User talk:Canoe1967/Gun debates in article space

This page was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2012. The result of the discussion was userfy.

Similar proposals

Ethnicity, religon, and sexual orientation, etc. may be similar debates that could benefit from a specific policy on them. I have also seen those discussed in BLP forums, BLP template pages, article talk pages, dispute forums, etc. Much of it is covered in other policies and guidelines but they may still benefit from central and specific ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal contradicts our core policies, such as WP:NPOV. The best that you can do is move this to your user space or move it to one of the WikiProjects, such as firearms, crime, and some other relevant project. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks more like this is supporting/implementing wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In what way? Examples? I see it as the complete opposite. Viriditas (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the lead. It shows the extremes of the POV at each end of the scale. If the policy is created and followed correctly then all gun articles will be a perfecty NPOV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is a personal essay, not a proposal, and it should be moved to your user space. In the future, please let the person I was addressing my question to answer. You raise an interesting point about the two extremes, but your mistake is focusing on a single issue rather than generalizing your approach for all topics. Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should all of these be moved to user space as well then? I have anwered that same question from you and others numerous times. I don't see why others should waste their time answering you again. If you wanted a question answered by a specific person then ask them on their talk page, email them, phone them, or drive to their house and kick in their door.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked North8000 for his opinion. For some reason, you answered. Is this making sense? Anyway, you are in the wrong category. Your essay belongs in Category:User essays. Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to answer this? I didn't realize that questions could only be answered by specific people. Someone must have deleted the term 'opinion' in your question above as well. Could you link that policy/guideline in case someone else errs and answers you? Is "belongs in Category:User essays." opinion as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't realize? Really? Well, there's this thing called "indentation", and when an editor asks a question below that of the editor above, the question is directed to that editor. You're now saying that this is a policy proposal. Can you explain exactly what you are proposing? Because, as far as I can tell, this is a user essay. I'm not seeing anything about policy. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

I just grabbed some at random. The ones in the US I was more familiar with. I only read the leads to see if they had guns in them. We could sort them by amount of text about the gun debate, ones that influenced changes in gun laws, etc. Other English countries should be included as well as non-English ones. Even though this is en:wp the debates are world wide. Japan civilian guns are only owned by the Olympic shooting teams (I think) so we may wish to include that if we can find an article on it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you have created a false dilemma in regards to the type of content we can use, and you've specified the type of sections you would like to see this content appear in. In reality, statements about gun laws and policies do not have to appear in a reactions/legacy section and quite often do not. You're trying to dictate the type of content we can add and how we can add it based on your own POV rather than on how we actually do it. Why don't you look at the best (GA, FA) gun-related articles (history, crime, firearms, law, etc.) and go from there? Viriditas (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add aftermath as an option then like this article. You are allowed to change youself if you wish. That may be faster than requesting it here next time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not remotely accurate. Start with the Virginia Tech massacre article. It's got a large second-level section heading named Incident within gun politics debate. The problem is you are working backwards, a priori. Instead of going from experience and looking at the actual articles and how they discuss gun laws and gun politics, you're arguing for your own personal POV. That's just not right. Viriditas (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to keep doing your edit requests from the talk page? I don't think the article is fully protected anymore so feel free to fix it yourself to your standards.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a user essay written by one person, there's nothing for me to add or fix. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this essay proposing?

I would like an explanation. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered the last few places the question was asked. Could people keep their questions on the proper pages so we don't have to copy/paste the same answers all over WMF?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your proposal, then you should be able to explain it briefly. I can't find any explanation for it or what it is trying to do. Since policies don't operate this way, exactly what are you hoping to achieve? Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article and gun similarity

This is a copy/paste of something said about another article:

I am neutral on gun control and believe it should be a democratic decision. We don't have a 'right to bear arms' in Canada. If all guns are banned like Japan, then so be it. I doubt we will every have mandatory ownership as some areas in the US do which is the other extreme. As to the article it should be the same. Material should not be totally banned from the article nor a forced coatrack of every sourced quote we can find. It is early yet for any laws to change, politicians to speak in elections, security to step up/down, etc. Other gun articles have had time to include this material. I have only heard of the one lawsuit filed and it was entered. The one that merely hired a lawyer was quickly reverted. I mentioned that as if/when they increase past X number then we may just say X number of suits have been filed and Foo, Foo, and Foo are named in them for tying shoelaces incorrectly, not turning on the fan, and leaving the fridge door open as well as other minor claims. This will prevent huge sections full of similar material. --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it will prevent such material. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]