license often granted" and "may issue; license often not granted" and "no issue" in place of the original "rights restricted" and "right infringed."" Well do you want a neutral map or not? "Right restricted" is a pretty POV way to put it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, maps are a clear and concise visual reference. Fine, have maps. That doesn't mean one should use non-neutral maps that were generated by a non-neutral source and change the legends so that the maps appear to be neutral. What you put in the article must reflect what is in the reference material. Brady's scores and maps depict which states' laws are "strongest" and "weakest" based on their arbitrary scale. NRA-ILA's map is based on opinions that certain carry laws are reasonable or unreasonable, restrictive or less-restrictive. The NRA-ILA referenced article is "Right-to-Carry 2010" and the map title is "Right to Carry Laws;" not "Concealed Carry Laws." If you change the legend or title in any way, you are changing the meaning of the map. If the unabridged sources are irrelevant or do not meet the WP, they shouldn't be used. Luftegrof (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BINGO! Maps produced by advocacy groups blatantly violate WP:SOAP, and could even be considered advertising for those organizations. Maps produced by users violate WP:OR, and the "benefit" of having a summary map (what's so horrible about going to the state you want to know about and reading the bloody information?) it can be argued is far outweighed by the potential POV pushing of whatever group produces the summary. As has been stated by me several times in this argument: raw data is neutral, and themoment someone takes that data and starts to analyze or summarize they are automatically going to put their own point-of-view on that information. This is not and article about the politics of gun laws (there is another article for that already, go there and post your NRA and Brady maps), this is an article about the laws themselves. Lazyness is not an excuse to insert information that is not appropriate to the article. Rapier (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Luftegrof: I really have no idea why you replied to my message. It contained a single question, asking Sean to quote the relevant parts of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP that suggested that the map should not be included. Your reply did not address this, so I wonder what you think you were answering. Nonetheless, I will address the points that you did make:

1: What the article needs is summary. It should provide the reader with information about the kinds of state gun laws that exist, and how they vary among the states. Right now, it just provides the details, requiring the reader to sift through 50 different sections and summarize the material himself. The maps provide some of that, although more is certainly needed.

2: This is a rather absurd claim. The map is based on information published material from a reliable, third party, secondary source. There is nothing in WP:NOR that says we must use the exact same wording that the source does. Althouh the Brady Campaign used the word "strong" rather than "restrictive", it accurately reflects the information they present, and is less likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of their position of whether restrictive is good or bad. Of course, if you believe that the word "strong" would be more accurate, then I would have no problem using that word.

3: This is the exact same issue as #2. As with the Brady map, the wording was chosen to accurately reflect the information about what the concealed carry laws are, but avoiding including their position on what the laws should be. The former is appropriate for this article, while the latter is not. It is appropriate to include only the relevant information in the article.

4: Do you think there is some Wikipedia policy that requires that a source provide every bit of information that went into their thinking? If there were, it would disqualify the majority of the sources cited on Wikipedia.

4.1: You claim that the Brady Campaign "does not appear to have a reputation for accuracy", but what do you base that on? Do you have some source, aside from opposing advocacy groups, that supports this, or is this just your personal opinion?

4.1.1: The Scorecard primarily expresses what the laws are, and also includes their opinion about what the laws should be. The former was included in the map, while the latter was omitted, which is appropriate for this article.

4.1.2: You seem to be claiming that including some of the information, the relevant part, without including irrelevant parts constitutes synthesis. WP:SYN talks about combining information from multiple sources in order to imply a conclusion, not about selecting information from one source. I cannot imagine how you think this applies, and you have not quoted the part of the policy that you think does apply. Would you please do so?

5. You claim that the NRA/ILA and OpenCarry.org are poor sources, yet they are both referenced multiple times in this article - the former 24 times and the latter 9 times. Isn't this a little ridiculous?

5.1: Same issue as #2 and #3.

6: I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to WP:SELFPUB. Obviously, the Brady Campaign, the NRA-ILA, and OpenCarry are published experts in the field of gun laws. This makes no sense at all. If you think it does, please explain.

If you really believe that WP:NOR, WP:POORSRC, WP:SYN, and WP:SELFPUB apply here, would you please quote the part of those policies that you believe do apply?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR -- What's the source for "license often not granted" and "license often granted?" The cited NRA-ILA article does not provide any information as to the frequency of issue (number issued vs. number of applications made). The original map said "discretionary/reasonable issue" for what I think was called "license often granted" on the map previously displayed here. -- "The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."

WP:SYN, WP:NOR -- How do you paraphrase a one-word thought with another one-word thought when each word has a different meaning? Strong != Restrictive. They're not even close to being synonyms. The BCPGV did not say any particular state's laws are "restrictive." So what's the source? The NRA-ILA map does use the word "restricted." That's quite a coincidence. In referring to BCPGV's "strong" states as "restrictive", the meaning of the BCPGV map was changed to something that neither the NRA-ILA nor the BCPGV sources actually mentioned. The states to which the NRA-ILA attributed the word "restricted" are not all the same states that the BCPGV called "strong." Now, if it's true that "restrictive" wasn't, even if subconsciously, taken from the NRA-ILA publication, then I'll retract my WP:SYN argument and simply stick with WP:NOR. The short of it is that the BCPGV map previously displayed in this wikipedia article had a different meaning than the original source. -- "The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly" and "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context." and "[d]o not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

WP:POORSRC First of all, I want to clarify that I'm not trying to say that everything published by the BCPGV, the NRA-ILA, and OCDO are poor sources; just that some of the information, particularly these maps, are poor sources. The OCDO maps, for instance, were created by either or both John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk on their own. Neither even had a law degree when most of those maps were produced, though they have been attending law school. OCDO does not have a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." They may have consulted with experts when compiling their research, but nothing to that effect is noted. In fact, if you click through the map into the state pages, they say right at the top of each one "any and all information you glean from this site should be independently verified!" The NRA-ILA and BCPGV are basically equal, but on extreme opposite sides of the issues. By equal, I mean they do have a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." However, they both have reputations for slanting their representation of facts and evidence to promote their agenda. I claim that the NRA-ILA map in question has errors as well, mainly because they omitted that the map represents concealed carry; there are several states that have not required a permit to carry for a very long time, but are represented on the map as "shall-issue."

BCPGV was formerly HCI:

In 1999, HCI claimed that between 1992-1997 violent crime declined less in RTC states than in other states.17 (HCI previously claimed RTC caused crime to rise.) HCI erred in categorizing 31 states as having RTC during the period, since only 17 of the 31 had RTC in 1992. HCI calculated crime trends from 1992 to under-represent the impact of RTC laws; by 1992 many states had RTC for many years and had already experienced decreases in crime. HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as “restrictive,” and credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states, though states that had restrictive carry laws had had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, for reasons unrelated to guns.

The BCPGV map, as I said earlier, is based on an arbitrary point system. The entire basis of the BCPGV map of scores is the compliance of a State's laws with the BCPGV agenda. Because of those reasons, it is a self-published source.

Quotes from WP:SOURCES, WP:POORSRC -- "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "[i]n general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" and "[s]elf-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances" and "[a]ll self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources" and "[questionable] sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;"

Luftegrof (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume that Mudwater made those changes based on the content of the web site. If he did so based on his own beliefs about the state laws, that would be original research and the original wording, or something equivalent, should be restored.

I am really quite stunned at your suggestion that the word "restrictive" in the Brady map is somehow derived from the NRA/ILA. The Brady map was added on March 3rd, and the NRA/ILA map was added over 3 months later, at the suggestion of Mudwater. Your conjecture that one came from the other does not make sense.

For future reference, you have misread WP:SYN. Even if I had taken the wording from an NRA/ILA map and applied it to the Brady map (which I did not), that would not apply. Synthesis is when one takes statements from separate sources and juxtaposes them, so as to imply a conclusion that neither source implied. That would not apply, even in your imagined scenario.

As you point out, WP:NOR suggests expressing the views of reliable sources "in your own words". But then you attempt to suggest that "own words" means the source's words with simple synonym substitution, which is not what it says. When the Brady Campaign talks about strong gun laws, they mean laws that restrict how guns are transported, exchanged, and used, so I chose the word "restrictive". If you believe that does not accurately reflect what they mean by "strong", you could make an argument for different wording, even the word "strong". But it would not justify removing the material entirely.

As for WP:POORSRC, you appear to have misunderstood what it says as well. When it talks about "questionable sources", it is indeed talking about sources, not material published by the sources. It does not make sense to argue that it is a poor source in one situation and the claim that it is not when you like what the source says. You can't have it both ways.

While I do not know much about OpenCarry.org, I wonder on what basis you say that it does not have a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments".

The source you cite as a basis for criticism of the Brady Campaign is a rival advocacy group, which is not at all surprising. These groups criticize each other - that is their nature. But what is really hard to understand is why you are citing a source that you say is a "poor source". If the NRA is a poor source, how can you use that as a basis for your criticism of the Brady Campaign? It does not make sense.

Of course, what is really confusing is that the sources you are impuning are heavily cited in this article. If they are not reliable, then all material sourced to them should be removed from this article. I think these make up a significant part of the secondary sources cited, which would leave the article almost entirely original research. That is a significant issue with this article now, and it would be made even worse. Is that what you are suggesting?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest adding the NRA/ILA map of concealed carry laws. As for my change to the legend of the map, here, that was an attempt to make the map less POV, by changing the wording to be more neutral and less pro-gun-rights. But it's a moot point now. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You did suggest adding a map of concealed carry laws - see here. The sourcing for your changes to the map legend is not moot. Did you base that on the NRA/ILA site, or was it based on your own knowlege/beliefs? — JPMcGrath (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. I never suggested adding the concealed carry map, nor did I suggest adding any maps. In my comment that you've linked to, I was reacting to you having re-added the Brady map, this time along with the concealed carry map and several other maps. As that comment shows, initially I was thinking that the non-Brady maps "merely document specific laws of each state, so those are okay." However my position subsequently evolved, and I now think that the additional maps should also be left out of the article. As to my change of the wording of the legend of the map, as I said, that was an attempt to make the wording more neutral, and less biased in favor of the NRA's political position, while still expressing the same facts, i.e. whether a state is shall-issue, may-issue, etc. When I said that it's a moot point, I was referring to the fact that the concealed carry map is no longer included in the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Incredible! You clearly suggested adding a concealed carry map. Here is what you said:

There should also be some discussion about which of these law-specific maps to add or not to add to the article. For example, there probably should be a map for concealed carry (shall issue, may issue, no issue, no license required).

How can you possibly claim now that you did not? — JPMcGrath (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You said, "The Brady map was added on March 3rd, and the NRA/ILA map was added over 3 months later, at the suggestion of Mudwater." That is not true. A "suggestion" is when someone proposes or recommends doing something that has not happened yet. For someone to "suggest" adding the map, (1) the map would have to not already be there, and (2) they would have to say something along the lines of, "Hey, I've got a good idea for improving the article. Let's add a concealed carry map." I didn't do that. In the post you're referring to, I was reacting after the fact to your having added the map, along with several other maps. At that time, I was thinking that it might be okay to add the maps other than the Brady Campaign state scorecard map, and that the concealed carry map in particular might be acceptable. But I now think it would be better not to add any maps at all. In conclusion, I never suggested adding any maps to the article, and your statement that the NRA/ILA map was added at my suggestion is erroneous. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the point of this debate is settled. If there is a need to argue who said what and when, please do so privately. Rapier (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that the point is settled? — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what you are saying is that you said that the article should have a concealed carry map, but you did not say that it should be added. How did you expect that a map would get into the article without someone adding it? In any case, you suggested that the article should have a concealed carry map, and in response to your suggestion, I added it, which is what I said. My original statement was true. — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review, you're right, I did suggest adding the concealed carry map. Here is the sequence of events: (1) You added the Brady Campaign state scorecard map, here. (2) I removed it, here. (3) In a series of edits over the following three months, the state scorecard map was re-added and then removed from the article multiple times by several different editors. (4) You re-added the state scorecard map, and also added four maps referenced to OpenCarry.org, here. (5) I said that "there probably should be a map for concealed carry...", here. (6) You added the NRA/ILA concealed carry map, here. (7) After some additional discussion, I changed my mind, and I now think that it's better not to add any maps. I apologize for my confusion about the history of the article and the associated discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your forthright reply; it is much appreciated. In that spirit, I'd like you to answer another question: You have said that you believe the maps violate WP:NPOV, but you appear not to base that on the text of the policy. If that is the case, then how did you conclude that this is so? Was it based on the title of the policy? Or perhaps what you think is good for Wikipedia? Or was it something else? — JPMcGrath (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're asking me why I think the maps violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. But that's exactly what I, and other editors, have been explaining on this talk page, for more than six months now. We've talked in particular about how the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map violates NPOV, and how it also does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of different states' gun laws. We've covered this subject in great length, and in great detail, and in multiple talk page sections. Roughly half of the editors who have participated in the discussion agree that the Brady map does violate NPOV. I understand that you think otherwise. Fine, that's your opinion. But multiple editors have really covered this subject very thoroughly, and I don't see the point in rehashing what's already been stated many times and in many different ways. For your convenience and that of other editors, here are current links to some but not all of the talk page sections where this subject has been discussed:

• Archived discussions -- do not update:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on this page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued (i.e. this section)

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not asking you why you believe that it violates WP:NPOV. I am asking you how you go about determining whether something in an article violates WP:NPOV. What I do is to examine the text of the policy and see if any of its strictures are violated. For example, when I see an article that has a lot of material about a fringe point of view, I look at WP:NPOV and see that it says an article "must not give undue weight to a minor point of view", so I know it violates that policy. I presume that you do not just make it up as you go along, so you must have a method by which you make that determination. Would you please explain that method? — JPMcGrath (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your question has the effect of continuing the discussion about why the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the NPOV policy. I really think we've reached the point of diminishing returns on that. Please refer to my previous post for links to the relevant talk page sections. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You say you have concluded that the maps violate WP:NPOV and are asking that I and others accept your conclusion. Given that, it seems obvious that you should explain how you reached your conclusion. I have assumed good faith and presume that you have a rational basis for your conclusion, but your reluctance to explain this suggests that you do not. — JPMcGrath (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

About half of the editors who have participated in this discussion over the last six months, including myself, have concluded that the Brady map violates the NPOV policy. We have explained how we reached our conclusion -- and have explained it over and over, in great detail and at great length, and while addressing various objections. You or any editor can see this in the talk page sections for which I've provided links. So, the discussion seems to have come to a logical stopping point. Thanks for your participation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen one message that explains how you reached that conclusion. Would you please point me to it? — JPMcGrath (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that a significant number of editors agree, after much discussion, that the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the Neutral Point of View principal, and so should not be added to the article. Please refer to the following sections or subsections of this talk page:

• #2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
• #Brady and other maps
• #RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• #Proposed removal of all maps
• #Brady scorecard and other maps, continued (i.e. this subsection)

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mudwater is correct. After literally months of debate, two requests for comment, and the beginnings of a formal mediation, it was agreed upon by consensus that summary maps from any source have no place in an article listing laws of various states as they represent too high a potential for point of view, original research, soapboxing, and advertising issues. Their potential benefit is negligable at best, and the cons far outweigh any gain. Rapier (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

JPMcGrath, Please stop and do as you have been very reasonably asked by SeanNovack here. Please actually address the concerns in talk with new arguments before doing this. Your revisions(here) are neither new, nor are they based on arguments of yours which have been "ignored", as you believe. SeanNovack advised in his summary that Your arguments were rebutted, not ignored. 3RR applies.

He is correct. Your arguments were exhaustively discussed and rebutted for six months, after which time there was not a consensus of the group to go ahead with your intended additions. You know this because you participated in the months-long discussion. Although you waited two months before returning to attempt the same revisions again, the history is not changed. It is inappropriate and gives one the impression that you are gambling that other editors will not notice, and that you intend to bypass the months of good faith debate on the subject because it did not conclude favoring your position. I hope that is not what is happening.Digiphi (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is hardly reasonable. Mudwater removed the maps after failing to reach consensus for removal, then repeatedly removed them when restored. I have been willing to let the removal stand while there was any chance of productive discussion. That does not appear to be happening.

There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling. He has not supported his claims of an WP:NPOV and he has been unwilling to answer simple questions about how he came to that conclusion.

Would you like to take a stab at it? How can the maps violate WP:NPOV when there is no language in the text of the policy that it violates, and when that text explicitly says that material such as this should not be removed for being POV?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is an updated list of links to the relevant talk page sections. I used the word count tool in MS Word on these nine talk page sections, and they contain more than 30,000 words of discussion!

• Archived discussions -- do not update:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on this talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues (i.e. this section)

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that there have been long discussions about the maps. However, nowhere in there have you answered my question about how you reached your conclusion that the maps violate WP:NPOV. You have simply stated your objections to the maps, then claimed that it violates WP:NPOV, without explaining how you reached that conclusion.

Your unwillingness to post a link to your purported answer to my question gives lie to your claim that you have answered it. Please do so, or post a link to a diff showing the answer. Re-posting links to all of the discussions is useless.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

By following the links to all of the discussions, anyone can see that I, and other editors, have already explained many times, and at great length, exactly how we reached the conclusion that the maps violate NPOV, and also do not accurately assess different states' gun laws. You keep saying that we haven't explained it, when in fact we have, to the extent of more than 30,000 words of discussion over seven months. At this point you're just repeating the same thing over and over, so responding to you further seems pointless. Many editors, not just me, have agreed that the maps should not be added to the article. A consensus has been reached, and adding the maps back to the article is not constructive or appropriate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over those discussions, and nowhere do you explain how you concluded that the maps violate WP:NPOV. You give many reasons why you don't like the maps, but then you just jump to the conclusion that it violates WP:NPOV. I am asking how you made that leap. You have not answered this question, and I ask that you do.

As for a consensus being reached, as you pointed out, about half say that it violates WP:NPOV — I think it was slightly less than half, but that does not really matter. In any case, if you think that constitutes a consensus, I think you should familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

JPMcGrath's continued Tendentious editing (which I mistakenly warned of as vandalism in my edit summary and for which I apologize) has been reverted and the next time it occurs should be reported as disruptive editing on WP:ANI. Rapier (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly submit my conduct in these discussions to scrutiny by fair-minded editors. Are all of you willing to do the same? You have removed the maps as many times as I have added it, but I have been willing to let the removal stand while the matter was discussed. My removals were in response to your unwillingness to answer simple questions about your justification for the removal. I think it would be more appropriate to use the arbitration process to resolve this. Shall we try that instead? — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws infobox?

Does it make sense to try to create an infobox for gun laws? What sort of things should be included? I can think of: concealed carry, open carry, storage, registration, NFA regulations, ballistic fingerprinting/microstamping/whatever, and "assault weapon" bans (or maybe just bans on standard-capacity magazines). Any other ideas? Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot! Let's develop this a little so we can be sure to include the primary laws that people are concerned about (personally,, I like what is there now, and we don't want to make it too big, but others may have more/better ideas)Rapier (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's actually pretty awesome, but it might be better to have the legal code things as plain old references, rather than a long, drawn-out thing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

At this moment, I'd prefer to use the reference tags for the main body of text and use direct links for the infobox. I'll think about it for a bit... By the way, I went ahead and added an infobox to the Virginia section. I'll probably change it a lot over the next few days or weeks, but it's there for now. Luftegrof (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There appeared to be a consensus on shortening the length of the article, but not a consensus on splitting the article up; Virginia was one of the longest and was getting unmanageable and difficult to read in its present format. The infobox was a good idea, but after using it and trying to adequately summarize the gun laws within it, it became clear that it was inadequate. There's just not enough room in an infobox. I ported everything into an embedded list, like what was done for some other states. I think it's much cleaner, easier to read, and will be much easier to keep up-to-date than the outline format previously used. Having the embedded table deprecates the use of an infobox. Luftegrof (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there any ideas or criticism for the Template:Infobox/State_Gun_Laws infobox on which I've been working? [Here] is a working implementation of that template.

Yes or No: In general, does it look like this framework would be a good start for organizing the State sections? I.e. does anyone want to help build on this?

Flag: Include the State flag in the infobox or not? I think it makes it rather easy to identify which State's laws are being shown. As it stands now, the flag is an optional field and, if not provided, nothing will be shown.

Hidden content: Do the hidden children work well? Does it hinder readers in any way? Mind you that there is still room for prose outside of the infobox.

Cramped: Is there too much information cramped into a little box?

Template: Does it make it easier for the editor to add content and to see what type of content is missing? E.g. default values such as "xxx unknown" so that if nobody has entered any content related to that (sub)category the reader is informed of that, rather than risking that a reader presumes a negative in the absence of information; and the editors can see that information may be missing.

Categories₁: Are the categories sufficient to cover all of the relevant laws? One type of law comes to mind that has been sparse or absent from the article is "discharge."

Categories₂: Should the content of each category be limited to the statute references and nothing more, while the prose contains all of the summary information? Or should the prose and infobox be more or less synchronized with the same set of data, presented in two different ways?

Beautification: There are obviously improvements to be made in the area of format, style, and placement within the article. For instance, apparently the infobox bleeds into the next section unless the next section contains a table/infobox/navbox of some sort. Maybe there's a way to fix this; or maybe it'll be moot if every state had an infobox. There are probably some wiki-fu masters out there that could work some magic on it in that and other ways. Luftegrof (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Washington

This passage lacks context:

In December 2005, activists Gray Peterson and Jim March went to the state archives in Olympia to research the origins of the law. March, with his experience in researching gun control laws created out of racial discrimination and strife in California, surmised during a conversation with Peterson, that due to the year it was passed, it was likely due to "Panther paranoia."

The law, passed in 1969, was passed in response to incidents involving the Seattle Chapter of Black Panther Party at Rainier Beach High School and the Protest of the Mulford Act by the main organization in the California Assembly.

What law? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota section outdated/ incorrect information

The section on Minnesota laws is outdated and/ or incorrect in a few ways.

One example:

MN has no "Concealed Carry law", we have a "Carry Law" we can carry openly or concealed, and we can carry any type of firearm we want (If I wanted to strap a Barrett .50 on my back I could legally do so with a carry permit).

The MN Dept. of Public Safety site used as a citation/ resource is outdated and very incorrect by its self. They believe it is "good as it is" and refuse to change it.

I am leaving this to let y'all know that after getting my sources together, and talking with Prof. Olsen (the man who wrote our law) I am going to be changing the MN section to CORRECTLY reflect MN law.AVHarris (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask Joe to make the changes himself? If he isn't willing or able, I'll give you a hand. I'm an instructor here in Minnesota, and a contributing editor for the Gun Owner's Civil Rights Alliance, which Joe Olson is the President of. Piece of advice, you may want to be a little less strident in your tone when editing. Doing so sounds more like arrogance than correction Rapier (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I write kind of straight forward, but I'm not intending to be condescending or arrogant. I will be more professional when editing the article. I am making a post on the Carry Forum to ask the assistance of Prof. Olson and the rest of the guys.-AVHarris (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like I was beaten to it by one of the other guys.-AVHarris (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. The back-and-forth for clarity continues.Digiphi (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico section might be incorrect

"Carry is allowed in restaurants that serve beer and/or wine however." Looked at the link and couldn't find anything there to support this. The linked page also provides a PDF with the actual law, but it only refers to it being illegal to carry in any establishment that serves alcohol. I couldn't find any mention of "beer and/or wine" being an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.47.203 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)