Talk:Gun control

Impact on Mortality and Injury - contentious text removed and pasted here for consensus

Sorry guys, this just doesn't make sense and some of it is untruthful. Facts are that:

• some countries have far worse gun crime than the United States, so it's untruthful statement
• this is not about the United States, this article is about the world, leading with the US is nonsensical
• it's filled with weasle wording that sounds to me like "Yet despite all of these horrific facts there is still disagreement by idiots out there" - it's biased sorry.
• it's questionable whether this is a matter of "public health" - that is concept that comes straight from the UK. If you want a section on the "public health" argument then we need to describe it in an NPOV manner vs trying to make the argument for gun control in the article.
• tag has been here since 2010 saying this section is to US / western centric.

There is general agreement that gun violence is a serious public health and economic concern, especially in the United States, where an average of 32,300 people die and approximately 69,000 injuries occur per year due to guns, at a estimated annual cost of $100 billion. Yet, society remains deeply divided over whether more restrictive gun control policies would save lives and prevent injuries. Scholars agree the rate of gun violence in the United States is disproportionately high relative to other wealthy countries and a 2005 analysis suggested that the United States' low life expectancy (relative to other wealthy countries) may be attributable to guns, with a reduction in average American lifespan of 104 days. Nevertheless, strong disagreement remains among academics on the question of whether a causal relationship between gun availability and violence exists, and which, if any, gun controls would effectively stem the violence.

Let's get some consensus on stuff like this before adding this to a world article. The banner saying this is to US centric has been there since 2010 and nobody has done anything about it so I'm doing something about it. Help appreciated let's keep it NPOV. In my mind, The article is not here to make an argument for or against gun control but merely to describe gun control. I'm entirely unsold on whether the article should be organized as such with a bunch of arguments for or against. This article is merely to describe gun control vs attempting to sway the reader with arguments.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What changes would you like to see to this passage? What would make it more NPOV? The article is US-centric, throughout, as a lot of research had been done on gun control in the past in the US. What could we add from the rest of the world. The one article is a comparison of wealthier nations around the world, including the US. The passage as it stands is well sourced. We could start by tweaking the wording.--StopYourBull (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a detailed description in the introduction to this section. "agreement" does not seem to be in the literature of references provided. The article section talks about this bing a problem "especially in the United States" which is factually incorrect, Mexico, Brazil, Subsaharan Africa have far worse problems and it might especially be a problem in the Congo or Colombia but not int he United States. We can't lie in the encyclopedia even by consensus. Nonfactual relativistic information and pov pushing should be removed immediately. Aside from that I think we've gone down the wrong path with this article - this is not a place to pump our particular arguments for gun control, this is an article to describe gun control contextually throughout history and on a worldwide scale not a pet project on US vs Australian vs UK gun control in the early 2000s which is what this reads like. Very POV laden.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Severe wording problems

Even after a few minutes I've spotted a few very creative wording problems.

The first is nameing everything where a firearm was involves as caused by the firearm. That's like saying that drunk driving deaths "caused" by automobiles.

Second is the deception in the US numbers. In the US, the vast majority of firearm deaths are by suicide. Efforts abound to make those sound like something else. For example calling a suicide "killed by a family member" because a person is technically a family member of themselves, or "victims of gun violence" because technically whatever you do to yourself could be called "violence". This article does the latter, by following an unexplained listing of total US firearm deaths by a reference to deaths by "gun violence". North8000 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, North8000. Can you quote specific instances, please. I think that the original data tend to be named that way. For example, it would be "automobile deaths, drugs or alcohol involved." I'm pretty sure that the sources discuss deaths by gunshot wound as "firearm deaths," or "gun violence." This is certainly the case in the press, at the very least.--StopYourBull (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first item, "involved" is fine, but the instance of "caused by" in the article is not. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

An example of the second item is where "where an average of 32,300 people die" is both preceded and proceeded by the term "gun violence" North8000 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you rather have it as "death due to/injury due to gunshot wound?" For the your second example, would it be better as:

High rates of gunshot wound mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies.[1][page needed] There is general agreement that gunshot wound deaths and injuries are a serious public health and economic concern, especially in the United States, where an average of 32,300 people die[2] and approximately 69,000 injuries occur per year due to gunshot wounds,[3]

I would have to stare at that to figure out if it wasn't just an odd form of political correctness. Anyone else?--StopYourBull (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

it's a not a factual statement, it's a lie. " There is general agreement that gunshot wound deaths and injuries are a serious public health and economic concern, especially in the United States,". No, not especially in the United States, it's a far greater problem in Mexico, Brazil, an subsaharan Africa. The US is tame by comparison. We can't lie in Wikipedia even by consensus guys, yet his ludicrous statement is here. Can we at least take out the outright lies?Justanonymous (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

also where exactly is the agreement? Not in. Sources provided. -Justanonymous (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think that dialing back the most obvious wording problems as proposed is a good first step. But the result should not carry the imprimatur of being a finalization of the wording. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

agree, it'll never be final. We should first make sure the comments are factual, then we should try to remove the bias at a minimum and get the basic english down. There are huge issues here. We also have some international editors on here and the multilanguage things is adding a lot of complexity to the sentences and it's frankly really messing up the nuance of the meaning in some complex sentences. That's part of the issue. Finally we have editing where the author assumes the reader knows something. The glaring example is the "especially in the United States" Miguel Escopeta writes in his talk that it's especially a problem because the US has a second amendment -- that context that the author is trying to make is not present in the sentence in question, it's a crime statistics sentence. The reader can't make the leap from "especially in the United States" to the because of the "second amendment" when the sentence is about statistics - the reader is logically going to assume that it's "especially a problem in the United States" because of the high number of deaths cited, only the numbers are not high when compared to Mexico, Brazil subsaharan africa and a bunch of other places. We have huge writing issues here. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you and Miguel Escopeta may be in agreement at the "big picture" level but may not realize that. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I 100% agree with your analysis. I came to realize some of that on his talk.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is about gun control, not the philosophical underpinnings of self defence or the right to bear arms. I think that the article Right to keep and bear arms may be a better place to deal with that, and I would be perfectly happy to assist in promoting that effort. This article does, and should deal with, gun control in the modern world, with all the current realities that that includes. Twisting and turning to avoid these realities either by ignoring them or by couching them in gentle, politically correct language, is not dealing with the topic at hand.

The actual fact--from the cited documents--is that, among nations that are of the highest economic standing, the United States is a glaring anomaly in that the rate of deaths and injuries attributed to gunshot are vastly more than the other countries of equivalent economic standing, and even outpace most third world statistics. Every year, a city the size of Ann Arbor, Michigan (e.g.) is either killed, maimed, or crippled due to gunshot wounds in the US. The rest of the world wants to know what it is about firearms, especially gun control, in the US that produces this anomaly. I would think, also, that there is now probably a majority of Americans who are also wondering why this is the case.

I have little problem with the current wording of this article, although I do find some of the content superfluous to an article on gun control. It can always be improved, however, and I believe that adding more research and citations to back up--and balance-- what is there would be a step in that direction, along with trying to find more research done in countries other than the US. The article currently does have too much information from the US, but that can be remedied if we put some effort into it.

The big problem I can see with all of the articles on "gun politics" in Wikipedia, is that whenever someone is unhappy that the article is not slanted toward their particular values, or world view, another article is spawned to push the unhappy person's point of view. That's what needs correction.--StopYourBull (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• What this article is about - Respectfully, you StopYourBull don't get to unilaterally decide what this article is about. Right to keep and bear arms is a different topic as is the topic of Self Defense. This article is about governments and societies limiting guns. It's a meaty topic and there is a rich history to that that stretches all the way back from Plato and as Miguel said it's even mentioned in the bible to an extent. I'm ok with touching on the politics of specific countries of it but those shouldn't be central. We need to rationalize our gun articles.
• Be Clear and NPOV- If you're saying that America stands alone among "developed countries" then say that! don't assume that the reader will know. The way it's written at the moment it says that America is the worst but what you really need to say is that it's the worst among developed countries We need to be clear, "among developed countries the United States has a gun murder rate of 3.9 vs Britain's 1.2 per 100,000" and let's say it without judgement and weasle words like "yet." Let's also be completely clear that although the UK has lower gun crime, violence has shifted to knives - that's relevant. Analyzing gun crime in a vacuum does not yield an accurate picture to the full effects of gun controls. You're something like 4 times as likely to be stabbed in the Uk than you are of being shot in the US. Home invasions are up in the UK and Australia - some of the worst rates in the world (collateral to exercising gun control indiscriminately?)That's a huge part of the problem here with the article. Authors are assuming that the reader is an expert on gun control and they could very well be a 14 year old coming to write a book report and they get this specialist garbage loaded pov language and at the end of the day you wind up with a brainwashing article - which is what this is at the moment..
• Improvements should still be welcome- just because you don't see an issue is no reason to block improvements to the article
• The real problem with these articles - is that they are treated not like an encyclopedia but as a personal forum for POV pushers to drive home their personal agenda to the exclusion of everything else. We don't need US only statistics on this article and we don't need those detail US statistics on the Right to bear arms page either.....maybe in a Gun pollitics or Crime in the United States but not everywhere someone wants to dump their little POV.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We cannot have just a pile of articles dealing with the polemics of weapons ownership in history. This is an article specifically dealing with gun control, and it must deal with the topic in the modern world and not with just the wisdom of the ancients. If you want to merge the content of this article with Gun politics (from which it originally sprang from what I've seen), I would have no problem with that. It may also solve some of the US-centric problem. I oppose just making this another philosophical treatment of gun ownership to avoid dealing with the provable realities of gun control.

I did not write that section, but I can see that, in an attempt to add balance and to phrase the issue in fair terms, what you are calling weasel words and not NPOV are actually one way to provide both sides of an issue: thus the terms "yet," "however," "on the other hand," etc.. As far as the statistics not agreeing with what you know to be true in Britain and Australia, you know that well-sourced additions are part of the WP process, and you can make such additions. You cannot expect, however, to go unchallenged if the statistics are spurious, out of date, bear less weight, or are irrelevant to the arguments being debated.

Yes, we always need to make improvements. I think you are saying the same thing I am saying: POV pushing is not good. The censoring of the exploration of the current realities of gun control is also not good.--StopYourBull (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly saying that you want to write an article that exposes the perils of not having gun control? I'm sorry that is NOT what this article is about and that is not what Wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedic article about gun control. Please read WP:NOT right away. This is not WP:Battleground. It's a topic and it has a history and we should NOT ignore nor gloss over the history of gun control and we should absolutely not create some kind of pro gun control article here (and we shouldn't create an anti gun control article either). That is clearly outside the boundaries. You also need to read WP:WORD and WP:WEASEL which explicitly states that we should not use weasel words and the wikipedia policy is that we should rewrite those articles per the policy. Please do not block me as I clean that up. We can go to arbitration. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

'POV pushing is saying that gun control is either good or bad based on distorted rationalizations, philosophical ramblings, unconnected anecdotal quotations, and censorship; presenting both sides of the argument supported by data as compared to specious argument and innuendo, is NPOV. I, for one, will oppose such changes, and demand facts bolstered by up-to-date empirical evidence'.--StopYourBull (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear -

• Will you will oppose the removal of weasel words? Yes or no?
• Will you oppose any addition of a history of the concept of gun control (it wasn't invented yesterday)? yes or no?
• Will you oppose the addition of facts for worldwide gun control by country?
• Will you oppose the addition of facts other than the onese you like? (your facts are very one sided, Mexico has a full gun ban and horrific gun crime we can take it from there.)
• Will you oppose the philsophical context from notable historical philosophers like Plato and notable figures in gun and arms control? (you label them ramblings I think)

We need answers to these and based on those answers and I think the other editors here need to know what you will and will not be able to live with in a consensus. I will seek arbitration if you are unreasonable as you appear to be and we'll figure out whether you have your personal pool to push your agenda or whether we have an encyclopedia here.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stopyourbull. Your last post was quite a blend of things.....some good ideas, some things that are in line with Wikipedia policies and guidlines, and some things that are directly in violation of them. I think we'll need on focus on specifics to sort this out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello StopYourBull:

• A big chunk of your post seems to be arguing a reason why this article should be be POV'd. I think that that says a lot, but that is not right for a Wikipedia article.
• You seem to be conflicting with yourself. You start by saying that the article should be narrowly construed to be only about gun control itself, not arguments related to it. I guess that would also be fine, but it would entail deleting about 3/4 of the present article. The alternative would be to include the debates/ arguments / reasoning for and against and such is partially currently in the article (mostly the "for") and you said you like the currently article. So I'm guessing that you would prefer to have the "for" in there and not the "against", but that is not right for a Wikipedia article.

North8000 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a very glaring agenda here from Stopyourbull to cast the United States as the worst gun crime country on earth, that is what is written on the article and there is very strong resistance to changing that view eventhough it is patently incorrect. Wikipedia is not a place to push your bias or to drive your agenda. This article is very straightforward, I would expect to find a History of the concept, maybe a map of the world denoting countries on a spectrum from restrictive to unrestricted (I can do that if I can find good data), maybe some summaries of connections with right to bear arms, self defense, differnt types of governments. Very straightforward very substantive vs this garbage (pardon my french). I'm sorry, I'm just frankly agast at some of what the article contains. Also, just because this article hadn't gotten much attention pre-sandy hook doesn't mean it was a good article. We need to fix this asap, it doesn't stand up to Wikipedia standards.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The article in its current state is incredibly slanted in favor of one side of the gun control issue. Lumping the number of "gun suicides" into the number of "gun deaths" in the United States is just one example of the rampant issues in this article. The number is much lower if you confine it to gun murders. As pointed out earlier, the wording gives the impression that those are deaths caused by the availability of guns, and that is absolutely not true. The problem we're running into here is that people on the anti-gun side actually believe "more gun violence" means "more violence," when in fact it just means "more gun violence." The United States has a whole lot of guns and a whole lot of gun owners, so of course it's going to have more "gun violence" than other comparable countries. If people are killing each other (or themselves) with guns instead of with other items, is that a "serious public health concern?" Of course not. Murder is murder, suicide is suicide, etc., regardless of the means. The aforementioned issue is just one of many glaring issues in this article. The entire article needs a makeover so as to be in line with WP:NPOV. ROG5728 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in a while and now that I have, I agree with JA, it is very poor. My opinion is that ROG5728 made the article much worse than it was. The revision not only rendered the article desultory and fragmented, but removed much material that he apparently found objectionable, though it wasn't necessarily invalid. I see a lot of claims of NPOV and undue weight on these talk pages, mostly by the gun advocates, and it seems they have been successful in gutting the article. Even the denigrations and attacks on the existing text are misdirected (e.g. the partisans do not seem to understand the meaning of term "weasel word", seem to think that the adjectives like "thorough" hide insidious value judgments, and think it is fine to remove material that is validly sourced under various pretexts).

I think the attempts to define the proper contents of this article are important, to prevent it from being mired in bickering. The history section seems like a good idea, but the Association with authoritarianism is horrible and should be removed (at least from this section). It is an argument not a historical treatment. The Argument section makes no sense as written. I think a description of the arguments commonly used to support positions for or against greater or lesser gun control would be valid in this section. I think this should consist of a statement of the argument, and the key supporting information, rather than a lengthy recitation of all the data possibly in favor of or against a particular position, i.e. no extensive rebuttals. I also think a section on research into gun control (How well does it work?) would be proper for this article, as would a section on the major advocacy groups and political positions involved in this issue. The issue of the scope of the article is a tricky one: US vs. global. Clearly, it is easier for most of us to find sources for the US, and perhaps focusing the article explicitly on that is the solution.Michaplot (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Michaplot, for the information of editors who come here looking at the RfC below, please consider repeating the relevant portion of your remarks, and/or view of the Proposal, in that section. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Impact on mortality and injury

There have been a lot of edits on this section. It is glaring Pro-Gun Control. Edits are reverted by Stopyourbull without discussion on the talk. Let's get consensus:

• why can't we break down gun violence into it's constituent parts?
• it's factually inaccurate to say that the US has a "low life expectancy" It's 77+ years within a year or two of all the other industrial countries. This is not "low". Very arbitrary
• why can't we say that most of the gun violence is gang related? numerous studies out there show that it is.
• why must we have weasel words against the policy?

We need to discuss this right away.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you on the first three points. I don't understand the last one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and it seems we have a rough consensus to rework the article so as to be in line with WP:NPOV. ROG5728 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to get this on the record, I am not the one making threats about who can and cannot edit articles in WP. I am not blindly reverting edits, but I will edit statements that run afoul of WP policies and make sure that they are properly sourced, and make sense. Contrary to what you say to each other, no page is "our page," and I take great offence to anyone trying to bully or otherwise push their opinions on any other editor. As I stated in my (bolded) response above: I simply will not be bullied. If you wish to take this to arbitration, I am fine with that, but coercion does not work with me.

To get to your specific points:

-we can break gun violence down into its constituent parts, as long as it is properly documented. Pointing out that "many' gun deaths and injuries are among people of lower-class status is wrong: the loss of their lives are just as much a part of the problem and expense as are deaths among college students. Similar deaths are included in firearms-related statistics around the world. Trying to slough them of as inconsequential is morally wrong and probably runs up against a WP policy somewhere. I will check.

-You have to read the article to understand what the authors are saying. I can provide an even longer and more detailed worldwide view that says the same thing and I will dig it out.

-You would have to provide actual numbers. It also is meaningless as a life is a life, the same types of people are included around the world, and they are still part of the cost to the health-care system.

-Some of what you have removed were weasel words. I think we should all go back and read up on what constitutes weasel words.

Apart from the rancor, I think we are making headway in cleaning up this article.

We do not have consensus---StopYourBull (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do see what you are trying to do Stopyourbull and sadly it's not working. And there is consensus, you just don't like it. Progress is not me making an edit and you removing it. That's called edit warring, hence why I created this before we all get blocked. Agreed a rework is highly in order here - Looking carefully at the section I do note that there appears to be a bunch of pro and then a bunch of anti and then a bunch of other articles mentioned in prose. But if we want to have three formal sections that are anti, pro and other we can't do it in prose because the editor here winds up pushing an agenda with filler words that are biased. If we're going to list, pro and anti gun control research we should just list the research without accompanying weasel words and without injecting bias for the reader. It should be clear that we are listing potentially biased research and not take a position on Wikipedia as to the value of the research. Here are some examples of the bias and weasel wording:

A preponderance of studies point to a significant relationship between gun availability and gun violence.

• POV pushing uncited content, should be removed. It's uncited, it's weasel worded. Do we have a survey of studies we can point to and say like on climate change at least?

The press conference was disrupted twice by hecklers carrying banners that said "NRA: Killing Our Kids" and "NRA: Blood On Its Hands".

• This is POV pushing, shall we also add that the Newtown school board unanimously asked for armed guards? By this standard, if two hecklers warrant inclusion, shouldn't the unanimous actions of a school board acting in direct response to the tragedy in question and in line with what the NRA had requested? WP:NPOV violation.

This stems in part from successful efforts to suppress research by Congress[11] and the National Rifle Association[12][13]

• We can't just cite one side of the argument and not the other, here is the other side and it merits inclusion, "Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: 'This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.']" Neither of the sources used here are strictly OR but if we're going to include one OR source, we should include the other. WP:NPOV violation.

The most thorough of these, the 2004 critical review by the National Research Council concluded that

• Weasel word phrase indicating a value judgement on a study. The editor in this case attempted to give undue weight to one particular study. Violation of WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT

Another thorough review conducted in 2011 of data from many sources by the Firearm

• Another weasel worded value judgement on the part of the editor. Who claimed it to be thorough? At the very minimum we should add the person who made the claim that it was a thorough study.

Wikipedia is not a debate forum where Stopyourbull puts forth his argument and then MrGunRights puts forth his argument against gun control and may the better rhetoritician or the one with the best funded research wins. That is not what we are here to do. We document, not engage in the rhetoric. We need to rewrite this pronto-Justanonymous (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I noticed a number of other glaring neutrality issues. One example is the section Associations with authoritarianism, which basically acts as a one-sided rebuttal to pro-gun positions on the history of gun control; it claims that the Nazis "relaxed" their gun control laws, and yet in the very next sentence it admits Jews were eventually forbidden from possessing weapons at all. That's a bit of a contradiction, no? The section also goes on to quote an anti-gun Holocaust survivor, while making no mention whatsoever of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or anyone on the other side of that issue. Shameful. This entire article has serious issues, and SYB seems to be the only editor stalling progress in improving it. Consensus does not require unanimity. ROG5728 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Each edit has to stand or fail on its own. All are subject to being supported properly with verifiable acceptable references, not just opinion, or unacceptable blog posts, etc.. The weight they are to be given is due to the preponderance of information that is available (WP:DUE).

I'm not sure what you are accusing me of doing? Are you saying that I am engaged in something untoward? There is no consensus. You do not have carte blanche to make this page into one of "our pages."--StopYourBull (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Stopyourbull, this article falls under the scope of Wikiprojects firearms. It's not yours or mine or anybody else's. I'm specifically accussing you of reverting reasonable edits without discussing them materially in the talk. Above are a series of specific entries in quotes, please address your rationale for keeping them. If you can't provide rationale within a reasonable amount of time, I will remove them or modify them to comply with Wikipedia standards and policies. We're also likely going to radically rewrite the article. It's in bad shape. There is consensus for a rewrite:

• it seems that a tenous peace had been reached here where one pov pushing editor could push their agenda in their little bucket if they left the other pov pushing editor's bucket alone
• it seems that since December this tenous peace has been broken by not allowing Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership views etc from being included here along with other transgressions among other skirmishes in what appears to be a violation of WP:Battleground
• sadly the tenous peace came at the price of significant violations of Wikipedia policies. again violation of WP:Battleground

The consensus is that this article is POV laden and materially diverges from Wikipedia policy. We will work in good faith to bring it to Wikipedia standards. Do not block attempts to bring the article to a high Wikipedia Standard.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? I've had about enough of your threats. You do not forbid me from editing.--StopYourBull (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Heaven forbid no Stopyourbull, we're a civil group here. But wikipedia editors have to have skin that is a bit more than paperthin. The article is a mess, both on the progun control side and anti gun control side. IT's a fact. Deal with it-Justanonymous (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have references that are newer than the 17 or 18 year old references you used for the "mostly gangs" statement? Can you provide actual numbers or proportions instead of just the "majority" or "many" weasel words. That would be much better and up to WP standards.--StopYourBull (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a full answer to that but I did find a good source (the FBI) for the total number of firearm murders in the US in a year. For the most recent complied year, it is 8,583. [1]. I saw some figures for "disagreements between criminals" estimated at > 70% of that but still not a solid new source. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Those may be closer, but not quite close enough yet. I will look, too, although I do not believe that police-supplied UCR data has that degree of accuracy. I am still of a mind, however, that it does not matter who dies or is injured, someones's family is still left to deal with it and there is an equal burden on the health-care system for the injuries.--StopYourBull (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just as with the other ~2,500,000 deaths and ~100,000,000 injuries in the US each year. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, but the same type of analysis and treatment goes into automobile deaths and injuries. I have worked in that area and the similarities are close. With the advent of better and safer automobile construction, better road geography, and especially better trauma treatment, deaths are going down. That does have an odd downside in that it is now more expensive for the health system.--StopYourBull (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Good observations and info. North8000 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only gang related but it's estimated that over half of all gun crime victims in the United States were criminals themselves recently released from prison, felons, etc. Young people for sure with families but still criminals. Here is an article, admittedly from a conservative source but follow the links, there is some good data and insight there. Once we start peeling the onion, a very intersting picture emerges on the nature of gun crime in the United States.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That all may be true, but the big point would be whether the constituent proportions of gun-related crimes in the US are any different than they are in other countries. If they are then you would certainly have a point; if they aren't then there is something distinctly awry that needs to be investigated.--StopYourBull (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. Gun Control is an action by a government to restrict firearms from the people. Gun crime is something that might or might not have a direct correlation with Gun control and it will vary country by country. A layperson's analysis would clearly show that the percentages in the types of violence in different countries varies widely and largely irrespective of gun control:

• Mexico has almost a complete gun ban but because of drug gangs (drug cartels) there is a very high gun violence rate, mostly among cartel members but the people do suffer.
• The US has over 50% of the world's weapons and enjoys crimes rates that are very low and in line with most modern societies (we can argue between Britain's 1.9 per 100k and the US 3.2 per 100k statistics until we're blue in the face)) and if you remove the gang violence crimes America's gun violence levels are positively benign for a country with 50% of the world's arms. This needs to come out.
• We can look at subsaharan Africa where gun violence is more indiscriminate and the mass of the population suffers and governments are not strong at all so it's irrespective of whether they have strong or lax gun control laws - it doesn't matter, you're a gun lord, you get guns (come and take them is their motto and they'll arm 8 year olds if it serves them). In Botswana you can buy an assault rifle (full auto) for $200 and it's legal.
• Japan has very strong gun control and has very low gun crime (is it low crime because of strict gun control or is it a violent free society that sees it reasonable to outlaw guns? Arguments can be made. Stories abound of women forgetting their purses in a busy park in Tokyo only to come back a week later to still find their purse there untouched. Try that anywhere else on the world!)
• Switzerland has gun crime rates in on the low end of being in line with developed countries and all able bodied men have access to an assault rifle.
• Great Britain & Australia both ban guns almost entirely yet they are still plagued by sporadic mass killings and they have a horrific statistics on other criminal violence (assault, robberies, burgularies, home invasion) - what to make of that? And yes, they have gang issues too.
• Brazil has middle of the road gun control yet suffers from horrific murder rates (a lot of them with guns).

I think this short example shows that gun control, as a crime control policy and health tool, does not benefit from strong corrollaries - that is to say, strict gun control policy does not mean low gun crime or low crime or low violence. Isolating the variables that would make studies reliable are very difficult across an entire planet that has governments that vary in size and government form, how they collect or categorize data. In some places there is no real data. The ratios and nature of crime in the United States vs Brazil are very difficult to quantify and to look at the United States too superficially yields a warped bizzaro view into the effects of gun control. I can leave my door unlocked where I live but I'm not insane enough to even drive by parts of Baltimore in broad daylight in a big SUV with my windows rolled up and a police escort. The UK and Australia are also not great examples if we refuse to talk about the ancillary reprecussions to gun control.....a shift of violence from gun violence to knife violence to where they're thinking of outlawing pointy kitchen knives! or if we insist on blatantly lying about our crime rates (an article in Wikipedia until recently stated that Australia had a low crime rate when compared to the US and UK - a blatant unsupported lie that the source did not support) But yes, in the US a very significant percentate of the gun crime and crime in general is gang related and most of the gang members have a criminal record and have done time and happen to be relatively young 17 to 31 (I'd say). Short-story is that the types of gun violence will vary from country to country. Gun control might play a role but only where the society wants it to play a role and superficially using studies to make one point while not addressing the complexity of the matter yields a POV ridden mess. Worse, this is an article about gun control not gun crime levels etc. My 2 cents. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Associations with authoritarianism

With regard to recent non-NPOV edits by StopYourBull, I would like to note that it's not a "claim" that the Nazis implemented gun control to disarm the Jewish population. It's a fact already documented by reliable sources in the article (the confiscation of weapons is also already documented in the article). Enough with the weasel wording. The fact that the Nazis relaxed their gun laws for the rest of the population is not relevant to the issue of the Holocaust or the massacre of the Jews, which this section is discussing. That text serves only to conflate and bury the relevant historical information, apparently because it doesn't suit the agenda being pushed throughout most of this article. Just because something is factual and/or sourced does not mean it is DUE. You're doing your best to make this section confusing and misleading, and it's not going to fly. By the way, one more revert will put you at 3RR, so I advise you to stop edit warring and start discussing the content here on the talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that it is ROG5728 that is engaged in blatantly pushing his POV by changing what the authors have said to what ROG5728 believes and would like to be true. NPOV would be stating what the authors state and not putting words in their mouth or declaring that something is accepted without providing support. The entire point of this section is that there is argument over whether weapons confiscation occurred or was or was not important, or even peculiar, to authoritarianism. The authors diverge on this point and you cannot ignore that and baldly claim that it has been decided to be the way ROG5728 wants it. ROG5728 has adjusted the passages to comply with what ROG5728 would like to be true, made assumptions that his view is accepted fact and changed the wording accordingly, added weasel words to play up parts that agree with his view, or edited out passages that disagree with what ROG5728 believes. ROG5728 has tried to remove or twist what the cited authors are saying. Some of the authors and quotations are stating that weapons confiscation is irrelevant to authoritarianism. Some of the citations and quotations also state that this line of reasoning is just a rewriting of history by a political faction involved in the US gun debate to serve their own purposes. If we are talking about WP:DUE, then up until about 1990 there is forty-plus years of historical scholarship that has not considered weapons confiscation to be either a necessary or sufficient or even notable condition to enable the Nazis to do what they ultimately did. ROG5728 must know by now that we cannot lay claim to these articles as "our articles," (whatever that may mean) and turn them into a political screed to serve our own ends. As far as threatening me that I must bend to your POV, you know where that should be housed--StopYourBull (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What I removed is the weasel wording where you called it a "claim" that weapons confiscation took place in Nazi Germany. It's not a "claim" that the Nazis implemented gun control to disarm the Jewish population, so why refer to it as a claim? It's a fact already documented by the sources in the section. I removed the text about "relaxation" of gun laws in Nazi Germany because according to the sources that was only true with regards to non-Jews, so it's not relevant to the issue of the Holocaust. This section discusses the Holocaust and the massacre of the Jews. The fact that the Nazis relaxed their gun laws for the rest of the population is not relevant to the issue of the Holocaust or the massacre of the Jews. The Jews were completely disarmed prior to the Holocaust. ROG5728 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

StopYourBull, a lot of your post is just making up nasty stuff about ROG5728. We should stick to specific content questions and issues. It seems that one specific dispute is whether to word that Nazis implemented gun control to disarm the Jewish population. as somebody's "claim" vs stating it as a fact. Maybe settling that would be a good place to start. Is this sourced, and is this in question? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the sources in the entire section (Associations with authoritarianism) deny that the Nazis disarmed the Jewish population prior to the Holocaust. Furthermore, many of them explicitly state that the Nazis did in fact disarm the Jewish population prior to the Holocaust (and that weapons confiscation took place), so I see no reason to refer to it as a "claim." It's just weasel wording. ROG5728 (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed "claim" to "state" which is correct and neutral.

"Relaxed" is the term that is used in the citation, it has no connotation other than made less restrictive. It is correct and it is also stated that the Jews had all of their weapons confiscated. That is neutral. It certainly does not make Jewish arms confiscation less salient, and, in fact, points out that although non-Jews had more access to guns, Jews had all their weapons confiscated.

This section discusses Associations with Authoritarianism. The big problem is that weapons confiscation is a standard operating procedure during times of war or martial law. "We" also confiscated weapons from Japanese, Italian, and German citizens living in North America during WWII, and in the case of the Japanese living on the west coast of North America, that was done before we interned them in concentration camps. This is probably an argument that needs to be made in this section, as well. Leaving out cogent information is just POV pushing.

That America did something as well is evidence of a misdeed in America's past, and in no way contradicts the intended meaning of the German (and other) references. The US also acts in an authoritarian manner on occasion. The gun control opponents in the US are well aware of this, as they see the current efforts as a step along the authoritarian path. You are making a weak strawman argument, which actually argues against your purpose.. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I can back up everything I say, and I have said nothing that is "nasty." I am getting rather tired of being threatened, however, and I won't be told that my edits "won't fly" because they disagree with someone else's opinion--StopYourBull (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you changed it to say scholars "claim" the Nazis implemented gun control laws to disarm the Jewish population and then wiped them out. The problem is that it's not a claim, it's a fact. The sentence is located in the middle of the first paragraph in the section (and no, it won't fly). ROG5728 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We need to be NPOV. I think what Rog5728 cleans is cleaning it up to a more neutral voice which is good. We should not inject weasel words per WP:WEASEL. Too much POV pushing.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is also not to say that gun control is evil or that it's bad. There are documented facts where totalitaian regimes enact gun control. Heck Plato was talking about them doing it back 2,500 years ago. It's quite common. Does it mirror what is going on in the US, UK, Australia? Come ask me in 300 years. I'm sure that if you asked an average Jewish person in 1935 whether gun control was bad, they might have said, "no, seems perfectly reasonable." Fact is we can't analyze and put into context modern gun control. We can only document what has happened in the past. Studies only go so far. There is a reason that Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership exists out there and why Israel insists on being a nuclear power to this day. They've had to learn some very hard lessons.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it to be NPOV and removed any weasel words. If you want to take this to mediation, we can--StopYourBull (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you changed it to add weasel wording. Now it says scholars "claim" the Nazis implemented gun control laws to disarm the Jewish population. The problem is that it's not a claim, it's a fact. So why refer to it as a "claim" except to distort and bury historical information? ROG5728 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You also just exceeded 3RR. ROG5728 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR Stopyourbull, you have broken the 3R rule which is generally a bright red line when it comes to Wikipedia sanctions and is considered Edit warring WP:WAR. I understand that this is a difficult subject but we need consensus here not a war on the article. I will offer you an opportunity to revert yourself and restore the text and come here to discuss consensus or I will have to submit the violation for action by administrators. Sorry Stopyourbull, you have to get consensus here before you just start reverting everyone and edit warring. I know it's hard. I will leave a message on your page and on Rog's page.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do provide it to an adiministrator. I have some things to discuss about the way that this has been carried out as well.--StopYourBull (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I assume you are refusing to revert your edit. I will report this and see what the Admin says. Please let's all agree to not further edit the article until an Admin makes a decision. It'll probably go easier on us if we behave here until someone provides guidance to all of us.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The bundling of a large group of edits from various areas of the article into one edit by StopYourBull and then warring in the whole bundle makes it near-impossible to rationally deal with. Such bundling should be avoided / unbundled. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This is beyond Third Opinion (since there are already more than three), and now in 3RR territory, so I'd like to suggest that all parties involved work toward clearly stating what your preferred versions of the article would be, and why, and then open a wider request for comment to invite others to come in and consider both sides. It's not necessarily binding, but it may help settle some things or at least give you some new ideas to consider. If you need help, please feel free to ask me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Kafziel that's a lot more than I was hoping for. Here goes:

Option 1 - Gun Control - the encyclopedic article a lay person would expect to find

I was hoping to find a short beefy, 30k or so, noncontentious encyclopedic worldly article that informs the reader about Gun Control - which is simply a country's laws and policies aimed at restricting firearm ownership from the general population (ranging from trivial to absolute firearms bans). I'd expect to find the following elements:

• Lede - describing and defining gun control, the practice and the spectrum (from no gun control to total firearms ban)
• Infobox - A current world map denoting where countries fall on the spectrum of gun control (from no gun control to ban) Maybe 4 steps (no data, light restriction, moderate, outright ban) - I can do that svg, take me a bit to get good data.
• Origins - A modest entry on the history of gun control, it's roots in Greek, Chinese, Japanese arms control concepts expounded by plato and other philosophers. We've been constraining populations from having arms since the dawn of civilization, this is just a subset of a bigger concept
• History - History of gun control as it has progressed and evolved. Since guns only came into existence since the 1,500s or so, we might perhaps focus on history of gun control since then (the formal vs the arms control)
• See Also - A see also section of other gun politics and gun related articles
• Further Reading - Maybe a couple of notable books on the topic of gun control
• References - Standard References

I wouldn't expect to have a big arguments section where people propose their rationales for or against gun control. That's what we have now and it's an invitation to be contentious, long winded, disorganized mangle of words. As it is at 72,000 bytes and growing it's really hard to plow through and doesn't really educate the 12 year old and even the adults have to slog through a wall of pov pushing weasel worded stuff before they get any value from it. Right now you get an intro, an ugly infobox of guns and then you jump into a pro-gun control argument and you have to read 3,000 words to get to the next argument. It's painful and not up to Wikipedia standards. People are just trying to position their pet idea and push their POV while throwing a few stones at the other guy's pet idea. So I'm proposing almost a complete rewrite which is a lot of effort but we've done it here before. Esteemed editors, please feel free to add subtract or adjust this view, it's just a stub. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Option 2 I think that Justanonymous did a better job at defining a specific proposal than I am going to do here. But I may have a few useful core points to help sort this out. The first core question is whether the article should confine itself to just covering gun control itself, or whether to include arguments, rationales and reasons pro and con. Inevitably the latter would include selecting and presenting facts, (with or without spin in that presentation) and so selected and presented facts (unless the selection and the presentation is done unusually well and unusually objectively) will be just another form of slant. So I tend to think that the only choice that wouldn't be a giant eternally unstable wp:coatrack would be a narrowly defined article. The current article is immensely biased, being a combination of a coatrack mostly for one side of the issue only, and a un-wikipedian wp:npov-violating essay for that that same side. So the status quo is untenable. So option #2 is to strictly limit to gun control, not selected "background info" and rationales arguing for one way or the other. But if the latter is included, bring it in conformance with policies, (including wp:npov) which it severely violates at the moment. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Option 3

• Simple, clinical description of what gun control is.
• VERY VERY stubby exceptionally summarized pro/con section (2-3 sentences for each side with the 10 second pitch)
• Spin-off article for Arguments for and against gun control or maybe Arguments for gun control and Arguments against gun control

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Option 4 - Gun Control - the encyclopedic article that a lay person and/or someone unfamiliar with firearms would expect to find Using the Racism article as a template of sorts...

• Lede - describing and defining gun (firearm) control, the practice and the spectrum (from no control to total ban)
• Infobox - Continue using the current one of "Gun politics by country".
• Definition/Types - A preface to help clarify that it comes in several forms such as Legislative, Cultural, Commercial, Practical, and Ecological (such as with hunting restrictions and the limitation on the number of rounds loaded at any given time).
• Influence of Technology - Firearms (as a practical and/or functional device) have evolved, albeit it slowly, but certain developments have had a greater impact than others, i.e. the self contained metallic cartridge, this made changeable magazines possible even though they did not come along until decades later.
• History - Starting with a modest section on the "Origins of firearm control' (a mini-lede of sorts similar to what Just recommends) followed by the history of the views towards gun control as it has progressed and evolved in light of technological changes. Starting with the creation of black powder in China there has been some form of control (or attempt to do so) over this technology. As Just correctly states, "We've been constraining populations from having arms (bows, swords, etc.) since the dawn of civilization, this is just a subset of a bigger concept".
• See Also - A see also section of other gun politics and gun related articles
• Further Reading - Maybe a couple of notable books on the topic of gun control
• References - Standard References

The caveats to this format hopefully are obvious, but my intention is that as clinical of an approach to the subject matter as possible be taken or that the references permit.

Discussion

I completely agree North8000, at a bare minimum we have to remove the countless Wikipedia violations present. Also at 72,000 bytes and with editors looking to still add content, this current structure is too long and too biased, hence the proposal for a more radical rewrite. At a minimum I hope we can get a dissenting vision from Stopyourbull so that we understand his vision for how this ends up like a high quality Wikipedia article. Once we get a couple of other Options and recommendations we can open it up for Rfc and see what the community thinks. Thank you for all the help. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if this will result in another format "Option", but here's my 2 cents on this matter. I regard this article in much the same way that I view the article, for example, on Racism. It's a worldwide phenomenon (meaning not limited to the U.S. regardless of the activity level or media attention), cultural norms do impact how it is viewed (understood, reviled, and/or accepted), as well as there are political elements affected by recent and historical events. Maybe the structure of the Racism article would provide a good framework for this article....?

That said, there seems to be ample information (meaning reliable and non-controversial sources) just to construct an article on the "concept of gun control worldwide" without getting into the myriad of POV arguments about who is "right" or "wrong" and/or gun control is "good" or "bad". It would seem that we can talk "about" gun control without actually debating it within the article. Make sense?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your idea Scalhotrod, we should be able to tackle this like we do in the "racism" article. That's a very logical way to describe this in a noncontentious NPOV manner. Let's wait a few more days and then open it up to Rfc.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I restructured and rewrote the article according to some suggestions in this discussion. I snipped a LOT of excess arguing and POV violations, moved the authoritarianism section into history, and condensed some info into the Arguments section. The arguments section still needs some trimming/balancing. Thoughts? ROG5728 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the right path. The RFC on the dispute page attracted the usual high quality editors and the consensus was to go down a more NPOV path rather than have a bunch of pro and anti gun control entries. Let's keep making it better. I've been a bit busy but I'll help here.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent work

Looks like an immense amount of good work. Hard to be specific on such a scale, but in general the article looks much more wikified and encyclopedic now. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I second the praise of the judicious efforts. Nicely done... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

great stuff! Finally, some great NPOV movement!-Justanonymous (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Association with totalitarianism"

The section titled "Association with totalitarianism", which I just removed and was reverted, is clearly highly POV and partisan to the point of deceiving the readers of this article. A quick glance at Gun politics in Germany#The Third Reich's Discrimination Policy & 1938 German Weapons Act gives a completely different account of gun laws in the Third Reich. The section in this article consists of a series of highly selective quotations designed to give a particular impression to the reader, an impression which is opposite to the (better sourced, better written) to the content at Gun politics in Germany#The Third Reich's Discrimination Policy & 1938 German Weapons Act. The section in this article should simply be removed. Readers can read about gun policy in the Third Reich on the Gun politics in Germany page. There's no reason to have two separate and conflicting essays on the same topic. — goethean 22:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read the Wiki article you just linked? It doesn't give a different account of gun laws in the Third Reich at all. Jews were eventually forbidden from possessing firearms at all. That info is correct and relevant to the history of gun control. ROG5728 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the quotes from Holocaust survivors, there is currently one quote each from Holocaust survivors on both sides of the gun control issue. ROG5728 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The simple (verifiable) fact is that the Nazis used gun control as a tool in their genocide of the Jews, so of course that's going to be the gist of what the section says. ROG5728 (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are the Holocaust survivors quoted in the article (in the clearly POV version has been restored twice) recognized authorities on "the association of totalitarian regimes with gun control"? — goethean 01:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And although no one has responded to my reasonable question, User:North8000 has reverted my removal of the quotations from non-expert Holocaust survivors, with the edit summary: "Undo mass deletion. Please get consensus in talk." — goethean 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will answer the false implied premise of your question which makes the question faulty. They do not need to be "recognized authorities on "the association of totalitarian regimes with gun control"" to include what they said. And, as indicated previously, folks on both sides of the issue were included. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will take that to mean that you agree that these people are not authorities on the subject. Why and how, then, were these seemingly random individuals selected to have their views on gun control published on Wikipedia as representative? What was the process by which these two people were selected? — goethean 15:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, please read what I actually wrote. If you want to make an actually "reasonable" question, try a more direct one rather than one with a false statement knitted in as a false implied premise. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All of the above machinations maneuvers aside, and saying that the answer isn't dictated by policy. I think that it would be a good idea to discuss the paragraph which includes the quotes from the two holocaust survivors. On one hand, such a way to select material runs a high risk of being cherry-pickable and so I am generally against such a process. On the other hand, there are two quotes in there from Holocaust survivors, both eloquent, who are in direct conflict with each other on the topic at hand. And so I found it to be gripping and informative, and a neutral approach. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to include quotations from two random non-experts in the article. And yet, when I removed them, you immediately reverted my edit with the edit summary "Undo mass deletion. Please get consensus in talk." And then here at talk you simply dismiss my reasonable questions as "machinations". You have provided no valid rationale for keeping the material, which is obviously inappropriate. You need to undo your edit immediately. — goethean 18:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to delete the quotes, so North8000 doesn't need to undo anything. Obviously it's interesting to see what Holocaust survivors say about the subject, and it's neutral (one quote per side). ROG5728 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said I am of two minds on this, but have no problem seeing the plus side....answering Goethean's question, a good reason to include would be to add to the informativeness of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - from a historical perspective, as relatively recent and readily used of an example as WW2 Germany is, there are equally glaring examples over the course of history going back to days of the Roman Empire as well as the rule of Genghis Khan. In the U.S. similar circumstances that come to mind are the prohibition of native Americans and slaves owning weapons in the 1800's. My point is there are plenty of other historical examples of "association with authoritarianism" for us to debate, let alone argue, over a solitary (however recent/relevant/etc.) historical reference. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point, but it simply emphasizes how obviously WP:UNDUE and inappropriate the article's attempt to associate gun control with Nazis is. — goethean 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The are prominent and notable examples of gun control which is the subject of this article. I don't agree with trying to use (IMO stretched use) technicalities to get coverage of such removed. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV is not a technicality, it is a non-negotiable bedrock policy of Wikipedia. Pretending that gun control is most closely associated with Nazis by spending an inordinate amount of space in this article discussing gun control in the Third Reich is a clear violation of NPOV. User:Scalhotrod's comment above also illustrates this obvious fact. What other societies throughout history had gun control? Instead of treating that somewhat elementary question, this article attempts to tar a public policy by associating it with Nazis and communists. — goethean 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control as a policy is not inherently "good" or "bad", its just a tool of society and the article should be written to reflect this. That said...

• To the best of our ability, as editors we should cite examples that demonstrate the historic ramifications and effects of how different cultures, societies, and governments have implemented gun control. During the Roman Empire the phrase "Civis romanus sum" (I am a Roman citizen) was enough to protect any person traveling through the Empire. It's might was so great, that no one dare take arms against or harm one of its citizens. Did crime still happen, YOU BETCHA, but it was still effectively a form of early "arms control". Fast forward several centuries to the 1800's city of Tombstone in the Arizona Territory, Marshall Wyatt Earp and his deputy brothers famously controlled the level of violence by limiting the possession of firearms while "in town". The policy was also implemented in the Black Hills of the Dakota Territory and in Montana. I found this reference, Gun control in the Old West. I don't agree with every word of it, as its an opinion piece, but it demonstrates the point. Crime and violence have pretty much always happened because of "people with bad intentions".
• Now on the flip-side of this coin, we have WW2 Germany (already being debated and yes, what the Nazis did was bad) and more recently the gun ban, buyback, and confiscation in Australia. Regardless of how you characterize the chain of events the fact is that the citizens of Australia have far less firearms in their possession and the crime rates skyrocketed. Murders, assaults, and yes even armed robberies went up by significant percentages, double digits in some instances or areas.

In other words, we need to include all of it, not "play favorites", and be as neutral as we can the facts permitting. Make sense? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The most valid argument I see for removing those two quotes mentioned earlier is to trim down the section so it doesn't take up too much space in the article; I agree the section is probably bigger than it needs to be. Thoughts on that, everyone? The NPOV argument is invalid; those two quotes are NOT a violation of NPOV. ROG5728 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor Haas, whose opinion was apparently elicited by an unspecified questioner and context, is not recognized as an expert in history or policy. Why is his opinion notable? The cited source does not appear to be a WP:RS. I don't see how WP policy supports the inclusion of this material. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the quotation is cited to the website of "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" which doesn't exactly sound like a first-rate public policy reference material. — goethean 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On the inclusion/exclusion of the survivor quotes, I'm on the fence/neutral.....I've made arguments in both directions above. But I must note that folks have been implying non-existent policies and norms as arguments for exclusion. "NPOV is not a technicality" hides a false implied assertion that the arguments I was discussing were wp:NPOV based and that I was dismissing such. Next WP:notability is a criteria for the existence of articles, not for the existence of content within articles. And "first-rate public policy reference material" or "recognized as an expert in history or policy" are much higher bars for sources than policy or the norm. Finally, folks are implying false criteria for what is being sourced, I.E. as if the inserters had inserted broad claims on the topic. What the sourcing needs to and does support is only that survivors said those things. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That having been said, and without implying an opinion on my part one way or the other on the value of the inclusion of the opinions of a group highlighted as Holocaust survivors in this section, it seems to me that if opinions characterized by highlighted group membership are to be included, those opinions should be balanced by opinions (pro, con, whatever) expressed by members of other highlighted groups. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The section under discussion consists of two directly opposing opinions from survivors. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that the section under discussion consists of two directly opposing opinions from that one particular group. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying my point -- it seems to me that if we are going to say "some members of group A agree and some disagree", we ought to present the positions of groups B, C, D, etc. as well; or, perhaps, to summarize the opinions of the various factions of these groups. At this point, we have not admitted the existence of any groups with opinions worthy of consideration other than group A. It seems to me that we beg the inference that the opinions of the various factions of Group A are the only opinions worthy of consideration. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Who said all of that? Folks seem to be setting up a straw man that this little paragraph purports to be coverage of the entire topic. When in reality it purports to be just 2 opposing opinions from two survivors. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What if there were a Mexican veterinarian who was wounded in a shootout of drug lords in a town plaza while ministering to an ailing donkey? Should the article cite a website "Mexican Veterinarians for Gun regulation" that solicited his opinion about gun ownership? Should we find an opposing Mexican veterinarian to balance the article? Would this be relevant and informative for WP users? SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Section on Association of Gun control with authoritarianism

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

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

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

• Oppose invalid proposal The only relevevant criteria are whether the sources meet WP:RS - which it appears that they do, and whether Undue weight is given to a fringe position -- as the section covers all aspects of the issue per WP:NPOV that argument also seems to fail. I can see why the "Lethal Laws" might be queried as to being RS, but the NY Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law article appears to fully meet WP:RS to be sure. [2] It is a "scholarly work" cited by multiple others. Collect (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The question is, however, whether parts of it are relevant. The thing about the Jews not being allowed to carry guns is spun into a gun control-issue when it clearly is antisemitic legislation, nothing more. If including this makes sense to you then you might as well include a paragraph in a discussion about drunk driving laws that describes how women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive and how the state is Muslim and Pakistan, also Muslim, allows local tribal councils to gang-rape and execute women for adultery — therefore, suspending someone's license for drunk driving is the same as gang-rape and beheadings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Please read the article I cited - and note that it appears to make no irrelevant asides. Meanwhile, this article is about guns and not about drunk driving, so that aside is not only not relevant, it is an absurd straw man argument. Secondly - if a source meets WP:RS attacking it because you disagree with it is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not an argument of any weight whatsoever. So we are left with RS sources making statements, and balancing sources to provide NPOV. Which is how Wikipedia works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Read what it says. It's not balanced at all. Unless you seriously believe that one side is truth and the other is a mere claim. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Interesting tactic - arguing on an RfC because a person presenta a law journal article which is unarguably RS! And it is not what anyone here WP:KNOWs to be the WP:TRUTH -- Wikipedia specifically only uses what reliable sources say, and balances to reach NPOV as nearly as possible. And that is something which your argument seems to fail to accept. Collect (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • A more "interesting" tactic is yours, which seems to imply that because there is at least one reliable source in the section, that the section should be left as is. — goethean 15:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Note that I show a substantial number of reliable sources, not just "one", and Wikipedia policy is that where reliable sources exist, removal of an entire topic is violative of NPOV. NPOV is not created by denyin the existence of sources, but by seeking balance of points of view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose & the RFC is fatally flawed The RFC is to blank an entire section, something which has never even been discussed. It is also worded as a total manipulative mess. The title doesn't match the arguments, it has arguments buried into the proposal, and the proposed item doesn't match the arguments. This is fatally flawed form the start. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You oppose what, the RFC? If you think that the section is perfectly neutral, then just say that. — goethean 14:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose both the fatally flawed RFC, and also blanking the entire section. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You oppose me seeking community input on the neutrality of the section? Interesting! — goethean 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Proposal" is not that, it is to blank the entire section. Please see "PROPOSAL" in caps and bolded above....it's hard to miss. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you could come up with an alternative proposal. If you think that the section is perfectly neutral, then your proposal would be to leave it as it is. — goethean 14:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Perfectly" anything is a straw man. My "proposal" would be to evolve the section in the normal manner. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RFCs are not abnormal. I suggested some changes, my suggestions were rejected. I am seeking community input. — goethean 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as written There are good ideas in this RfC but this is actually a set of multiple proposals which ought to be considered independently. Also, User:Collect is correct in saying that representing what the sources say is Wikipedia's judge of NPOV, so the both the sources which say these things and the sources which provide counterpoints must be included. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Really? Sources such as Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide? That's what Wikipedia is supposed to represent? I don't think so. — goethean 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose RfC, Keep section, but... - I think the section, as a concept, has merit. But it should be kept to its barest minimum. Since this article should discuss the concept of "gun control" over its history, notable uses (or misuses) should each have their own section. So perhaps...

• Lead
• History

• GC in Australia and New Zealand

• National Firearms Agreement

• GC in the United Kingdom and Europe

• WW2 Germany

• GC in the United States

• Arguments

• Associations with authoritarianism
• Mortality rates
• Social and racial bias

• Etc.

• Lets try to remember and use to our advantage as Editors that we have the benefit of "20/20 hindsight" in this situation. Facts, figures, testimonial, and expert analysis (granted with some effort and investigation) are all available to us! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• Oppose Bad wording, bad proposal. Rewrite the article if you like, but don't slant it towards your POV. Shii (tock) 07:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Re-name It should be called "Conspiracy theories" but retained because they are widely believed by large segments of the U.S. public. The SPLC lists "door-to-door gun confiscations" as the fifth most popular conspiracy theory of the radical right. However, WP:FRINGE applies meaning we must not present the views as mainstream and should use reliable secondary sources. Instead of beginning, "Historically, totalitarian regimes have passed gun control legislation, which was later followed by confiscation", which is misleading and sourced to a fringe group, we should write, "Extreme opponents of gun control believe..." and source it properly. TFD (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of gun control by totalitarian regimes throughout history isn't a "theory." It's fact. The statement you quoted from the section is not misleading, nor is it sourced to a "fringe group." It's established history. ROG5728 (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That stuff all happened, it is a matter of known, documented history. I think "fringe" would be to pretend that it didn't happen. North8000 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

History is not a list of all true statements. That's why we need WP:RS secondary statements from qualified individuals who tie the content to the topic of the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

...rather than studies selected in order to prove a partisan point. This is basic, basic stuff. — goethean 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You can read about the actual history in "Gun Laws under Nazi Germany" (Gun Laws in American Society, p. 455). The Nazis's first gun control legislation, five years after they attained power, was to abolish the requirement of permits for hunting rifles. Later they took away Jews' rights to own firearms, but never confiscated firearms from the general public.[3] But this came long after they had locked up or killed most of the leaders of their political opposition. And soon they would be supplying firearms to almost all adult males as WW2 began. So too would the Soviet Union. The same writer, Michael S. Bryant, who is with the Holocaust Museum, explains the tendentiousness of the argument in "Holocaust Imagery and the Holocaust" (p. 565)[4] The JPFO is certainly a fringe group, note their dispute with the ADL. TFD (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against TFD's "door-to-door confiscation" which is not even in the article. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bad section. Most of the sources are synthy, and the ones used to tie the subject to the article topic are too poor to use. As well, the better sources dismiss the claim of gun control being just like the Nazis, but the way the section is written, they're mined for scaremongering incidents with their main point demoted to a throwaway reference, which is a totally inappropriate use. FYI, the "Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law" appears to be a student journal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As I stated earlier, both of the Holocaust survivor quotes could probably be removed without significantly harming this section. The other material is fine. In the meantime, the tags being added are completely unnecessary. We aren't going to say a section has multiple issues unless it's agreed that it has multiple issues. So far, that is not necessarily the case. Discuss your concerns here. ROG5728 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not really how it works. Disputed sections get disputed tags until the dispute is resolved. You have made 0 attempts to resolve any of the issues we've brought up, so the tags will stay indefinitely until you make good faith attempts to address our concerns. PraetorianFury (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not right either, but let's just see if we can work it out. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Feel free to propose an alternative. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Take out the Holocaust survivor quotes, take off the tags, considered it to be settled, but still continue to improve the section. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

...continue to use cherry-picked, laughably unreliable sources for a clearly partisan agenda, etc. — goethean 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is false equivalence. Your "some holocaust survivor" is not equal to "a leading critical theorist with a specialization in the area of punishment and political economy". You seem to think this is a game and you can negate our reliable sources by presenting any sources of your own. No, if you want your arguments presented you need to go online and find good, reliable sources to support them. And like I said, this is not hard. I don't understand why this is even being argued over. Many many prominent Republicans and Gun Control advocates have made these claims. Why do you persist in this childish edit warring when the internet is rife with sources that support your claim? Find some experts or notable politicians and quote them. Just reverting over poor sources characterizes every POV pushing dispute I've been involved in. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

(Edit conflict)As I said earlier, deleting both holocaust survivors' quotes assumes false equivalence. One is notable and a reliable source. The other is not. This RFC has been open for over a week and not a single source have been provided by editors supporting the section. This is blatantly aggressive behavior definitive of POV warriors. If you are unable to provide reliable sources for the information in the article, then the information should be removed. That is how it works on Wikipedia, and that is how it will work on this article. On the other hand, your attempts to delete material that undermines your beliefs by equating it with that poorly sourced material is transparently biased. I have no problem with writing about the allegation made by gun rights activists and others. But it needs to be done in a way that is supported by reliable sources, and it is your responsibility to provide those reliable sources before contentious material makes it into the article. What I've seen so far I can only assume is childish laziness. You don wanna get no sources so you revert and revert to get your way. Grow up and start researching like an actual editor. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that's false, because removing the section completely would improve the article quite a bit. An article is not improved by the inclusion of obviously POV, highly slanted, poorly sourced material. — goethean 18:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany used gun control as a tool in their genocide of the Jews. That's a fact supported by plenty of reliable sources in the article (and elsewhere). You're the only one pushing a POV here. ROG5728 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What is at issue here is a section in this article which purports to describe gun control's "association with authoritarianism". THAT thesis is an argument, not a simple or obvious observation. And it is an argument made by lots of right-wing think tanks, not by mainstream sources. It is really interesting how this article treats gun control's "association with authoritarianism" but stays weirdly silent on the topics of gun control in liberal democracies or other societies. It doesn't take an Einstein-level genius to see what is going on here. — goethean 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Are you whining about a rollback after having just made one? Feel free to make one undisputed change at a time if you actually want it to stick, but don't think you're fooling anyone by alleging hypocrisy because I don't sift through all the changes to try to find the few good ones. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suppose that were true. If that were true, how would it be relevant to an article on gun control? Does the article on Mayonnaise discuss Nazi use of Mayonnaise? SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How is the history of gun control relevant to an article on gun control? Good question! NOT. ROG5728 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That was not the question that I asked, as I presume you are aware. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

JPFO non-arbitrary break for ease of editing

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

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

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

I don't know if this is an issue with competency or just plain old WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. The issue with mentioning Theodore Haas is that he is not an expert. He is not a politician. He is no one. He is just some guy. Abraham Foxman is the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which calls itself "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency". This has everything to do with gun control and it is certainly worth mentioning here. The issue has never been with the reliability of either source, but with their WP:WEIGHT. The national director of a civil rights organization should give infinitely more weight than some guy. I can't really explain it any simpler than that. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? Explain how this Abraham Foxman is an "expert" on gun control. He's not. More importantly, you keep complaining about weight but you don't seem to understand how it even works. Go back and actually read the policy you just linked. We give weight based on the prominence and acceptance of the views, not based on who specifically is voicing them. Your ADL quote is at odds with accepted historical fact. Period. In other words, if anything is undue, it's that quote, not the other one. ROG5728 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Because I am editing in good faith, I will provide you with sources. Perhaps this will inspire you to follow my example, but I doubt it.

• Politico reports on the Foxman quote: [5]
• Newsmax reports on the Foxman quote: [6]
• Huffington Post reports on the Foxman quote: [7]
• Here's a book that mentions Foxman and the ADL supporting gun control, which says, "Anti-semitism has a long and painful history, and the linkage to gun control is a tactic by Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership to manipulate fear of anti-semitism toward their own end." [8]

Did you want anything else? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, you found a multitude of sources that mention his quote. So what? How does that invalidate anything I said? ROG5728 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It establishes that he has been widely reported on in the context of gun control. The ADL in general was even more widely reported on:

• Ynet mentions the ADL's position.[9]
• JTA devotes an entirely article to the ADL's position.[10]
• Daily News (New York) also covers the ADL position in detail.[11]
• Cleveland Jewish News reported that the ADL wanted an apology for using the Nazi comparision.[12]

The point is that the ADL has been repeatedly connected to the gun control debate and Foxman is their director. He is relevant to this discussion. How about you show me some additional sources reporting on Theodore Haas? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the ADL has been "connected" to the gun control debate doesn't prove anything either. The issue is not relevance. Obviously both quotes are about gun control so they're "relevant" automatically. The point is, the ADL guy is no more an "expert" on gun control than the other guy is. As for finding "additional sources reporting on Theodore Haas" -- I couldn't care less. I think both quotes should go. They unnecessarily bog down a section that is otherwise fact-based and historical. ROG5728 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wide reporting determines weight. Politicians may or may not be "experts" on gun control, but we often report their remarks on it as they are notable figures. We often report on the opinions of organizations as well. PETA, Pink, the Teaparty, etc. All of these things are noteworthy. Some guy in his shack being interviewed by a 24 hour news network trying to kill time or push an agenda is not notable. As director, we can infer that Foxman speaks for the ADL. The ADL is a civil rights group. Gun rights falls under the umbrella of civil rights. Therefore, Foxman should be mentioned as a representative of the ADL with regards to gun control. If he is not mentioned by name, other quotes taken from the ADL are also acceptable substitutes. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The fact that a few sources mentioned the quote doesn't prove anything. That's not how weight works. Sorry, the ADL is no more reliable or neutral or relevant with regards to gun control than the JFPO. And we aren't going to give weight to either organization's opinions without a better reason. The section is already too big and neither of those quotes are noteworthy. ROG5728 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That many sources mention the organization and the quote does indeed prove that it should receive coverage. And you continue to show no understanding of the issues brought up regarding the quote by Theodore Haas. This is clear failure to get the point. Don't think that your childish rhetoric is convincing or original. I've been here for over 5 years and I've seen every sort of subtle manipulate to push an agenda. Nor should you think that your aggressive and bad faith editing will be rewarded. One editor has already been blocked. It will be interesting to see how far you decide to let your tantrum go. I have outlined steps for you when and if you decide to join editors who are working with sincerity: find reliable sources. Until then you are just a revert machine with nothing to contribute to this discussion. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

*Sigh* I'm knowingly wasting my time correcting you because your fingers are miraculously in your ears and over your eyes, even as you type.

• "The fact that a few sources mention the ADL doesn't prove anything." - False. It proves that the organization and possibly the quote have received significant mainstream coverage and deserve a mention for discussing this exact topic.
• "There are plenty of sources that mention JFPO as well" - How many sources mention Theodore Haas? It is not the JFPO that I have a problem with, it's Theodore Haas.
• "The point you keep missing is that I don't care about keeping either of those two quotes" - If you don't care about the quotes, would you accept deletion of Theodore Haas's quote as I attempted to do originally? Or are you still assuming false equivalence, attempting to trade one shitty source to negate a better one. You think this is a game? You want to trade a pawn for a queen? How about I find a forum post somewhere by some guy on the internet who says there is no connection between Nazi Germany and gun control. If I try to add it to the article, do I get to remove one pro gun rights sentence? Is that how this works?
• "Or I could just quote your comment earlier..." - I have provided you with multiple reliable sources. You have provided me with none.

Right, and the fact that the organization and/or the quote has received some coverage from a few sources still doesn't prove anything. Again, that's not how weight works. The content is still WP:UNDUE. And you're the one that added the Haas quote back to the article so it's your responsibility to source it if you want to keep it. A number of other editors have already voiced support for removing both quotes prior to this RFC. The current source for the Haas quote (JFPO) is already valid anyway, but that doesn't mean it should stick. Regardless of how many sources we have for it, it's still unnecessary clutter and so is the ADL quote. Again, I couldn't care less about sourcing for either of them. If this were an article dedicated to gun control in Nazi Germany, then both quotes should be included, but the scope of this article is supposed to be much more broad. The article currently gives WP:UNDUE weight to two individuals that probably don't deserve to be mentioned here. Are you so intent on assuming bad faith that you can't understand that? ROG5728 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So we agree that the Haas quote is given undue weight. Yes? You want reliable sources for the Haas quote. I "refuse" to provide them. Therefore you are justified in deleting it, or since I am acting in good faith, I can do it too. Is this summary correct? PraetorianFury (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Also, as you mentioned earlier, politicians -- there are lots of them with strong opinions for or against gun control, but you don't see us quoting all of those individuals in the article. It would be absurd to do so. Just because someone says something doesn't mean we have to put it on Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was your third attempt to misrepresent my point. I will say it again. I have no problem with the reliability of the source for the Haas quote. I have a problem with the weight given to someone whose only qualifications are that he is a holocaust survivor. The book you linked to says that he was simply the "first Holocaust survivor to draw a connection between German gun control and the horror that followed it." Again, no notability established for this individual. He's just a guy who agreed with what JPFO founder Aaron Zelman on gun control. Those are the only two reasons he was interviewed. You are correct, he is a nobody. You are incorrect that the head of the ADL is a nobody. He has his own Wikipedia article which means that he passed the rigorous qualifications specified at WP:NOTABILITY which are specifically designed for new articles. He is notable. His positions deserve weight. When he and his organization are both mentioned in multiple reliable sources. They specifically mention the exact argument made here. Let me quote WP:WEIGHT for you:

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

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

A number of problems:

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

This is a section on the history of gun control, not people's arguments for or against it, so it should stick to the bare facts and leave out the opinions of both of these two individuals.

What complete and utter hogwash. This is a tiny snippet of history, using partisan sources and placed into this article in a shameful partisan effort to associate gun control with totalitasrian regimes.

A majority of Americans actually see gun rights as protection against tyranny], so Haas's view is not some fringe minority view that doesn't deserve mention.

This is a crazy, disingenuous argument. Should one argue that because a majority of Americans like the Beatles, every criticism of the Beatles should be balanced by a partisan quotation from some unknown person? What nonsense. — goethean 01:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Comments like this make me think that WP:COMPETENCE is going to be a real bottleneck here. It shows no understand of policy or the arguments which have been brought forward. To answer your question, YES, Hitler and Mao are notable figures whose opinions are worth mentioning. Just about anything is better than the disingenuous hack writing that we have in the article currently. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the are more globally notable people to quote on the topic of gun control. The dissent in Silveria, Heston, etc. However, I can see a good argument that the "bar of notability" is lower in this case due to the narrow context. We are specifically discussing gun control and the holocaust. Therefore opinions of Jewish organizations are of increased relevance. The ADL is certainly more notable as a Jewish organization, but isn't really focused on gun rights/gun control. A Jewish gun rights (or Jewish gun control) group is a very precise intersection, directly relevant to the topic at hand. Similarly if we were writing an article on any random topic "French lesbian poetry in the 1800s" etc, an otherwise un-notable person may be suitable for inclusion if that was the subject of their dissertation etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

STILL missing the point. I mean seriously, what can we do when you guys just can't seem to understand the most carefully worded explanations? I've lost count of how many times I've said this: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RELIABILITY OF THE JPFO AS A SOURCE TO COMMENT ON THIS. But that's not what's happening here. This is not a spokesperson for the JPFO. This isn't their director. This is just some guy they interviewed on time. If the JPFO repeated his claims, that's great. In that case we should quote the JPFO. But just finding some guy on the street to state your opinion is such transparently biased journalism, it's completely unacceptable for us to do it here. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, Gaijin, but what WP policy states that we cherry-pick individuals' opinions on policy or poetry because we deem them to be part of some privileged population? I'll refrain from characterizing that viewpoint other than to say it is morally repugnant and, incidentally, not WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

An interview, published on the JPFO site, conducted by the JPFO founder, and prefaced by an introduction from "The Editors", where the founder specifically asked the subject the question we quote. " this one conducted by Aaron Zelman, founder, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, with Theodore Haas, a JPFO member and a former prisoner of the infamous Dachau concentration camp...". If you concede that JPFO is a reliable/notable enough source to use, then why do you object to their own editorial judgement as to how best to present that view (in this case via an interview with a direct victim of the Nazi policies we are discussing). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they are and advocacy group. They are not journalists and their editorial judgement has exactly one goal in mind: pushing their agenda. Our goal is different: representing as accurately as possible the reality of the debate. Why are you so determined to have this one person's opinion stated in the article when there are so many other options available? Why don't you demonstrate your good faith and replace the Haas quote with a statement by the JPFO. This is what I've been asking for since my very first comment. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are an advocacy group.The ACLU is also an advocacy group. You have already stipulated that their opinion is relevant and notable enough. This is the way they have chosen to express that opinion. Their POV is not WP:FRINGE and per policy should be represented. However, I have provided some more directly editoral quotes, and trimmed the Haas quote the most relevant portion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

STILL missing the point. Man this is truly amazing. I want to do a case study on this discussion. "How strong opinions turn editors into deaf lunatics". I have never disputed that the ADL (not the ACLU) is an advocacy group. But the person we are quoting is a direct representative of the organization, its director. He is speaking for the organization. Not only does the organization have a Wikipedia page, but he does himself trivially proving that he is notable. Haas represents no one but his own opinion. We do not care about the opinion of some guy on Wikipedia. We care about the opinions of groups, experts, or notable figures (those with power, probably). That is the problem with the Haas quote. Perhaps the millionth time saying this to you will be the charm? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How the group chooses to present their view is not our concern. The editors published that interview, with commentary endorsing it. You are creating a bar that does not exist. If it did, virtually EVERY SOURCE wikipedia uses would be disqualified, because it wasn't a direct statement from the leader of the organization. They chose to do the interview. They chose to publish it. It IS their content. I am baffled by your statement that Haas is irrelevant. He is a living primary source, directly subjected to the policies at hand. He is notable, by the degree virtue that the JPFO and others have chosen to interview and quote him, just like every other interview subject ever. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am waiting to read the opinions of the French Lesbians on Nazi gun laws. Let's take the JPFO to the fringe review talk page and get an opinion as to how much space to devote to their opinion. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Their editors can play all sorts of games with inclusion and omission. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than something that is pro or con anything. Because they did it is not enough justification for us to echo it. I have no problem with stating the opinion of the organization, but we are not an extension of their publication department and we won't blindly copy and paste any manipulative drivel they decide to put to paper. Yes, he is a holocaust survivor, but this does not grant him instant notability or expertise. There are people still alive who lived through Segregation, yet this does not automatically give every African American the right to be quoted on Wikipedia. We quote civil rights leaders, politicians, experts, etc. We don't quote bob protester. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The way that the mayo analogy is irrelevant is informative here. Gun control largely IS instances of it, mayo is not instances of it being eaten. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, North. Have a looksee: Petitio principii. Capiche? SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific if you are trying to imply applicability. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. Cheers SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mine didn't imply anything, it was a short direct statement about one aspect discussed. But to expand on that, gun control is largely an action, not an object. And so coverage of examples of gun control (e.g. of major ones in history) is coverage directly of the topic. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Using mayonnaise is an action -- like regulating gun usage. [13] SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, neutrality arguments are understandable, and it can be said that the section can be rewritten, but to delete the entire section is something I would not support. This RfC is basically a section AfD, and as such may I say WP:NOTCLEANUP is a good reason to oppose question of this RfC..--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The section heading and the content of the section are a ham-fisted attempt to equivocate and refer to "gun control" by authoritarian police states as if it has the same meaning as "gun control" in various representative democracies. Next, let's write an article comparing the Affordable Care Act to human vivisection under dictatorships. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So you want to remove the bad gun control to make gun control look better?  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the arguments against gun control is firearm ownership as protection against an authoritarian state. Conversely, authoritarian states woudl implement gunn control to counter this. I think that both make it germane.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a great summary of right-wing, fringe beliefs. It is not a summary that a mainstream historian would endorse. THAT is the big problem with the article. It reflects a right-wing, fringe view. Unfortunately, there appears to be a consensus at the talk page to violate Wikipedia policy and to enshrine fringe, right-wing, (and false) views in this article. So until a quorum of policy-abiding editors appears, this article will probably have to stay in its current, policy-violating state. — goethean 14:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This thread (and my comment) is about someone saying that we should exclude authoritarian gun control from the article because they claim that it is inherently different, and I'm saying that it should not be excluded. It is not about the straw-man / mus-characterizaiton of enshrining some belief throughout the article. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The section is titled "association with totalitarianism". That's an ARGUMENT and not something that you will find in a non-right-wing history book. It was organized as an argument until ROG5728 reorganized the article, suddenly attempting to make it part of history. This change flagrantly violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and must be reverted. — goethean 14:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That is also a different topic than my post which you were responding to, albeit a good one to discuss. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Another good topic to discuss is why you reverted my edit which undid ROG5728's flagrantly POV changes to the article. Your reversion is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and if you respected Wikipedia policy, you would undo yourself. — goethean 14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Man up, North. Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst? Here's a novel idea: Consider ending this discussion in your favor by locating and citing WP:RS references which explicitly state, without additional interpretation, synthesis, or speculation, the views you wish to insert in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean. Your question has multiple false implied premises and accusations buried it and so would take a lot of dissection to answer. If you have a question about a specific edit and can stick to the question, (and let me know which edit you are talking about) I'd be happy to answer. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, I'm not trying to insert anything into the article, much less "views". If you would like to know what I am firmest about retaining in the section under discussion, it is coverage of the historical events / instances of gun control which it contains. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

REVISED...Man up, North. Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst? Here's a novel idea: Consider ending this discussion in your favor by locating and citing WP:RS references which explicitly state, without additional interpretation, synthesis, or speculation, the text you wish to retain in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See previous answer. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

North, Please review WP:HEAR. I didn't ask you what you wish to retain. I asked you to find RS that connects it to the topic of the article. Please re-read my statement above and go find the kryptonite citations that will win this debate for you. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quit the crap with the blank unsubstantiated linking. And whether you intended to or not, that is one of the worst cases of a common POV warrior tactic. Trying to make it as time-consuming as impossible to prevent your preferred result from happening. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

North, my good friend: I apologize if we commoners fall short of your own standard, but let's move on...

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

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

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

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

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

Removing gun control in Nazi Germany section

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

I very much agree with Steeletrap. A key issue is the fact that the material on Nazi gun control, even if adequately sourced, does not belong where it is. It is not so relevant that it deserves to be emphasized. It should be moved to the arguments section.Michaplot (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We already went over this in the RFC. And no, it's not an argument, so it does not belong in the arguments section. ROG5728 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is still open, and about evenly split. Steeltrap, please review the RfC above and, if you wish, record your view there. ROG: If you wish to close the RfC please notify an uninvolved party to arrange that through the appropriate channels. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made a post on the requests for closure noticeboard for the RFC. Evenly split would indicate a lack of consensus, therefore WP:STATUSQUOGaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

No. We are saying that "gun control" as the term is commonly understood (i.e., the sort of policies that the U.S. Senate is currently debating, and which characterize the vast majority of Western Europe) is not a descriptively accurate characterization of what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany. We already know that Nazi Germany was anti-Semitic and stripped Jews of all civil rights, including gun rights. There is little evidence, however, that Nazi Germany was "anti-gun", or sought to impose strict gun control on its non-Jewish citizens, which is the implication of the notion that it practiced strict gun control (similarly, it would be inaccurate to say that there were strict gun control laws in the U.S. South during the 1850s, even though African-American were virtually banned from owning guns. The accurate characterization here is to say "there was widespread discrimination against African-Americans, including the denial of the right to bear arms." Since the colloquial meaning of gun control consists of a non-discriminatory attempt to limit (all) citizens' access to firearms, it's misleading to say the Nazis (or Confederates) practiced it. There are, however, many ex-Communist states -- which reasonable people would deem "bad" -- that andclearly practiced gun control. You can talk about those. However, you should be wary about drawing dubious causal connections (i.e. no guns--> death/misery/"fascism"), as people have (absurdly) tried to do regarding "gun control" and the Holocaust. Steeletrap (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In both the US and German cases, the widespread discrimination (which is absolutely true) was cloaked as perfectly justifiable and unobjectionable gun control measures. IYou are trying to re-define gun control as gun control that applies equally to everyone, which ignores almost all pre-1980s instances of it. The article is not making the causal connection you object to (although many of us probably do hold that view to some degree). We are documenting the historical fact (which are uncontested), and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion as to the implications of that fact. there are ZERO sources and ZERO arguments of the opinion that the Nazis did not use gun control to aid in their efforts. The only controversy s in what the effect of the counter-factual "if Jews had been armed" would have been, which is a topic which this article DOES NOT DISCUSS. We are not making any arguments whatsoever in this section, therefore it does not belong in the arguments section. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Youare trying to re-definegun control as gun control that applies equally to everyone, which ignores almost all pre-1980 instances of it." That is quite wrong. Excluding parts of the United States (and perhaps Great Britain in regards to the Irish), I do not know of any Western nation (unless we count South Africa) that had statutory discrimination against any ethnic group regarding gun control after World War II. Most importantly, that's what "gun control" refers to today. The notion that modern Democratic "gun control" measures are analogous to what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is grotesquely misleading. Steeletrap (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Even using your timeframe of WWII, restricting the concept of gun control to that timeframe would be WP:RECENTISM since the concept is several hundred years old (thousands if you consider the broader topic of arms control). Further, your argument is apparently "the English phrase "Gun control" does not mean what it means in the US and UK, (the primary English speaking countries in the world)." The 1968 gun control laws are widely acknowledged as being discriminatory. Robert Sherrill notable anti-gun researcher and author of "The Saturday Night Special" said "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns to but control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was that they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time". General Laney of the National Black Sportasman's association (admittedly, not a super-notable group) "Gun control is really race control. People who embrace gun control are really racists in nature. All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people, mainly black people" Further, discrimination is not only by race, but by class. See this article from the NYTimes discussing current handgun permitting discrimination. article or this one. who else thinks that gun control in the US often has discriminatory roots? Why the Supreme court! In the most recent SCOTUS gun control case (striking down a "modern" "gun control" law, in McDonald) the justices specifically commented on the racist and discriminatory history of gun control in the US "The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that "no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife."Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of various instances of gun control in the gun control article is not a statement that they are "analogous". North8000 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are saying they are analogous in some respect insofar as they are both instances of "gun control" as you conceive of the term. Steeletrap (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Only in the same way our article on Morphine discusses its medical and illegal uses. Every tool can be used for good or ill, you are trying to censor discussion of the ill. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Your language constitutes a personal attack. Please note that, according to WP:PA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," such as your claim that my aim is to "censor" examples of gun control that speak ill of it, as opposed to improving the piece on encyclopedic grounds, are personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to complain to the relevant noticeboard and get reprimanded for wasting their time. Why dont you go read the Personal Attacks policy A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Please re-read the WP:PA policy. You are being criticized for imputing a motive of bad faith onto me (i.e., a desire to "censor") not for disagreeing with my changes. I'm not obligated to take time to post to a noticeboard because you personally attacked me. Steeletrap (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I have reported myself on your behalf. Lets nip this in the bud. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's okay because a more neutral presentation of the same topic already exists at Gun politics in Germany, and this article can simply link to that one, the appropriate place for this material. — goethean 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a different topic. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun politics in Germany is a completely separate topic from gun control in WW2 Germany? That's your claim? — goethean 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

That is because it is universally accepted that those are two breeds of dogs. It is not at all widely accepted that the German persecution of the Jews is a breed of gun control. — goethean 16:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course they are "analogous." They are "analogous" insofar as they are both dogs. I do not see what happened in Germany as substantively analogous to the modern Democratic measures that the term "gun control" refers to. Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean My post isn't about a claim that " German persecution of the Jews is a breed of gun control" , is that German gun control (controls and restrictions of firearm ownership and usage) at that time is gun control. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

That's because "euthanasia" has a clear and specific meaning related to ending a life. Gun control is a more nebulous term, and therefore we have to take into account colloquial and (contemporary) political understandings of that term, according to which the Nazis did NOT practice it. (There is a reason you are so hard-pressed to find credible historians (conservative or liberal) who claim this.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

close RFC

I motion to close the RFC, without prejudice. The arguments are all over the place, with people on all sides of the argument talking orthogonaly to each other (and even orthoganly to people on the same side). I doubt we could get consensus on what the RFC is even asking, let alone consensus on the result of the RFC. It is been largely derailed by tactical specific editing questions. If the Overall section needs to be removed/reworked a new RFC should be tailored to that question and handled from scratch. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It was flawed from the start in many respects. I think that it answered one question which is that there is strong opposition to total elimination of the section. But even the specific meaning of that is unclear and not helpful towards guiding the process. North8000 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

=

The Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law

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

Thanks for looking into that, SPECIFICO. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was written by Stephen J.Halbrook, a research fellow at the Independent Institute.[14] Although the journal is edited by students, the articles are not written by them, and it probably meets rs. (Cf the Harvard Law Review. But as Halbrook acknowledges, "The above topic has never been the subject of a comprehensive account in the legal literature." The text sourced to his account does not accurately reflect what he wrote. ("Once the Nazis had taken and consolidated their power, they proceeded to implement gun control laws to disarm the Jewish population and wipe out the opposition, and the genocide of disarmed Jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" followed." In fact, he says political opposition was immediately disarmed, while Jews were denied the right to own weapons five years later. There is no reason to believe that any of the events described in this article are inaccurate. The problem is that the interpretation is fringe. TFD (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the article has been repeatedly cited, notably (for our purpose) by Harcourt, which we also quote, and the Harcourt article is intended as a rebuttle of Halbrooks. It would make no sense to include the rebuttle without the initial argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, please address the other points relating to this source and its use in this article, stated by TFD and others. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What issues. It is not self published. It is repeatedly cited (33x according to gs). It contains copious internal citations. That you disagree with its logic and conclusion is not a cause for non-inclusion. Enter counter-arguments (such as the already included Harcourt or ADL). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What issues? The ones to which I referred immediately above. "...and its use in this article, stated..." Jeez, why not just read and respond the first time, if you don't mind my saying so. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to move on to our interpretation/summary of the source, do you concede that the source itself is a reliable not self published source, for the purpose of sourcing anti-gun-control arguments? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I was just saying that even if it were RS that would not be sufficient to use it as it is used in the current text. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

A few quotes from the article supporting our current interpretation

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

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

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

Harvard Law review and the other university law reviews are the major journals in american law, and although edited by students are in no sense student journals in the ordinary way--the students are the most distinguished of their class, and the level of review is sufficient to make them reliable sources. But in recent years, most law schools have introduced additional journals on special topics--I would imagine in order to give a greater number of students the opportunity as editors. Somne such journals are very good, some are less so. Each has to be discussed individually. For this particular journal, I frankly do not consider it first-rate--I am judging by the criterion that most of its articles are written by people associated with the University or its own state's bar--this parochialism is never a good sign. I also point to its statement of purpose, especially pt. 1, "The Journal will provide an opportunity for all members to publish articles on international and comparative law topics." But Halbrook is an expert as author of several respected books from a variety of publishers, so his views can be used, wherever he might publish them. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." No evidence has been presented that Halbrook's views on this subject has any prominence. The only mention I have found of these views in mainstream sources is to debunk them. As the writer points out, this subject is ignored, which likely explains why the article did not appear in a more high profile publication. TFD (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Did somebody seriously say JPFO is not Fringe?

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

I'm not really an expert on determining whether or not something is a WP:RS or WP:FRINGE. My criteria for such things are usually whether or not they have a Wikipedia page. A *lot* of editors watch for newly created articles and the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines are very demanding. So I figure that if it has an article, it is at least good for its own opinion. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fringe can be WP Notable. There are many examples. But policy states, I'm paraphrasing here, that Fringe views should not be delivered with a straight face. There is way too much coverage of that particular fringe view -- equating totalitarian gun control with gun control in a democracy. That's not my opinion, that's WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Gun control laws actually relaxed under Hitler. So you can't say "historically" without qualifying who is saying it. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not the ones doing the equating. JPFO is the equator. They say Hitler enacted gun control then "went bad" and slaughtered millions. Just like if Pres. Obama signs legislation in the US he might "go bad" on us and slaughter millions of Americans. Read the source material, or read the WP paraphrases in this article. They are the equator. And they are Fringe. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did JPFO say any of that? I'm not seeing it in the source material. Did you make it up? ROG5728 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you name some historians who..."Some historians and gun-rights proponents have asserted that gun control was used as a tool by Nazi Germany to implement the Holocaust" per the language you just edit-warred back in after my valid revert? Please undo your re-insertion of language replaced in my last edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you name any reliable sources who disagree with that statement? It's already thoroughly sourced, and it's practically common knowledge anyway. Hitler himself is on the record stating virtually the same thing. ROG5728 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear. Name the historians and provide a citation for them, name by name. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

What historians? I have never seen or heard a historian present the thesis advanced in that paragraph. It needs citation or elimination. (Or both.) SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said SPECIFICO, yes the current wording is still poor because it refers to the disarmament of the Jews as simply an assertion, which it is not. The reference to "historians" is also unnecessary. However, the wording you used was even worse, and was horribly non-neutral; the disarmament of the Jews is historical fact and has nothing to do with "opponents of gun regulation" or "assertions" of any kind. Actually, that entire sentence is unnecessary. The section should start with the line "Historically, a number of totalitarian regimes have passed gun control legislation..." ROG5728 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. Now that you mention it, it was added by Gaijan recently to try to give context and then AzureCitizen moved it to the top of the section. Long story short, the sentence is poorly worded and not really supported by the references it cites (because they were cited by someone after the sentence was added). So we can retain the references but there's no need for that sentence. ROG5728 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Further to my earlier warning on your talk page, you've now exceeded 3RR. Since you have requested I not post there I am putting this warning here. Please undo as many of your recent edits as you see fit and refrain from any further reverts without prior consensus on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Am I understanding correctly that this sentence:

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

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

The sentence actually has a number of issues. First of all, it doesn't really match what the sources say, because the sources were cited after the sentence was added. Second, as SPECIFICO pointed out, the sentence refers to "historians" and "gun rights proponents" but it doesn't seem to be quoting either of those. Third, since this is a historical section it shouldn't get into the subject of what people have "asserted" regarding gun control and the disarmament of the Jews. We have an arguments section for that. Ideally I think this section should just tell how, when, and why the Nazi regime implemented gun control, and skip mentioning the arguments unless they are absolutely necessary. ROG5728 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand both ROG5278 and SPECIFICO correctly then, you're both in favor of removing all argumentry statements, which would include removing two of the four paragraphs (the Halbrook/Harcourt paragraph and the JPFO/ADL paragraph), and retain only a section that "tells how, when, and why the Nazi regime implemented gun control." Do I have that correct? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

In most cases, we should not use the term "some historians" per WP:WEASEL. It leaves vague which historians, how many are there, how respected are there. TFD (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. When in doubt, lean towards facts rather than characterizations. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The point of "fringe" is that we should not use fringe sources extensively as sources for what their writers believe. In fact we should not even use mainstream sources extensively for what the author believes, but normally should use secondary sources that report those opinions and explain the degree to which they are accepted. RS is a different policy and relates to facts, including facts about opinions, i.e., explaining what opinions someone holds. Halbook's article is rs for facts, although it presents a fringe views. The JPFO is a fringe source and not reliable for facts. BTW Table Talk is not a reliable source, and even if it was, it is reporting comments by people who are not reliable sources, and arguing from it is original research. TFD (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Halbrook's historical analysis is not fringe, although it is used to support a more controversial argument. The article itself documents that gun control targeted towards Jews was used by Nazis as a tool to implement the Holocaust. This is not a controversial or fringe viewpoint, and even those who disagree with Halbrook (Harcourt etc) stipulate that fact "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide". The fringe/opinion element enters later when Halbrook makes a counter-factual argument that if the Jews had had more guns, they could have given more resistance that could have mitigated the Holocaust, and possibly saved lives. We are not making that argument in the text, so there is no fringe issue. Since that argument is also made by members of US congress, the NRA, Curcuit judges (Silveira v.Lockyer) etc, even if we WERE making that argument, it certainly is held widely enough to be mentioned as a widely held although controversial view. The fact that there are so many liberal articles (salon, mother jones, etc) attempting to refute that viewpoint give it notability Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

True, we are not making the argument that Jews with guns would have ameliorated the Holocaust, but we are putting the fact that gun control was a Nazi policy in a prominent place in the article, as if it were important. What justifies that? I cannot see how it is warranted. First of all, gun control in peacetime is distinct from gun control during revolutions, regime changes and armed conflicts. Second, while I agree it is a common argument, widely held, I think this suggests it should be in the argument section, not in a prominent section of its own.

To position the facts of Nazi gun control in a prominent section is to advance a position. Perhaps we should have a section called "Gun control is historically strongly associated with fewer homicides and suicides" and point out that the firearm homicide rate dropped 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell 65 percent, in the decade after Australia instituted strict gun control laws.Michaplot (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fringe" does not mean that an argument is wrong, merely that no serious sources recognize it. If no serious sources pick up on the theory then it is by definition fringe. I do not want to argue about the validity of the theory here, because it has not relevance to what goes into the article. TFD (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reliable sources

From policy "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject"

As the entire goal of the section is to present a viewpoint, these sources are entirely valid. Gun guntol, like every other tool can be used for good intent, or evil intent, and with more and less effectiveness. We list attempted uses of gun control that are (to one viewpoint) positive, such as Australia etc, and document its effects and effectiveness. Documenting times when it was used as a tool for evil is equally valid. Both are a core part of the history of the topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Straw Man: Of course RS do not have to be neutral. Content does however need RS citations. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than a straw man, I saw it as addressing your earlier post which, as I was interpreting it, was saying that JPFO is "fringe" because their viewpoint on the topic is very biased. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy Holsters, North. Fringe and RS are two different things. Like Nazism and Democracy. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is question of your use of "Fringe" for JPFO, and consideration of the possibility that you wanted to give call them that to exclude them due to them having a very strong opinion on the matter. So I thought that Gaijin42 was addressing the latter rather than true "fringe". North8000 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

North, their paranoia is infectuous. I have absolutely no opinion on Hitler's gun laws. I just like to see content conform to WP policy, which is pretty well thought out for the most part. Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks north. Specifico, how about a dose of WP:AGF and a bit less snark? His choice of mayo has no impact upon the holocaust or on the jews or other victims of his regime. Gun confiscation is very well documented as a tool that was used by the Nazis to implement the Holocaust. Not the only tool,not a sufficient tool, perhaps not even a necessary tool. But it is completely uncontrovercial and undeniable to say that it was a specifically implemented tool to aid in the Holocaust. We have MANY primary sources specifically commenting on the plans to confiscate guns, and that pogroms and other attacks have low risk because of the disarmament. This has been commented on by multiple secondary sources. Some of those sources are indeed pro-gun viewpoints expressing a POV, but there are also significant neutral sources linking the topics (specifically about the Holocaust and more generally with totalitarian regimes and genocide). To say that this is an unrelated sub-topic is beyond the pale, and reeks of holocaust denialism and trolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I do assume your good faith. I just think some editors, I forget which one you are, evince much confusion about policy -- in particular the use of sources, synth, veiled implications of language and juxtapositions of text, and other matters, many of which I've commented on here. I stumbled on this article entirely by accident. If you believe that "gun control" was a decisive factor that led to the Nazi genocide, you should have no trouble finding recognized historians, public policy experts, and others to cite in support of your belief. Have at it. Don't resort to some pathetic demented Survivor. Pity him, but don't wave his fear and rage at us in this WP article. Please consider. If you intended to accuse me either of smelling or of being a denier or troll, please strike through your remarks, with or without apology. Thanks. 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) (by SPECIFICO)

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say it was a decisive factor. In fact in my last comment I specifically said it was just one tool used. You seem to be saying we have not sourced that it was a factor at all (or at a minimum a factor according to the opinion of some people). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun confiscation is very well documented as a tool that was used by the Nazis to implement the Holocaust.

This is an argument by opponents of gun control, not a fact of history. You will not find this statement in a mainstream history book. The section belongs under arguments, not history. — goethean 17:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Don't forget to strike through your Personal Attack on me. I mean it. Also, in the future put all personal attacks on my talk page where they at least won't disrupt the editing of the article. 2. Find an uncontroversial source, please see my previous comment. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No one made a personal attack. ROG5728 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To say that this is an unrelated sub-topic is beyond the pale, and reeks of holocaust denialism and trolling.

User:Gaijin42 just said that to espouse a particular position (actually, the mainstream position) on gun control "reeks of holocaust denialism and trolling." You are now claiming that this a constructive statement? — goethean 17:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not a personal attack. He was talking about an editor's recent actions, not the editor himself. And he was right, the editor's actions on this page have been completely absurd. ROG5728 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Specifico - This is NOT an argument at all. It is an uncontroversial interpretation/analysis of history. There are numerous reliable primary and secondary sources documenting the fact of gun confiscation by Nazis against the Jews. The controversy is in how IMPORTANT of a factor it is, not that it WAS a factor. The quote/paper from Harcourt and many others are in perfect agreement with this. The ARGUMENT (which is NOT being made here) is that gun control should be avoided in the future to prevent/hinder similar atrocities in the future. But that argument is NOT being made in this section. Don't put words into other mouths. My comment was not about a particular position on gun control, but that a denial that the gun control is related to Nazi atrocities was (trolling). (In the context of Specifico comparing gun control to Mayonaisse. obviously a constructive starting point. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur. ROG5728 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Saying that an editor's position on gun control amounts to holocaust denial is unconstructive and uncivil, and the user who does this should be warned about personal attacks, and his personal attack should be removed from the talk page.

2. If the "gun control caused the Holocaust" thesis were a neutral observation of history, and not an argument made by anti-gun control activists, the article wouldn't have to cite obvious pieces of propaganda like Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide -- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. But it does, because your thesis is an anti-gun control argument, not a mainstream or neutral fact of history. — goethean 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

2) Nobody is saying that gun control caused the holocaust. We are saying that it was one of the tools used to implement the holocaust. It WAS (now deleted) quoting some who argued that more access to guns could have enabled some additional resistance, and saved some lives. Again, this is not controversial. Actual debate the real topic and not your boogeyman and we will be much more productive. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow Goethean, that's quite a straw man argument. No one said gun control caused the Holocaust, but to say that it wasn't a tool used by Nazi Germany in the Holocaust is absurd and completely at odds with history. ROG5728 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If the ARGUMENT weren't controversial, you would have been able to dredge up better sources. You haven't. It is. — goethean 18:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

NOBODY IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT. We are stating facts. The facts are well sourced. Gun control was a tool used by the Nazis to further the Holocaust. There are ZERO sources that dispute this. Nobody is saying it was the cause. Nobody is saying it was the primary method etc. Stop putting words into others mouths and acutally debate the real argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, do you really want us to add gun control quotes from Hitler?

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.

- Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations

Or would you rather we add gun control quotes from Mao?

Every communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.

- Problems of War and Strategy, 1938

Both of these individuals are on the record clearly stating that gun control was an important means to their political ends. ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just be sure to include the NRA website that you got those quotations from. — goethean 18:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, they're actually well known quotes that have nothing to do with the NRA or any kind of pro-gun source. I cited the sources. You're deluding yourself. This is historical fact. ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

They are historical factoids carefully selected by people with an anti-gun control agenda in order to make an argument against gun control. NO mainstream history book contains these factoids. That's why this article doesn't cite mainstream history books. — goethean 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

uh, google scholar or google books either one of those quotes, and you will see that they are both quoted in a plethora of sources, many of which are not directly on the subject of gun control. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All the hits I get have to do with gun control. — goethean 18:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow Goethean, anything that disagrees with you must have come from the NRA, huh? Even if it's directly quoted from Hitler or Mao's own literary works from the 1930s or 1940s. Do you realize how incredibly ridiculous you sound? ROG5728 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing that we should include these two quotes, merely refuting Goetheans position that the only use of these quotes is from biased pro-gun sources. They are quotes of high historical notability outside of any pro/anti gun arguments.

• The rise of the fourth rich
• Hitler's table talk
• The western world
• Inside Hitler's Germany
• Moscow to Stalingrad

• numerous results for the Mao quote

Your citations actually prove my point. These quotations are obviously cherry-picked. — goethean 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, they're actually direct quotes from Hitler and Mao's literary works from the 1930s/1940s and I already cited the sources directly. The only point being proven here is that you won't accept any information that disagrees with you. ROG5728 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The "common sense" middle ground route which is allowed but not dictated by policy, and which is fragile under mus-statemetns of policy is that things which meet the basics of wp:ver and where the veracity of the statements themselves is not challenged should not be tried to be knocked out by setting higher sourcing standards. I think that what actually historically occurred described in a straightforward manner would fall under this. Also, if sourced, that gun control/confiscation was a factor / tool (without reaching farther to words like "essential" "major" etc.) falls under this category. I think that "what if" type statements would fall more under "arguments". North8000 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The current state of the article is nowhere near being neutral. The article does not describe what took place in a straightforward manner, as you claim. It uses a highly selective set of historical factoids, crafted by opponents of gun control legislation in order to create an anti-gun control narrative. This should be plainly obvious to any neutral observer. You don't read about Hitler's gun control in mainstream history books. That's why this article is forced to use outlandishly partisan, fringe sources to make its highly partisan point. — goethean 19:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, from long history, I've learned not to expect better from you, so I'm not going to spend much time on this specific response. My comment was speaking in general on a way to proceed on certain material, and you just came back pretending that I said a bunch of stuff that I never said such as claiming that the whole article already is that or falls under that. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Guys, Goethean is absolutely correct and the problem with these primary source quotes is typical of the errors numerous editors have made here. WP is not just a collection of facts. We editors are not the ones whose judgment can be relied on to organize and interpret the world's facts. We need secondary reliable sources which place the facts in context and make specific associations among them. It's mayonnaise again, in spades. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should start with some specific item to discuss. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. This article is a POV fork of Gun politics and should be merged with that article. Two, the history section is a transparent attempt to link gun control with Nazis using an agenda-driven, highly selective reading of history and bad sourcing. There is a gun control article. It is split up by country. The history of gun control by country is there, should go there, and not here. There is no (legitimate) need for this article. — goethean 23:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the overall article and the opposite of what I meant. (Responding on that topic, gun control and gun politics are absolutely fundamentally different) I meant a specific paragraph or set of sentences. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream views

The The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (2010) has articles by 47 scholars writing about all aspects of the holocaust, including the conditions necessary for it to occur, how it was planned and carried out, and how people have interpreted it.[15] Nowhere does it mention gun control laws. Can anyone show that any serious writing on the holocaust has mentioned Halbrook's version of history? If not, then it is fringe and deserves no mention in this article.

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

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

The NYTimes thought it was notable enough in 1938. The book Kristalnacht mentions it as well. Calling someone's viewpoint who has been quoted by SCOTUS fringe seems like an awefully high bar. Controversial views are not by definition Fringe. That gun rights researches are the majority of the research on this topic is also notable 3rd party POV and not fringe. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

None of your sources make any connection between the gun laws and the holocaust. The NYT article was published before the onset of the holocaust. (I assume you are referring to McDonald v. Chicago.) TFD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The NYT article was published during the events later known as Kristallnacht and was specifically about those events, and significantly after the implementation of the Nuremburg laws, yet you assert is not related to the Holocaust. The book entitled "Kristallnacht" specifically discusses the disarmament and its benefits during the pogroms. I'm afraid you have lost me.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should cover the historical perspective.

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

Agreed. The material which attempts to link gun control to Nazis was under the "Arguments" section before ROG5728 completely re-wrote the article the article on April 11th,[16] an edit which created multiple NPOV violations and should have been reverted rather than praised.[17] — goethean 18:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Halbrook

Let's see restoring editors establish that this individual is notable in anyway. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Harcourt article which you left in is directly responding to Halbrook, which has been covered (in counterargument) by Slate and Mother Jones. Halbrook was referenced by SCOTUS (McDonald and Heller). He has been published in multiple 3rd party publications (multiple books by multiple publishers, multiple unrelated academic journals. One of his books (Target Swizerland) has won two awards (Stifung für Abendländische Besinnung) and (Max Geilinger Foundation prize for works contributing to Swiss and Anglo-American culture). His books are referenced by MANY other books on gun politics (on both sides of the argument) Those articles have been cited hundreds of times by other publications (according to gscholar). He has appeared on CNN (Piers Morgan and Lou Dobs) and Fox news, as well as ABC Phil Donahue, NPR, CSpan etc as a commenter on gun issues, he has given testimony before the senate judicial commitee (Sotomayor Holdor confirmations, as well as multiple other hearings on gun control). He has been published by The washington post, the wall street journal, american rifleman, the american journal of sports medicine, National Law Journal, as well as numerous smaller newspapers and periodicals. He was the topic of articles in Slate, Mother Jones, Washington Post, ABA Journal, Wall street journal, Legal Times, etc. What bar of notability do you suggest? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Being cited in a Supreme Court Opinion seems to me to be a significant reason to support its inclusion. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, it was not the article in question which was cited by SCOTUS, but it does show notability of him as an author and expert on the topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah... I suppose that tempers my comment somewhat... as an aside, there has been the occasional law student whose note is cited by the Supreme Court (something one puts on their resume obviously)... and I'm just laughing at the idea they'd go off and write something insane and use this justification to support it. Shadowjams (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Links? Page numbers? Quotes? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Page 24 of the slip opinion in McDonald (I'm way too lazy to look up the reporter cite) and I think it's the same article, but it's also cited in Heller. Shadowjams (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You wanted links/page numbers. That's the page number. Go to the McDonald v. Chicago article and go to the SCOTUS slip opinion, then go to page 24. Do you think I'm blatantly lying about this? Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not Easter and it is not my responsibility to go on the hunt for a link which you allege exists. And so far pro gun rights editors on this page have demonstrated shockingly bad faith and disruptive editing. Transparent battleground behavior, removing tags, blind reverting, being generally uncooperative (by failing to provide links and sources when asked) and consistently failing to show comprehension of issues brought up. So do I trust you? No. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Praetorian... your account's only been here for about 5 months. I've been here since before 2009 (as an IP before account). You need to assume some good faith. I provided cites for Gaijin's comment and you couldn't even be bothered to click two wiki links to find them. I think you need to back away, cool off from the subject a bit. Your user page makes your personal opinions obvious, which is fine, but you need to, insofar as anyone can, put those aside and be objective when it comes to issues like this. That's maybe hard on big topic stuff, but on something specific like this it should be easy. Shadowjams (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aw that's cute, kid thinks he can pull seniority to get his way. First edit in 2008, son. I know how the game goes and don't think you can intimidate me with a paultry 4 years of experience. Good faith editors provide links. The fact that you are willing to argue about this for this amount of time rather than provide these links has convinced me that they infact do not exist and you are so far the most bad faith editor that has bothered to show up on this article. Good job. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And either way, in Wikipedia, notability is a criteria for existence of an article, not for use of a source. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:UNDUE is the policy being violated here (in addition to nearly every other core Wikipedia policy). — goethean 19:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nor does wp:undue stipulate or allow removing wp:rs's due to not being "notable"; quite the opposite. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What's "undue" about it? It unduly disagrees with your position? Quoted by the Supreme Court, my musing above aside, is a fairly strong indication that the person's a notable author on the subject. It's not as if it was quoted as an example of some extreme fringe. Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Even those that disagree with his position are in a fundamental agreement on the facts, and regarding his opinions/conclusions, they are asking for more research from historians. There is not a consensus that he is wrong in his analysis, there is silence because nobody else has done the research. It is not WP:FRINGE to be the only person investigating the topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He's the only recognized person studying the topic with your agenda. There are thousands of historians studying the Holocaust. Thousands. One guy thinks that gun control helped to cause the Holocaust. So, of course, we give that guy a disproportionate amount of space in this article. This a textbook violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. — goethean 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought we were arguing about one cite... is your position that there's no research [that's not fringe] on the connection between authoritarian regimes and weapons restrictions? Shadowjams (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would feel better if another source was used to make the same claim. A politician or expert (with a Wikipedia article). That is my last complaint in the section as it currently stands and I would be content to remove the tags if something replaced that quote. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I take that back. If we're going to focus on historical accuracy and not the current gun control battle in the United States, the entire second paragraph should be removed. We can leave interpretations of history to the reader with the information given in the first paragraph. I don't think there's a consensus in either direction about lessons to be taken from Nazi Germany regarding gun control. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean second section. Shadowjams (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean the second paragraph in the disputed section. Starting with, "Lawyer Stephen Halbrook, in the article" and ending with, "to prevent the Holocaust." PraetorianFury (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a second cite in that paragraph you know. I don't think blanking the whole section you are ideologically opposed to is a sufficient compromise. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Herpa derp, check the 3rd and 4th sentences of that paragraph before you accuse me of bias, genius. The debate aspect of the issue should be handled at Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States, as opinionated sources work just fine in an "arguments" article. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming the conclusion a bit... you're wanting to blank the entire reference to Nazi gun restrictions. Some of your other user talk comments indicate you think they loosened restrictions. If that's the case then add those cites. Ideally the history section would have a general outline of all gun control efforts, and then break it down by specific country with hats to those. There's no "debate" in stating the obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Are we talking about the same thing or are you trying to invent some sort of straw man here? I said we should delete the second paragraph, not the first. And the first paragraph says the word, "relaxed". I'm repeating what the article already says. The source is in the article. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)