Talk:Gun control

Progress?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

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

Survey

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

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

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

Ditto. Chill out. a13ean (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I have an 'agenda' - to see that Wikipedias coverage of firearms regulation issues isn't abused by factions of the U.S. gun lobby, as has repeatedly been the case here. And as for history, you appear not to know the slightest thing on the subject, otherwise you wouldn't be repeating the falsehoods already made regarding Nazi Germany - where the Nazis actually relaxed firearms regulation, except as part of a general process of removing citizenship rights from specific sectors of the population. That is the real history, as written by real historians, rather than by pro-gun propagandists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Yes - and so noted in many reliable sources [2], not even listed so far and Yes for that same reason. Ascribing scholarly articles and authors to being from "fringe elements of the NRA" would require specific and strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Collect, you know who Stephen Halbrook is, right? (...not really considered to be a neutral player in this game, to put it mildly.) Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Thanks Gaijin. But let me note that my "opposite" of "the Nazis used gun control to oppress the Jews" isn't "the Nazis didn't use gun control to oppress the Jews, but rather "I don't see how it matters". For starters, wouldn't we need to know what gun ownership among German Jews was, relative to that among non-Jewish Germans, so we could figure out if any of that mattered in the first place? One of your sources in that list notes that Nazis went around doing house searches for "guns and papers"--wanna guess what they were most likely to find, and what was more dangerous to own and to be caught with? (And seriously, published in a real journal or not, we should avoid citing clearly and self-identified partisan sources.) Drmies (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to say why something matters or does not matter to any observer -- only that if a scholarly source states that it appears to matter to the source, and that such a position is given due weight in the article. In the case at hand, the person does not appear to be an "NRS nutcase", and thus the claim must be presented in the article. And IIRC Wikipedia does not require all sources to be "neutral" so if you find that a strong reason, then I suggest you try amending WP:RS - I think the exercise might have interesting results. [3] presents the view that Hitler actually eased gun restrictions ("The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. " sure looks like a large percentage of the population was outright banned from gun possession from here, but YMMV). The comment about the Versailles Treaty-imposed confiscation of guns seems a tad useless in this argument, to be sure. Cheers -- WP:RS is policy whether one likes an author or not. Collect (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I would also strongly suggest that this should be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved administrator with experience in closing controversial RfCs, and that the closer also look at Talk:Gun control/Archive 3#RFC: Section on Association of Gun control with authoritarianism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gun Control, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control, and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13#Gun Control DR/N in order to get a fuller picture of what the community consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the list of discussions given by Guy Macon I would recommend the previous RFC on almost the same topic Talk:Gun_control/Archive_5#RFCGaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I missed that one. Yes, it should be looked at as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• No Gundamentalists in the U.S. routinely bring up the false view that the nazis came to power through gun control and people who support gun control are therefore like nazis. WP:FRINGE dictates that we do not provide parity of this view with what informed sources say. TFD (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a very strong bias you have. I agree in part that there is a nuanced and complex story to be told regarding Nazi-ism and their slaughtering of 6million souls. We can't keep one aspect of this out just because it doesn't line up perfectly with our agenda.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. Goethean's first comment in the threaded discussion pretty much sums up my thoughts on this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes the use of gun control by Nazi Germany (and other authoritarian regimes) is a historical fact, and we shouldn't censor history in order to try to paint gun control in a more positive light. Hitler and Mao are both on the record stating that the disarmament of their opposition was an important means to their political ends. ROG5728 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please cite that record, if you can. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I already cited both of those quotes earlier in this discussion. ROG5728 (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're citing table talk there, for Hitler. And it works both ways: you focus only on denying guns to certain parties, where it's just as valid to point at the other side--allowing guns to other parties. On that same talk page you said "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 is nothing but an opinion, and a rather baffling one at that. You'd have to prove, if you wanted to make this stick, that disarming Jews had some kind of relevant impact on the Holocaust. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Duh and duh, otherwise known as yes and yes. Seriously? Nazis rather famously restricted the availability of guns, right? So is that not relevant to an article on policies restricting the availability of guns? Red Slash 01:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They didn't--at least not as verified by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Red Slash, even the sources cited here make it clear that the weapons were seized by pogrom, not "policy" in any civic sense related to what we call "policy". SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and yes per nominator Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• 1: No as regards Nazi Germany (as regards "other authoritarian regimes" see my comment immediately below). Any and all sources that I have seen refer to the restriction of the possession of guns by Jews in Nazi Germany, not to a general gun control policy. This is, of course, what is dealt with in the article, and this is reflected in the section heading: "Nazi disarmament of German Jews". 2: No. Keeping guns out of the hands of an ethnic minority for the purpose of their repression does not fall within the remit of the article as spelled out in the article lead. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So it is your position that in general, laws about X that are discriminatorally targeted at group Y are not actually laws about X? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a leading question and I decline to answer it. If you want to take it up in the discussion section, feel free. Scolaire (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The inclusion in the RfC questions of the phrase "in particular Nazi, but others as well" is a red herring. The ongoing discussion has hinged on Nazis and Jews, not on some vague all-encompassing concept of authoritarianism. In the article as it stands, Tsarist Russia is dealt with very differently to Nazi Germany. Whether the treatment of Tsarist Russia is appropriate is a question worthy of discussion, but the two should not be linked as they are in the two questions. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• No Coverage of Nazi gun laws is inappropriate in this article per Drmies and others. GabrielF (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes - We've had this discussion before (I've lost count) and there are clearly reliable sources that talk about it. That there's a debate about the causal link between these regimes and their policies is not a reason to remove all mention of them, which is apparently the goals of some. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and yes. Documented well enough to include and relevant enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• No and No This is a mischaracterization of gun control laws. The aim of the Nazis was to deprive American German Jews of all rights, not to restrict gun ownership among its population (it generally relaxed gun control laws). This is like saying that the Founding Fathers were adamant advocates of gun control because they deprived blacks of gun ownership. The issue is the ant-Semitism, not the guns. Steeletrap (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you mean to say "deprive German Jews of all rights"? Scolaire (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong yes to both Meets all relevant criteria for inclusion, the sourcing is especially solid, and would make a useful addition to this topic area. Roccodrift (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

*Yes...sort of ... Some, at least, of the secondary sources listed, principally, Halbrook, meet Wikipedia's low threshold for consideration as reliable sources. The mass of other primary documents (including contemporary newspaper reports) really don't belong in that list and are not useful in this context. However, the interpretation of Halbrook has to be treated with extreme care especially as it has not been published in any peer-reviewed history journal and it has not been examined by those with true expertise in the history of the holocaust and independent of the US gun control debate. Nor can one find Halbrook's work, or that of any other author advancing such an analogous theory, cited in any significant treatment of the holocaust. This is not surprising as Halbrook's work is not really an engagement with the history of Nazi Germany and the holocaust so much as its instrumentalisation to meet present-day political needs in an American context. For what its worth, his thesis looks extremely weak to me as, so far as I can determine, it doesn't seem to provide a realistic estimate of the actual amount of firearms surrendered by German Jews following the enactment of the 1938 law nor the likihood of an uprising or of its success in a period well before the actual genocide had commenced. As to the second question, No, unless or until ... it can be properly determined what the actual subject of this article is and, if included, these sources can be properly contextualised. While the title seems clear enough, the actual content doesn't appear to correspond. If you consult a scholarly citation database like Web of Knowledge, the most significant publications in this area deal with topics like the impact of gun control on suicide and homicide rates (fairly recent studies available for the US and Austria) or various social and cultural correlates with advocacy for "gun rights". So I think the first thing that should be done is a weighting of the sources, especially scholarly sources, to determine the proper content of this article (once it is worked out what the actual subject is). Also, Halbrook et al., and the general invocation of Nazism as a historical analogy for proposed US firearm regulation should be understood and contextualised as a relatively parochial debate with limited application outside of the US (some limited applicability in Brazil and Switzerland, perhaps). In most other countries it just doesn't have the same political saliency and is largely irrelevant to the question of gun control in these regions. It would seem to me, therefore, to be most appropriate for an article on the US gun control debate rather than anything else. Further, if these sources are to be included they need proper contextualisation in terms of the US gun control debate (e.g. when did the Nazi historical analogy first enter the American debate - 1968?) they need to be attributed to specific authors and, where appropriate, advocacy groups. That would mean locating reasonable neutral independent sources that evaluate the whole gun control debate in the US (and elsewhere where appropriate - can't really think of anywhere else barring Brazil) that would guide editors in constructing content. The current placement of this historical material in the article is really inappropriate. Saying it is "factual" misses the point that the way facts are assembled, contextualised (or not) and related presents a certain interpretative narrative of events in what is an argument about gun control (rather than the holocaust or whatever). FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• No & No (change of vote from above). I now regard this RFC as specifically addressing the use of the Hitlerian historical analogy in relation to gun control rather than the wider topic of authoritarianism and gun control (see [4]). I can no longer regard Halbrook as in any sense a reliable source for this topic as: a) his thesis constitutes an exceptional claim which requires the support of high-quality reliable sources; b) the works cited appear in non-peer reviewed US law journals [5] (I would regard these sources as RS for aspects of US law but not for subjects such as the Holocaust) and hence this work was not vetted by experts in the history of the holocaust prior to publication; c) Halbrook's publications have had no impact on the scholarly literature on the holocaust where he is entirely uncited [6] (a point Halbrook acknowledges in his statement that gun control is: "a topic in Holocaust studies that has been assiduously avoided or neglected" p. 115; d) as his historical thesis is so fringe as to have no presence in the relevant scholarly literature editors cannot relate this fringe view to the mainstream history of the holocaust as they are directed to do in the guideline on fringe topics which states: "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter." It is my opinion, therefore, that neither Halbrook's reductio ad Hitlerum should be included in the article nor should a selective, decontextualised presentation of facts relating to Nazi Weapon Laws in the late 1930s be allowed to stand which might suggest without explicitly stating Halbrook's theory (which is the current case and should be regarded as a circumvention of the WP guideline relating to fringe and the WP policy on neutral point of view). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment- Issue 1:- Question one seems to make little sense in light of the use of the Nazi state as the example. It appears from the sources that the Nazi's liberalized gun laws; rather, the Nazi state would be an example, in this sphere, of being less authoritarian but racist -- in the extreme -- in thier poilcy. Issue 2: For issues of weight, we generally turn to high quality WP:Tertiary sources to come to some consensus on weight. Unfortuantely, I see little discussion of such literature above. Note, there is at least one general audience encyclopedia article [7]; the editors here might want to find other tertiary sources (high quality general reveiw articles, general histories and the like) and particiapte at the dispute resolution noticeboard to come up with something you can all live with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually we assign weight based on all reliable sources, not by attempting to mirror other encyclopedias. Gaijin42 (talk) 18

17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And tertiary sources are used as reliable sources, to among other things come to consensus on undue weight, per WP:Tertiary sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. The article has broader problems; this cherrypicking of history to fit a contemporary POV is just one of the more obvious symptoms. bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Do you know who also banned guns? The Nazis. That this kind of reasoning isn't something we should have should be obvious. The sources are pretty good, and inclusion is ok, but it is a question of due weight. If we don't apply due weight, we're pushing a POV - and the way it looks now is almost as I just phrased it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The Jews' weapons and other property were confiscated by force. To call that "gun control" policy is like calling referring to abortion as "birth control". Anyway, could you please indicate your yes or no for this poll? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• not really, because this is not a simple yes or no answer. Would you prefer it if I moved it down to threaded discussion? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that although it may not be simple, the WP:BURDEN is on those who would vote "yes". Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• As a side track, you may want to take a look an essay I strongly agree with, meta:Polls are evil. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Polls may be evil, but if you ignore !votes such as this one, the article's content may be determined by those who do not ignore them. — goethean 19:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a big if. I am going to assume that the poor sod who's going to have to close this discussion is going to read what is written, and not ignore !votes like this one. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• No and no. It would have been better to raise the sourcing issue at WP:RSN. The sources listed are virtually all primary ones. Due weight would need to be shown and I can't see that this is relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and yes. The first question in this RFC is: "Are authoritarian uses of gun control (in particular Nazi, but others as well) sufficiently sourced by reliable sources?" Let's consider this sentence: "Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish,[20][21][22] and were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]" That's certainly a lot of sources, but let's look at the sources specifically:

• Bernard E. Harcourt, April 5, 2004: Hitler and Gun Registration p671 Retrieved 2012-12-16
• Rummel,RJ, Death by Government (1994) Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, pp. 111-122, ISBN 1-56000-145-3.
• Stephen Halbrook, 17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2000: Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews p509-513 Retrieved 2012-12-16.
• Courts Law and Justice. p. 119. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
• A Complete History of the Holocaust. Retrieved 2013-06-18. page68.
• Geoffrey, Mitchell. 48 Hours of Kristallnacht.pages 9,33,82.
• Polsby, Daniel. "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly.p1237.
• Guns in American Society, An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. Sec 2.

Most of these seem like reliable sources. The most interesting and controversial question would be: "Was the Nazi disarmament of the Jews a significant factor contributing to the holocaust?" That question does not seem to be addressed by the present Wikipedia article, nor by this RFC, so I venture no opinion about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no The sources seem fine, but to me, it's a question of due weight. Given the length of the section already, and the apparent number of interested editors, I think someone should consider starting an article on the history of gun control, where discussion of Nazi Germany laws would of course be totally appropriate. On another note, one thing that I think would help the current article would be to switch the first two sentences of the Nazi Germany section. Orser67 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• No and No What the Nazis did is not what is generally considered to be gun control - it was restricted to one persecuted section of society. And No to its inclusion for the obvious reasons so well stated above - basically this article shouldn't be used to push the NRA position in this way. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The gun restrictions of the Nazis were certainly not what we today would consider acceptable gun control, but nevertheless they were literally the "control" of "guns". I don't see any reliable sources that say that a law isn't "gun control" as long as it allows someone to still carry a gun. I must also say that I find it rather propagandistic to suddenly adopt some extremely narrow definition of gun control just so that the Nazi actions don't fall under it. (This is quite similar to Wikipedia's decision to adopt an unusually narrow definition of "abortion" that excludes post-viability abortions from the definition.) Make no mistake, there is propaganda coming from both sides of this gun control thing. The best solution here ultimately will be to have a comprehensive article on the History of gun control that takes a thorough approach with appropriate balancing of POVs, and then this article can have a brief summary of that article, with or without a mention of the Nazis. And, incidentally, I do think it's very plausible that more Jews would have assassinated more Nazi officials if they had not been disarmed, but it's impossible to say with certainty whether that would have even slightly reduced the Jewish bodycount.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• No and No. Having now perused a couple of recent books specifically about gun control none of them mention Nazi germany with more than a sentence. There is a lot more information about contemporary gun control policies in Germany and other European countries. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• No, No and No Responding to the invitation to participate in this discussion, I was appalled by the insistence of some editors that a comment about Nazi Germany and gun control be included. Godwin's Law lives, it appears. When I just searched I found there wasn't a single reference to Native Americans or Indians in the comments, though that disarmament was far more germane than what the Nazis did to Jews, which was an insignificant feature of the Holocaust. Most Native American tribes were dependent on firearms for food, clothing and housing, especially the Plains tribes, yet had them confiscated by the U.S. Army. It didn't take a second to find this cite: Activist (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal Vol. 2 (1991): 67. GUN CONTROL AND RACISM Stefan B. Tahmassebi*

That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians . . . shall appear without arms (Virginia Colony First Legislature 1619 statutes)

INTRODUCTION The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other "unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.

The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from exercising their rights of citizenship. During the later part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, gun control laws were passed in the South in order to disarm agrarian reformers and in the North to disarm union organizers. In the North, a strong xenophobic reaction to recent waves of immigrants added further fuel for gun control laws which were used to disarm such persons. Other firearms ownership restrictions were adopted in order to repress the incipient black civil rights movement.

Another old American prejudice supported such gun control efforts, then as it does now: the idea that poor people, and especially the black poor, are not to be trusted with firearms. Even now, in many jurisdictions in which police departments have wide discretion in issuing firearm permits, the effect is that permits are rarely issued to poor or minority citizens.

Blacks, and especially poor blacks, are disproportionately the victims of crime. Yet, these citizens are often not afforded the same police protections that other more affluent and less crime ridden neighborhoods or communities enjoy. This lack of protection is especially so in the inner city urban ghettos. Firearms prohibitions discriminate against those poor and minority citizens who must rely on such arms to defend themselves from criminal activity to a much greater degree than affluent citizens living in safer and better protected communities.

• Yes, and not exactly. The general subject is well-sourced. The problem is with the simplistic term "authoritarian." There is strong evidence that some regimes which enforced discriminatory classifications of their citizens or subjects used selective gun control as one means of subjugating disfavored groups. (eg, http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/heller_2nd_amendment.pdf) This needs to be covered and placed in its appropriate context -- which would probably mean reporting, for example, some of the most strident anti-control segments in the US are historically descended from the movement that advocated and imposed racially selective gun control after reconstruction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Defer and No. Nazi use of gun control is plentifully sourced (the given list seems to be about 98 percent Nazi related), but taken out of context and compared to late 20th and early 21st century efforts is Reductio ad Hitlerum. (That's where it crosses the line into WP:FRINGE.) The subject of Nazi use of gun control should be its own article. Mention of it in articles such as this one should be brief and deep down, or simply in the See also section. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• No and No - this is part of a longstanding effort to provide a distorting emphasis on trivial aspects of world history, in furtherance of the falsified narrative currently being pushed by the U.S. gun lobby. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Abstain and No - In debates, when people start making references to Nazism, it's usually a pretty good indication that the conversation has departed any kind of useful discourse. Wikipedia shouldn't be an outlet for that kind of stunted debating technique. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your garbage is another man's gem, who are you to decide -- who am I to decide. That's why we have WP:RS. If it meets the standard, it can go in.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, such a list would include just about every Western country besides the US--all of them with stricter gun laws, all of them with lower gun death numbers, and all of them with better cheese and better healthcare and happier people. Such is not the way to go, esp. not since it just leads to fights over who's got the better cheese. The mention of RS is kind of a ruse--lots of stuff can be reliably sourced, but not all of it is of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Prove it Drmies, WP:RS statements please and let's make sure that the French aren't running the statistics because we can argue about methodologies, stratified random samples all day long here. You're injecting your limited Eurocentric worldview into this and it's coming across and is not helpful. Everyone knows the best wine is from Sonoma - Stags Leap and everyone knows that Wisconsin cheese is the best. Let's just try to make the article better.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm limited indeed, after fifteen years in Alabama. What isn't helpful is this constant and tedious hammering on RS. Of course reliable sources are going to show that the Nazis tried to take guns away from the Jews. Duh. What you need to produce, and that's what Goethean is rightly challenging you to do, are reliable sources (not partisan hacks who have a platform in a peer-reviewed journal) that this is in any way relevant to the topic of gun control. Plus, I haven't seen anyone say anything yet about the rest of that German legislation, though I thought I pointed out clearly enough that this wasn't simply "Nazis are taking Jewish guns". It's also "Nazis are giving everyone else free guns", so to speak. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to including that the germans gave weapons to the favored group while taking weapons away from the jews, right before they conscripted all of those favored groups to go genocidal on the jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, A lot of smart people in Alabama, no need to bash the state. It's unnecessary, it's small of you - it's a great state filled with wonderful smart people. But, you can go back to wherever place you came from if you think Alabama is beneath you. Goethen is vulgar profane. It's hard to take him seriously. As to the WP:RS, how do you propose we do it? Make stuff up on the fly? I think your bias is clear.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone here knows my bias, Justanonymous, just as everyone knows, I think, that I want what's best for the encyclopedia. I can't tell when you're joking or not, so I suppose your "make stuff up on the fly" is a joke too. I have given an assessment or two of the various sources proposed here, and I have given an assessment of what I think is an editorial problem with the section, which no one (besides Maunus), and certainly not you, has addressed. Your mantra of RS RS RS and "bring it!" is a clear indication of how seriously I should take your objections. Basically, your editorial attitude boils down to "I see something in a book that I like so I'll stick it in an article." What sucks for those editors who favor inclusion of the material is the association with such an attitude. Good day. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, You don't know me so stop trying make false guesses about me. You don't know anything about my editorial attitude so don't try to paint a canvas of me here. You're unqualified to boil down JA. And my editorial attitude is unimportant. We're going to follow all Wikipedia policies here to include RS. If you take exception to that, file a complaint and include me on it. Yes the article needs work. The article is the result of polarized editors that come and sling their mud and then we wind up in these grotesquely useless time consuming discussions that count towards your edit count. Frankly we should only count clean edits. Jabbering on here adds no value. That's why I prefer to go edit and to follow the policies. Yes it needs work, got it. Let's go make it better then. Unless you want uselessly pour a few more ink barrels here.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read the note on my edit. I merely suggested that you were close to vandalism and you might have been over the line. It's nuanced. You gotta get better at this reading comprehension man, tone down the vulgarity and profanity, and take a chill pill -- don't blow another gasket.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're about as nuanced as brick. — goethean 19:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't disagree with your analysis of the loosen/tighten situation, which indeed is directly discussed by halbrook and harcourt's articles (harcourt arguing against halbrook) - however, easing weapon restrictions on a favored group (like the SS and SA who were completely exempt from the regulations) and then sending those same groups after the recently disarmed doesn't seem like an argument that the nazis did not in fact disarm the jews as part of their oppression. Part of the issue is the current state of the article - Older versions (say here [8] attempted to put this into context as a presentation one of the notable POVs of gun control, but certain editors continued to delete everything that was an actual argument, and left us with the abbreviated history. (And certainly that POV should be balanced by POVs about how gun control has ushered in golden eras of peace into Australia and the UK (which are ALREADY in this article!) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

did you bother to actually check any of those sources? I think not, as The #2 book on that list (Gun Control, O'Niel) includes a chapter on the Nazi disarmamemnt.Also mentioned in the book by fisanak, and the one by davidson, so thanks for proving the point that it is covered by common gun control sources! Gaijin42 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The amount and kind of coverage to be given to "authoritarian gun control" should be based on that kind of literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS statements please. If you got it, bring it. Anger, accusations, mean spiritedness, blanking sections, vulgar profanity are not helpful and makes it hard to take the editor seriously. Open a talk section below and start discussing your edits. Vs this incessant, nonconstructive back and forth. Let's edit. Bring it!-Justanonymous (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think all those editors who are so concerned with Nazi gun legislation should probably work on the relevant sections in Gun politics in Germany--as they should on every article on gun control. After all, there is no reason to look at Nazi Germany or the USSR and exclude others unless one has already made up their mind that there is something to see there (the synthesized statement, for instance, that "authoritarian regimes use gun control to silence their opponents"). So yeah, each and every country ought to be listed, and comprehensively: there is no reason to pick one particular period over another, if one wishes to be factual and complete, and not some cherrypicking coatracker. (And this is where the RS argument is bollocks: RS doesn't allow us to select from among reliable sources.) Now, if I can assume that Gun politics in Germany is correct (and no one has said otherwise), then a "summary" of Nazi gun politics which is more representative of what that article says should run something like this:

  The 1938 German Weapons act confirmed the requirement that citizens needed permits to carry and acquire firearms. The Nazi legislature tightened the law for Jews, who were no longer allowed to manufacture and trade in firearms and ammunition. On the other hand, many requirements were lowered or relaxed: the legal age for carrying a firearm was lowered from 20 to 18, the law covered only handguns (rifles, shot guns, and ammunition were no longer regulated), issued permits were valid three times as long, and many groups (including holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members) were no longer subject to restrictions.

  Now, the article in its current state has something along those lines but still overplays the gun control angle ("... were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population"): the crucial citations are to Rudolph Rummel and Stephen Halbrook, and neither of these are acceptable, IMO, as objective and neutral. (One wonders whether we can't get some non-English sources: surely German and French historians have written on the topic--if Nazi gun control is really a topic at all.) That guns were confiscated from Jews afterward in itself is hardly surprising: I'm sure the Nazis confiscated lots of things from Jews.

  BTW, that section is a mess. I see the Harcourt citation three times in there, but cited in two different formats. Note 21, to an Alan Steinweis book, is a bare URL linking to a page among the notes that simply doesn't verity the text (on the confiscation of ammunition). Note 14 is a horribly incomplete citation to an article in a textbook of sorts which can't even avoid weasel words: "It is frequently argued that these laws...", without specifics, without citations, without anything (and look at the vagueries of the next paragraph, "Stalin and Mao are also reported to have disarmed their political opponents..."--"reported"? We can't get cold hard facts here?). Note 15, A Complete History of the Holocaust, that's a "Juvenile Non-Fiction"--not to be cited here. Note 16 is to an "oral history" (48 Hours of Kristallnacht) published by Globe Pequot Press--go look at our article and see if we should cite this here in this article. Seriously, Collect and others, RS? Have you all even looked at what is being cited in this encyclopedic article? I could go on, but this is getting tedious. The sourcing is horrible, the cherrypicking is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• One more thing, on the same topic--the Alan Steinweis link. I don't know who put this ridiculous search string, [9], in the article as a reference--an amateur, I'd say (note that they inserted the title of the NYT article cited in the previous reference into the Google Book search--weird, to say the least). Now, that book is supposed to verify some numbers on confiscated weapons, but it doesn't: as far as I can tell, those numbers don't appear in that book. What is in the book, on page 39, is a brief note on the Berlin police order, November 1938, that all Jews were to hand over their weapons to the authorities; Steinweis notes that the overwhelming number of weapons in Jewish homes were daggers and pistols, mementos from WW1, and that the proclamation was really nothing but harassment and an excuse to break into Jewish homes and ransack them.

  So, what we have here is another example of synthesis, where a book (amateurishly cited and probably not read at all) is yoked to a claim of weapon confiscation. The book does not verity the stated claim in the article, and what it says on the subject has no bearing on "gun control" at all, since it concerns a police order, not a law, whose goal was not to control guns but just to harass one particular segment of the population. To use the term "gun control" when it only affects one segment of the population is ludicrous: it's not gun control, it's just antisemitism. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But Drmies, denial to one segment of the population is a common feature of gun control, e.g. in the USA. Persons who have been convicted of certain offenses, who are mentally ill, in the country illegally etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither you and I nor the Nazis thought that "Jewishness" would be in the same category as "mentally ill" or "illegal"; the legal status of Jewishness (pace Nuremberg) is simply not that of "having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude" or something like that. They were simply trying to harass. But that's not my main point anyway; I made some others that I hope someone will address. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies unequal application of laws as a form of discrimination is quite often a very notable part of the laws. For example Suffrage#Forms_of_exclusion_from_suffrage . surely you would not argue that jim crow voter registration laws were not actually registration laws, or that dont ask don't tell wasn't discrimination because it only applied to gays? There is a very long history of gun control being used as a tool of discrimination and opression - the nazi thing certainly, but also the extensive use in the US from slave days until very recently (and ongoing) - for example, even pro-control sources describe things like the saturday night special bans as being specifically targeted at blacks (the n-town special) See our article Saturday_night_special which covers this. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• "There is a very long history of gun control being used as a tool of discrimination"--I hope you have better sourcing for that claim than this current article. You certainly can't prove it for the Nazi period--not with a bunch of articles from the NYT about what the Nazis did on this and that day. Again, cite me a neutral (better yet, non-US) scholar of Nazi history who verifies that claim. You can't synthesize it from one single item pulled from much more comprehensive legislation coupled with some cherrypicked quotes about some guns confiscated in Berlin. (And for the US, I think it's a crock of BS, but I also think we should cite neutral scholarship, not the Holbrooks of the world.)

  But again, that wasn't my main point. I find it remarkable that no one addresses them. Do I need to repeat? a. the sourcing is atrocious; b. the section places undue weight on one particular aspect: the control, rather than the utter relinquishing of gun control for others. c. there is no rationale for focusing on gun control exclusively in authoritarian states unless your POV gives you that rationale. With your claims about gun control in the US being used as a political tool you're pretty much a self-identified conspiracy theorist, and it seems clear to me that you're looking to make a statement about Nazi Germany to lend credence to a political point of view. For the record, I'll state my POV: I do not believe that gun control has been used by the state to further political goals. I also do not believe that relaxing gun laws has been used by the state to further political goals. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I think that you made many good comments regarding improvement of / issues with article quality. You also expressed hope that they would be addressed. I think that blending them into an RFC that is on a different narrower topic (mere inclusion vs. exclusion of certain instances of gun control) is giving them a higher risk of not getting utilized, but I think that we should do so, even if not within the RFC. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

North, you know I like you--probably because you're not just "North", but North eight fucking thousand! You put the pedal to the medal, BOLDly. I hope my main objection is clear: the statement is made a couple of times, off-hand and unverified, that dictators use gun laws to enforce their politics, in one shape or another. Note the easy comments about Mao and Hitler and all. But this general claim needs serious and impartial verification. A person can make a biased claim in an otherwise reliable source: "reliable" points to fact checking and such, and a statement like "dictators use gun laws etc." is always going to be a matter of interpretation based on historical data. It has to be, unless a dictator comes out and says it explicitly, which they haven't done AFAIK. So reliability is one thing, but neutrality is another--and it is one of our pillars. That's why I can't accept Halbrook et al.

Lost in the mix, though I tried to bring it up, is that loosening gun restriction could conceivably used in the same way as tightening them. Given the historical circumstances (as indicated by Steinweis), Jews in Germany, 1938, simply didn't have large amounts of firearms, and what they had was memorability (obviously I'm giving a shorthand summary, painting with a somewhat broad brush). So restricting Jewish gun ownership is probably a minor issue. Much more important, it seems to me, is loosening regulations on certain groups, and I'll synthesize a bit to show you why: hunters in Nazi Germany are much more likely to be politically aligned with the regime, since hunting traditionally is a matter of an upper class ("hunting" in the 20th century simply doesn't mean the same thing in Europe as it does in the US; for the Nazis, hunting was a way of expressing an aristocratic, Germanic heritage: see this study, pages 22, 60, 97); more importantly, the NSDAP is by definition the ruling regime. Again, loosening gun restrictions for Nazi party members is a big step, and much more important and threatening to the Jewish population. We should not forget that "gun control" doesn't just mean "restricting access": it means "governing access", and exempting certain groups from having to get a permit is a part of that governance. Which is why the summary of the 1938 law I gave above includes those points as well. If we restrict our summary to the Jews and prohibitions on gun ownership, we are slanting the historical record. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(added later)Drmies (how 'bout Drmies9000?) I agree with almost everything that you just said, but it seems to be addressing questions other then mere inclusion of this as an instance of gun control. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, you mentioned a prohibition on slaves owning guns in the US as an analogy earlier on. A full analogy would be that US slaves (analogous to Jews) were not allowed to have guns, but slave hunters and owners (analogous to NSDAP members) (or card-carrying KKK members?) could own anything they wanted. Which part of that analogy is more important? Remember that guns cost money and that NSDAP members came from a militaristic gun culture, or at least ascribed to it. I think that's what Goethean was hinting at earlier with the Luger--an officer's weapon. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about slaves. As far as I know there were no laws specifically targeting gun ownership by slaves (while they were considered property, I doubt it even occurred to anyone to try and limit via legislation ANYTHING as they were non-people). I was talking more about reconstruction/jim crow/civil rights era laws that were used as tools of discrimination/repression post slavery. If the default case is "allowed" then obviously the important part of the analogy is who is not allowed. Everyone can marry, except teh gays. Everyone can vote, except the women. In saudi arabia, everyone can practice their religion (as long as its Islam). everyone can own guns, except the jews/blacks. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But even that analogy is incomplete: not everyone in Nazi Germany except Jews could own guns: if our article is correct, most citizens would still require permits for handguns, but not Nazi party members. To stick to your other analogy, all straight citizens can marry, but Republican (or Democratic, or whatever) citizens don't have to pay for their marriage license, or even get one. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

based on your comment, I did a quick bit of research and was somewhat surprised. nazi party membership peaked at about 7% of the population, I had thought at by the end practically everyone was a member (if nothing else just to avoid suspicion) - However, I disagree that there is a flawed analogy. Nazis don't need permits. General public needs permits. Jews cannot get permits and weapons are actively confiscated. There is no argument from anyone here, nor anyone in the literature denying the basic facts: Jews had their weapons confiscated as one of the tools of repression and genocide by the Nazis. Certainly there can be disagreement as to the importance of this fact (above somewhere you attempted to argue the counterfactual of something along the lines of did it make a difference). For the most part that argument is irrelevant - is a significant minority viewpoint on the topic of gun controlthat this is a notable bit of history and should be included. The repeated accusations of fringe are ludicrous - even the detractors agree with the basic facts! Regarding the selective choice of facts in history - converting the section to actually present the POV of those who hold the position would deal with this, they made the selection of facts notable, not us. You may dislike or disagree with Halbrook, Kates, Polsby, etc - but it is undeniable that they are notable minority voices on the topic of gun control (How many cases have your preferred sources argued and won in front of SCOTUS, on the topic of gun control?, How many briefs on the topic of gun control were joined and signed by a majority of congress that they wrote?) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You may dislike or disagree with Halbrook, Kates, Polsby, etc - but it is undeniable that they are notable minority voices on the topic of gun control

So what? There are hundreds or thousands of other notable minority voices on the topic of gun control. We need to try to write a decent article rather than inserting our pet issue into the article, whether it fits or not. We need to summarize the most neutral and most authoritative sources rather than "Hey this one guy wrote this thing and I think it's just swell, so I'll insert a section about how gun control is authoritarian". — goethean 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." we do NOT pick just the one view, but represent ALL views. That you do not like sources or their POV does not make the not WP:RS and as you have already admitted, I have many sources. Your continued effort to whitewash this topic of any possible negative information is a travesty of wikipedia's pillars. There are pros and cons to every policy and listing only the pros is not neutrality. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please spare me your fake outrage. We do not need to include the theories of your pet right-wing author. This article needs to be a balanced account, rather than the atrocious right-wing view of history that you and your RFC buddies have foisted on this page in direct violation of Wikipedia's core policies. — goethean 21:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It is curious that this article discusses several examples of gun laws in certain authoritarian countries which are typically used as exemplars of evil but doesn't discuss gun laws in most contemporary nations. It is also curious that the article barely describes one of the distinctive pieces of Nazi weapons policy - that they banned Jews from owning all weapons, not just guns. I knew a man who was a kosher butcher in Germany in the 30s. He had to surrender his butcher's knives to the local officials and he was thrown into Buchenwald, although he was able to emigrate to America before the war started. After the war he wrote to the local government and asked for his knives back and, amazingly, they found them and sent them back to him. Such is German efficiency. A good story, but I think the broader point is that Drmies expresses a valid concern, if we're going to discuss Nazi weapons legislation, we should describe all of its aspects, and not just those that seem to inform contemporary debate. GabrielF (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This RfC appears to be invalid

Afterlooking in detail at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, I have come to the conclusion that this RfC is malformed, and consequently invalid, for the following reasons:

(a) The subject matter, 'Authoritarianism and gun control', appears not to have been the subject of discussion on this talk page since July. The RfC was opened out of the blue, without any prior discussion. RfCs are intended as a mechanism to involve others in an existing discussion, when debate is deadlocked. Opening one at random for no obvious reason seems to me to be an abuse of process.

(b) THe RfC statement makes no pretence at neutrality. It cites a list of 'sources' compiled entirely by the RfC opener without any prior discussion whatsoever, and asserts as fact the very issue which appears to be under debate - the degree to which there is any correlation between the regulation of firearms and authoritarianism. It should be noted that Gaijin42 is well aware that in the case of Nazi Germany, it has repeatedly been pointed out that the Nazis relaxed firearms control for large sectors of the population, and yet the RfC wording implies entirely the contrary. A RfC based on a falsehood cannot possibly be acceptable.

Given these concerns, I have to suggest that the RfC should be closed forthwith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are claiming as being an "assertion of fact" is not, it is posed as the first question, put into Wikipedia content terms. Whether not it exists in a suitable amount in sources. Second, it looks like what sparked the RFC was Goethen's recent attempted large deletion of this material, as the RFC followed right after that attempted large deletion. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. Answering the last cavil first -- I see no reason to argue that the matter is phrased in a non-neutral manner, nor has that been found a valid cause for closure historically on Wikipedia. The first cavil likewise fails -- as long as the RfC is widely responded to, the issue of whether it ought to have been "pre-discussed" is moot -- the general rule is that the broader the range of participants, the more readily WP:CONSENSUS is met, and it is that policy which is the basis for RfC n the first place. The idea that a "pre-discussion" is needed before a "real discussion" occurs has not been used in the past, but is a novel argument here. Cheers -- it looks from here that there is broad participation here, and the goal well ought be to achieve a consensus rather than make legal arguments about what is a "discussion" and what is a "pre-discussion." "RfC" means that a discussion is requested, and nothing more. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing 'novel' about suggesting that the subject of a RfC should have been discussed first, in order to ascertain what exactly should be asked. As for your ridiculous claim that the phrasing isn't "non-neutral", are you seriously suggesting that a complete misrepresentation of historical fact is appropriate in an RfC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The query is 1.Are authoritarian uses of gun control (in particular Nazi, but others as well) sufficiently sourced by reliable sources

If you feel that they are false, then you likely feel that the claims are not sufficiently well-sourced. That you resort to calling the phrasing "non-neutral" because you know the material is a "complete misrepresentation of historical fact" is, unfortunately not an exactly neutral phrasing. Would you find "Should the complete bullshit about Nazi and other authoritarian regimes using gun control be put into this article?" to be "neutral"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The article fails NPOV miserably. That's the point. In fact, it doesn't even try. A group of editors argued furiously for months to get the article to a slightly less obviously extremely biased place. Gaijin42 and North8000, of course, kicked and screamed the entire way, strongly preferring a version that was clearly an inaccurate, and false version of history.

Gaijin42 has made a few of these RFCs and they are invariably and obviously phrased to his advantage. This time it's no different. He knows that he's got dozens of RSs to back up the "facts" that he uses to buttress the extreme right-wing version of history, so he asks if he has RSs. And he asks if the section should be removed entirely. Removing the section would actually improve the article dramatically, but it's clear that that's off the table due to a bloc of editors who are determined to keep this article as some kind of talking points memo for an anti-gun control ideology. There are very serious issues with this article, and Gaijin42's RFC neatly side-steps these very serious issues, as they always do. The article is in terrible, terrible shape, and Gaijin42's RFC merely compounds these issues rather than attempting to resolve anything, as usual. — goethean 15:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I quit this article in disgust over that section months ago, and when I was notified of this RfC I was amazed to find the text in even worse shape. There's not a shred of value to it. It's all SYNTH and POV spin. This entire article should be blanked and started from scratch in an orderly way. Why not? SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I find this kind of procedural attempt to shut down a discussion that's not going in Andy's favor surprising even from Andy. This sub-thread is just a distraction, especially when I;ve heard some interesting arguments above but I've also seen some familiar names repeat the same dug-in statements over and over. Shadowjams (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we've moved past it at this point. We seem to be making some headway with reformatting the sections (see below) to lessen the POV creep and if nothing else, put the more controversial content into a section with better context. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

How were nazi gun control laws considered "authoritarian" compared with the stricter laws of the Weimar Republic? TFD (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a valid RFC to me. I wouldn't have given a !vote otherwise. I don't think it would have been proper for me to have given a !vote if I thought the RFC was invalid. That would have been rather contradictory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Japan

The history section is light. I attempted to add the beginnings of a section on the firearms control of Japan's Shogunate. It was well referenced and is notable. While I hadn't added more to the detail of the total elimination of the firearm from Japan begining in 1607, it is inappropriate to remove well referenced material like this. There are entire histories of the shogunate and its suppresion of firearms. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section because it had one sentence on gun control, and several paragraphs on just the use of guns in Japan. I have no objection to inclusion of gun control in japan (historical or modern) but the content must be actual on the topic of gun control, not the general history of guns. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we add that section here so we can decide? We have gun articles that need additional material. Maybe it can go in one of those?-Justanonymous (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, content may be more appropriate in List_of_gun_laws_and_policies_by_country (in a subsection under Japan) - as I think the intent of this article is to be more an overview of the concept of gun control, rather than a description of specific gun control policies. (The above discussion notwithstanding, which is less about the actual use of gun control in Nazi germany, and the use of nazi germany as the most notable example of gun control as a tool of authoritarianism) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well unless this is supposed to be titled "Gun control in 20th century western countries" perhaps we should broaden the history section. I think it is entirely appropriate to add bit on Japan to the historical section. I would note that since this has nothing to do with current law (1607), it doesn't fit at all in a list of gun laws by country. How can we not have an article overviewing gun control and not mention Japan's shogunate which is the only society to have largely eliminated (even for a time) guns? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets be clear, Japan of the Edo period was a tightly regimented and centrally controlled society, an island kingdom, culturally homogenous and geographically isolated. I think there is a reason why they controlled widespread gun use sucessfully, the fact they did should be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a general topic of gun control. To an extent, there's a richer history of arms control that stretches back into antiquity that can and should be covered somewhere if not here. Guns only go back a few hundred years. At the end of the day, so long as it's on point regarding gun control, we can include an aspect of this. As I recall only Samurai could have swords in ancient times and they were at liberty to kill any peasant that gave even the most trivial of offenses....the same was true in Europe of knights and the coat of arms is what gave the knight the right to have arms. Arms control and gun control have been with us for a long long time. It's hard to talk about it because of the politics but I wish we could treat it more sensibly here. Very hard to write a quality article when there is this much animosity though. Sad. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In the "Terminology and context" section it addresses Arms control and explains that Gun control is a subset of that topic. I think if we get off that track, this is a lost cause. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

the first 3 paragraphs ( have nothing to do with gun control, they are a history of guns in japan, which is not the topic of this article. the 4th pagagraph is tangentally related to gun control (reasons samurai don't like guns) and only the 5th is actually about gun laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the article about national gun laws. It is the broader article about gun control. In Japan guns went from virtually non-existent to the critical arms technology in 50 years and then were controlled and supressed by the state. I think its important to briefly put in the first part of that history because it informs the "gun control" aspect. That is to say you can't understand why and how Japan controlled guns unless you understand the background. Others may disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sources suggestion

I'd like to offer a source of a neutral (or at least not directly gun issue involved) source of references about gun control in Nazi Germany. Karl Dietrich Bracher is a very well respected author on the subject of totalitarianism and its application in Germany. Off the top of my head, I don't know if any of his books discuss the subject of gun control, but I'm going to start looking. If someone knows of a similar source for Japan, Russia, or anywhere else, please suggest them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My RFC linked to several such sources. Here are several neutral histories, discussing the Holocaust (some specifically Kirstallnacht) and discussing Jewish gun confiscation

• 48 Hours of Kristallnacht: Night of Destruction/dawn of the Holocaust : an Oral History pg. 11
• Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1 pg. 507
• KRISTALLNACHT 1938 pg. 39
• The Complete History of the Holocaust pg. 68

I also listed several german language holocaust histories discussing disarmament. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it is undisputed that disarmament was an aspect of the holocaust, just as it is undisputed that lots of other states have controlled their citizens access to arms. But this article is not about the holocaust, but about Guncontrol. What we need are neutral sources about guncontrol, and then we'll see if they consider the holocaust to be a relevant aspect of a discussion about guncontrol. Looking for all kinds of sources that mention disarmament or restrictive gunpolicies and then inserting them here is OR, and not how we do things here. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! How about

• Guns in American Society
• Open Fire: Understanding Global Gun Cultures
• Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada
• Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America
• (The #2 result on google book search for "gun control") Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Gun Control
• Encyclopedia of gun control and gun rights

Or the many others i already listed Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup - Scalhotrod's overt admission that he is looking for sources to cherry-pick to support the dubious premise that 'gun control' equals 'authoritarianism' is entirely indicative of the whole way this article has been concocted. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia that such behaviour has been allowed to continue as long as it has. Blatant POV-pushing like this needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's terrible behavior. Scalhotrod said that they were going to look for sources relevant to the question at hand, and you turn that into a big string of insults and accusations as if such were wrong behavior (which it isn't) . North8000 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm somewhat flattered and feel a bit vindicated. In order to earn that kind of rebuke from Andy, I must be on the right track otherwise he wouldn't be trying to undermine my idea so vehemently. I'm not insulted, I'm encouraged... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If he's not POV-pushing, then it's an potential WP:Competence issue (and not just on the part of Scalhotrod, but on the part of the authors of the Nazi material), as this is clearly not the way to write a neutral Wikipedia article on gun control. "Let's find sources that connect the topic to my pet issue!" Instead, we need to find good, general, neutral, authoritative sources on the topic of the article (i.e. Gun control), and summarize them fairly. If they don't mention your pet issue at all, then that's a great big clue that your pet issue should not be mentioned in the article. This is extremely basic and frankly weird that it needs to be explained. — goethean 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a search for suitable sources (and thus also reflecting on whether or not they exist) is a very Wikipedian way to try to address the question at hand. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR engaged in to promote fringe perspectives is not 'the Wikipedian way'. It seems evident from this thread that elements of the pro-gun lobby active here are entirely unwilling to comply with NPOV - which would start by looking for sources discussing the subject matter in general, to see how much (if any) emphasis was put on any supposed link with 'totalitarianism' - and is instead engaging in systematic behaviour to promote the views of a minority unsupported by mainstream historiography. If such behaviour continues, I have little doubt that at some point sanctions will have to be applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Peer Reviewed Sources

Some editors here don't want to accept WP:RS from reputable journals that are peer reviewed. That's plainly unacceptable. They're labeling some of those authors as "ideologues." We have to be very careful what to decide there. Some people label scientists like Professor Michael Mann as an ideologue over on the Climate change articles but if he's published in Nature or some other reputable journal, his work is accepted into the Wiki. It's not like we're accepting Professor Mann's personal blog into the Wiki, but when his work makes it through the gauntlet of the journals Nature or Science, he and his rigorous work is most welcome. I don't understand why we're trying to establish a double standard or why one editor without any backing comes on and starts labeling articles published in journals as not meeting the standard simply because he personally doesn't like the author, even if the author is a respected authority on the subject. These articles do clearly meet the standard. The particular editor doesn't like it, so he's just POV pushing. That's also unacceptable. I'm opening this up on the talk page in the hopes of avoiding yet another edit war on the article page. Can we all agree that Peer Reviewed, Reputable journals are fine as WP:RS even if the author might be seen by some opponents as biased? To an extent we all carry our biases with us but Here, we're supposed to be Wikipedians First. Or should I go tell the esteemed editors over at Global Warming that their pro AGW, peer reviewed, academically credentialed and sound sources are just ideologues and that their work doesn't merit inclusion too!? --- I'm sure they're going to come out swinging!-Justanonymous (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you made clear (a) what the source cited is, and (b) what it is being cited for. It is certainly not the case that all peer reviewed journals are considered automatically reliable, and nor is it the case that everything cited to a reliable source is itself automatically considered reliable. It all depends on context. I suggest that you first provide the relevant details here, and if we can't come to an agreement, take it to WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious he's talking about this edit. --Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the work of Stephen Halbrook on the history of gun control is comparable to the work of Michael E. Mann on climate change? If so, then you are either lying or incompetent. Michael E. Mann is considered an expert in his field, although his work is derided by ideologues who are bribed by oil corporations. Stephen Halbrook#Criticism is a right-wing ideologue who is paid to produce anti-gun control articles. He got one published in a journal, so of course we MUST quote him in this article, because this article is a clearinghouse for all of the right-wing anti-gun garbage that certain editors feel like shoveling into it. Right? — goethean 18:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He also argues and wins gun control cases in front of SCOTUS, writes briefs for SCOUTS cases that are signed by a majority of congress (that take the winning position), has written books cited and referenced hundreds of times by other gun control sources, and that receive international awards. So yes, within the topic of gun control, he is absolutely the equivalent to Mann. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Appearing before a court to make a partisan political point is not the highest honor a scholar can receive. In fact, it's not an honor or mark or distinction at all, and it doesn't mean that he's an expert. It means that he is politically useful to a group of politicians, just as he is useful to editors attempting to impose a certain ideology on this article. — goethean 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And equating this nobody with Michael E. Mann's stature in climate is nothing short of hilarious. — goethean 19:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The nobody in question has gone before the Supreme court of the United States and won. Just because you don't know him, or don't like him is no reason to bash him-Justanonymous (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment. That's not relevant in the evaluation of a scholar's level of expertise. It shows that he is particularly useful to partisan politicians, nothing more. — goethean 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not the question, can we use peer reviewed academic journals? I know you don't like or value his contributions to society and the broader debate. The point is that there are many such people out there invested in what they do and sometimes like Mann, they are working at the cutting edge of their field and they do publish in top journals. Their work should be accepted per the standard.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that this source has already been raised at WP:RSN - by Gaijin42. [10] It seems to me that, given Halbrook's overt advocacy of a particular perspective on the issue, he should be cited only as attributed statements for his own position. He can hardly be cited as an impartial scholarly source. General statements about what went on in Nazi Germany with regard to firearms regulation should be cited to sources without an axe to grind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a suggestion, we're not going to win the author issue. It's clear that Andy and Goethean don't value Halstead's contributions while they love Mann. I'm sure I can find a sampling of editors that hold the opposite view. Personally, I have no issues with Mann or with Halstead provided that the work we cite is peer reviewed in a reputable journal. A diatribe from Halstead or Mann published in a CNN editorial or lifted from Greenpeace or the NRA page would probably be unacceptable for inclusion in the Wiki. The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The next snide of-topic personal attack made by you is going to be raised at WP:ANI. I made no comment whatsoever on Mann - in fact I had to look him up to ascertain who exactly was being referred to - and your assertion that I 'love Mann' is not only obnoxious, irrelevant, and a clear attempt to sidetrack this discussion, but a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick to the question at hand then and I'll ask for the same civility from you please Andy, " The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand."-Justanonymous (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous is confusing "reliable sources" and "neutral point of view". Halbrooks's facts in his peer-reviewed article may be assumed to be reliable. In order to present his opinions, we need to assess the degree of acceptance they have in reliable sources. That is exactly the same case with Mann. Neutrality also determines what facts are relevant to the article, and that can be established by determining the weight that reliable sources provide them. You need to show that the 1938 firearms act in Germany has more significance then thousands of other firearms acts in order to single it out for inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I "love" Mann? I "love" Mann? I don't know the guy. I was addressing his status in the climate field. You (apparently) think that Stephen Halbrook's status in the field of gun control is the same as Mann's in the climate field, which is hilariously wrong. Should I make some comment about whether you are fucking Halbrook or not, just to match your comment that I "love" Mann?

The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand.

No, the question is why a group of editors insists on defending and promoting a clearly false, inaccurate and one-sided version of history in this article, and how that group's desires, which run directly, precisely against Wikipedia's most central policy, can be corrected. That's the question, everything else is a distraction. — goethean 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what is being supported. If a writer (with an axe to grind) said that 1. President Obama flew to Atlanta yesterday and that 2. The trip is basically a fund raising trip even though they claimed otherwise, they are probably suitable support for (unattributed) statement #1, but not #2. Similarly, straightforward coverage of gun control in Germany then vs. more ambitions statements like it being a tool for suppression etc. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. That is a sick fantasy promoted by an American gun promotion lobby, not by historians. — goethean 19:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an author with a JD and a PhD, who was a long-time academic before becoming a widely published author and attorney. The ref is from a peer-reviewed RS. I understand that some on the left don't agree with him or his positions but that is really beside the point. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law is a recognised authority on the historiography of Nazi Germany? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he's apparently saying its an authority on gun control. — goethean 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right, that is beside the point of fixing this hideously unbalanced article. Halbrook shouldn't be cited, because neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. — goethean 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhmm. Why? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. It doesn't matter. This section is about a tag about reliability. The ref is RS. This other stuff is off point. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, on your previous post:

• As defined by dictionary.com Gun Control: "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms". And the others are all similar.

And you are claiming that it would take a "sick fantasy" to say that such occurred in Nazi Germany? I think that the fantasy would be to deny the obvious, that such did occur. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said as you can see by reading my comment. Here, I'll link it. Neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. — goethean 20:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

we determine neutrality by using the reliable sources. Halbrooks MANY works are reliable sources. Excluding a particular POV which is describing an opinion about 100% established facts, because you disagree with it is the antihithesis of neutrality. You have provided zero sources to defend your opinion, just a lot of hyper melodramatic teeth-gnashing. meethings the lady doth protest too much. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you take it to WP:RSN? Oh wait, you've already done that. Didn't like the answer, I assume... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The sole comment RSN said "But the author of this article is a nationally known expert, though the position e takes is controversial. What he publishes anywhere can be used as a RS, though, as with anything in this debate, it can not be quoted as definitively settling the issue it discusses. " so no, I am quite happy with that answer. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, your linked post essentially says that gun control in Nazi Germany should not be covered, and that such is a "sick fantasy". Unlike what you implied in a subsequent post, I think that my post directly addressed that. If not, where is the disparity? North8000 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. It is a deliberate distortion to call the Holocaust an example of gun control. The people using this language, like Stephen Halbrook, make the distortion in order to paint supporters of gun control as authoritarians. How many more times would you like to go over this? — goethean 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nobody who disagrees with Halbrook on the fact of gun control being used as a tool of the holocaust. EVERY source. 100% that touch the issue admit the basic facts. Harcourt, Slate, Mother jones, take your pick. they may disagree on the effect of this within the holocaust, and may also disagree on what implications this may or may not have for modern gun control debate, but NOBODY disagrees that gun control was implemented against the jews as an intentional part of the holocaust. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The article in its present state is a hideous distortion of history. — goethean 20:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, Gaijin42 just gave you a great opportunity to present one single refuting fact and instead you retort with some vacuous curt statement, "The article in its present state is a hideous distortion of history". Very typical of you and I guess would have to take your word for it that the article is a hideous distortion Goethean and Andy because in all these posts, you've given nothing substantial except personal attacks, condemnations, threats and accusations. Unfortunately for you, we don't -- I'll take it then that peer reviewed articles used here that are well referenced and published in peer reviewed journals presented in NPOV and supported by WP:RS and that comply with Wikipedia policy are just fine here. Thank you. I think we're done-Justanonymous (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you seriously think that being 'peer reviewed' makes something automatically reliable for anything more than the author's opinions, take it to WP:RSN. Or would you rather not do that in case you get the same answer as the last time this exact same source was raised there? [11] If we cite Halbrook at all (for which we'd first need evidence from credible independant sources that the subject matter is actually relevant to the article in the first place), we can do so - as an attributed opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump The section above lists at least4 of the neutral gun control sources which reprint or discuss Halbrooks article. There are a number more which are in the large list of sources I linked in the RFC. I loko forward to hearing your hand waving explanation about why they don't count. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, the bare facts that are being referenced to Halbrook are not disputed Harcourt. Harcourt is the only source we have that questions Halbrook. In his piece, however, Harcourt acknowledges the basics of Halbrook's writing, it his conclusions that he he disagrees with. Harcourt says disarming the jews is orthogonal to the Nazi program. Harcourt disagrees vehemently with the overall argument and it's direction. In Harcourt's view Hitler is pro-gun because he lessened gun regulation for "ordinary Germans". That is an argument that we could have but it doesn't address the present issue. Even Harcourt acknowledges the core legal/policy statements of Halbrook as accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

there is zero dispute of any of the facts, and we (or at least I) are more than happy to accept the source as backing merely the opinion of the authors regarding those facts. The opposers have repeatedly stated their objection to including these opinions - if that objection is removed than certainly we have room to build consensus on how exactly to correctly attribute the opinions represented in these sources. You are proposing a bar that does not exist - There are dozens and dozens of books and articles discussing this meme - the notability of the viewpoint is inherent to the sources being published, no tertiary coverage of the source is required.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are 'dozens and dozens of books and articles' discussing flying saucers. We don't cite them regarding facts. And no, I'm not asking for 'tertiary sources'. I'm asking for independent sources for the assertion that Halbrook's opinions on Nazi Germany are relevant to a general discussion on firearms regulation. Without that, there is no justification for including his opinion at all. Find the credible independent sources covering firearms regulation in general that cover the topic on Nazi Germany in any depth, and we can then discuss whether Halbrook needs inclusion. Without such sources, the issue is moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the very definition of a tertiary source. Halbrook is a secondary source. The other gun control books are secondary sources. They are published reliable sources (at a minimum of their authors opinions) . The shared opinion is inherently notable by the publication of those multiple sources. Tertiary notability is NOT required by WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. 'Sources covering firearms regulation in general' cannot possibly be 'tertiary' in an article on'firearms regulation in general'. Please at least attempt to present a rational argument... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate way to mention Halbrook is that he speaks for American anti-gun control groups. But that's not a sufficiently notable episode in the world history of gun control to mention in this article. Out of hundreds of historians in dozens of countries, this American conservative says that the Holocaust was an example of gun control. It's simply not appropriate for an article on a worldwide phenomenon to discuss at length the theories of American anti-gun control politicians on the Holocaust, esp. when a more neutral version of the history is available already at Gun politics in Germany! It's like mentioning debunked Serbian nationalist theories in the article on the Siege of Constantinople. The article would need to be book-length for inclusion to be appropriate. — goethean 22:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Halbrook is not the only ref in that section that is dealing with the Holocaust in terms of the gun control issue. Harcourt's paper does as well, suggesting that this is a recurring theme in gun control policy discussions. It should be noted that one of Halbrook's book on this subject has been published in four languages and that he has written articles on this issue in European law journals. So I would submit that perhaps this is a significant disussion in the issue of gun control and not just in the United States. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean RJ Rummel's book, Death by Government, which is also cited in the article? That definitely sounds like the most neutral and authoritative source on the history of gun control. Definitely. — goethean 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, no. I was thinking Polsby, Daniel. "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly.p1237 and The Complete History of the Holocaust Capitalismojo (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the The Complete History of the Holocaust ever mention the phrase "gun control"? — goethean 23:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You got me. We are supposed to be discussion the tag in the section and you moved the discussion back into a broader discusion about whether there should even be such a section at all. I thought that was what the RfC above was to decide. I haven't weighed in up there yet. Lets finish the "unreliable source" tag on the law review article issue first shall we? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a veteran editor. You know well that if the cited reference does not mention the topic of the article, it violates WP:OR. And yet you don't know if the book that you just added a page number to[12] mentions the topic of the article. The cited books.google.com URL is a search on the word weapons in the book. Is the implication here that if a book on the Holocaust mentions weapons, then it can be cited as an authoritative source for the idea that the Holocaust is an example of gun control? That's a stunning violation of both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. — goethean 00:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The proper course is to ask at RS/N whether the cite given supports the claim made. If you wish to accuse any editor of "violating Wikipedia policy" then post at AN/I. The article talk page is not the place to make such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Let's go over this conversation again. Capitalistmojo adds a page number to a citation. I ask him if the book mentions gun control at all. He doesn't know. Your position is....is what? Take it to a noticeboard? The reference is a fraud. I have removed it. — goethean 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

you are a vandal. the reference cited linked directly to a discussion of the Nov 11 law which prohibited jews from owning firearms and other weapons. You either clearly did not bother to read the source on the exact location linked, or deliberately chose to ignore the relevant content. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Then take me to WP:AN/V. Or answer the question why we are using sources that don't mention gun control when a plethora of good relevant sources are available. — goethean 13:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAME WP:DE

Yah, deleting the section under discussion of an RFC that has been in the article for many months is totally not disruptive gaming. You are not a winner. Please play again! Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Law Journal as "unreliable"

The key thing is that Harcourt is the source of the idea that Halbrook is unreliable on this issue. Deeper in his piece, however, Harcourt ackowledges Halbrooks basic facts. It is his overall conclusions he disagrees with. In his paper he says essentially "Yes, the Nazis disarmed and killed the jews but Hitler was actually pro-gun for the average German." He then explains why. He is in this argument suggesting that the pro-gun argument using the Hitler/Nazi policies won't wash.

My point here is that we have a ref from:

• a specialist lawyer,
• PhD,
• former academic,
• who has written broadly on the subject
• writes frequent academic peer reviewed articles (7 in recent years I found)
• won before SCOTUS on the issues being discussed,
• whose main critic ackowledges he got the basics right,
• writing in an academic peer-reviewed journal

Are we really having a debate about whether this law review article is an "unreliable source"? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we're trying to explain to you why the Holocaust has nothing to do with gun control. Which is what you just explained. Which is why the section on the Holocaust is inappropriate to this article. — goethean 23:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You repeating your argument over and over again without giving it any backing is not explaining or debate, especially when your opponent has said something new. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No this has been about (or was supposed to be about) the tag "unreliable source" put on a law review article. Apparently you have been talking about something else. Why don't you agree that the law review ref is RS and we can start a new section on the larger issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder "This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced, but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement." The tagged ref is being used to support the statement: "Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all." This law review article is in fact reliable for this bare recitation of historical fact. Unless there is disagreement I will remove this tag for this statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, after my above conversation, the next thing that needs to happen is that all of the references need to be examined to see if they are as fraudulent as the one I just removed.[13] — goethean 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether the sources are reliable but what weight should be assigned to the opinions expressed in them and, also a matter of weight, how important the 1938 act is to the overall subject. For example, the 2003. ‘Special Provisions for Shot Gun Certificates.’ in the Local Government (Firearms Control) Regulations of Pitcairn Island may be interesting, but not necessarily important enough to include. TFD (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be a question. Lets resolve this specific little tiny gnomic question and everyone can get back to the vast delete/not-delete section debate. This small matter can be resolved if people will show good faith. Whether the entire subject should be removed is a different matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice that both TFD and goethean strongly believe that this section should not be in the article but neither expressed the thought that the law review was in fact unreliable for the specific bare historical fact. Given that, does anyone disagree with the removal of the tag (as opposed to the section)? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I had said earlier that it was rs. That means, assuming we used the source, we can assume the facts are accurate, unless proved otherwise. TFD (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, excellent. Somehow I missed that. Its good to get agreement on this most difficult of articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Note. It has now come to light that, contrary to claims above, the journal in question is not peer reviewed - see the thread below: [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed Bolshevik Russia, should we add a section on the UK

Bolshevik Russia section had no accessible RS refs, I have removed it. Looking at the lede, we mention the UK but there is no section in the body of the article. Should one be created? There are a variety of news and academic articles out there on gun control in the UK. I remember reading (some of) them. If we mention something in the lede generally we should have further detail in the body. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean no accessible refs? Were they all dead? . The issue with per country sections is that we already have List of gun laws and policies by country in adition to the Gun politics in the United Kingdom article. the Nazi section above may superficially appear to be in that same grouping, but it is here as part of an argument about gun control in general. (I agree it should be moved from the history to the arguments section - as long as it is clear that the historical factsare uncontested). Information about the UK may also be relevant under a similar rationale, discussing the effectiveness or not of gun control (similar to the AU content) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean two things. First: the refs were in russian. Second: After a fair amount of searching I found no comparable english refs to validate or verify the section. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Article format and sections

Not that I want to deter any of the spirited discussion regarding specific topics, but I'd like to start a conversation regarding the overall format of the article. Currently we have:

Lead

1 Terminology and context

2 History

2.1 Japan of the Shogunate

2.2 United States

2.3 Australia

2.4 Nazi disarmament of German Jews

3 Studies, debate, and opinions

4 3D printing

5 See also

6 References

7 External links

8 Further reading

I'd like to propose the following sections and order. Subsections have their own discussions, this is just for the sake of article cleanup and organization:

Lead

1 Terminology and context

2 Legal/Legislative basis (Magna Charta, Blackstone, 2nd Amendment, worldwide gun laws, etc.)

2 Opinions, beliefs, and factions (the main sides of the debate and/or an explanation of the continuum they represent)

3 Studies and debate (why they believe what they believe)

3 History

3.1 Peace time (legislation, rulings, and SCOTUS)

3.2 War time

3.3 Association with Totalitarianism

4 Implications of firearm development

4.1 Firearm evolution (firesticks to match/flint/caplocks to cartridge guns to machines guns/assault weapons)

4.2 [Related development] or some other/better title (smokeless powder, self contained metallic cartridge, changeable magazines, etc.)

4.3 3D printing

5 See also

6 References

7 External links

8 Further reading

And before anyone asks, yes, these sections are based on the references that we already have or that we know exist in related articles.<br?> Your (constructive) thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Would you consider working on this version in your sandbox so we could see what it might shape up to? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd be happy to, but I think I'm considered (regardless of my efforts or intentions to be neutral) one of the "pro-gun nuts". It might better if someone "more neutral" took a stab at it assuming the format makes sense to others. Any takers? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's like shoving your hand in a meat grinder. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, "Association with Totalitarianism" is a problem, isn't it. Let us not presuppose that there is such a connection. To give examples of totalitarian regimes banning guns (or something like that--"exercising rules on gun ownership" is more accurate) is no more valid than giving examples of non-totalitarian regimes banning guns, and including the former while excluding the latter (a long, long list) is lending UNDUE weight to an issue that we know is contentious--indeed, is fodder for propaganda. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about the title. "Restrictions on gun ownership for political purposes" would seem NPOV and apt for the cites given. Non-totalitarian regimes properly sourced as having controls for "political purposes" (I suggest disarming political opponents would generally fall into that category) would be then added with appropriate reliable sourcing. As long as all which use the controls for political purposes are allowed, there ought be no problems. Collect (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Collect, it almost sounds as if you're agreeing with me at least partly! Keep up the good work--you'll go far! Drmies (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I never choose my opinions on the basis of what someone else thinks -- you will find grumpy Andy noting this peculiarity of mine -- my positions, as best I can, are based on policies and guidelines the community establishes. I am, if anything, consistent in how I treat the rules, though I suspect some others make up their minds on the basis of what their friends think. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies and Collect, that's brilliant analysis, thank you! I'll stand by my original sections "Peace" and "War time" and leave it at that. All of the historical subjects we've been discussing fall under one or the other sub-topic and with better context. And with any luck will keep them brief, but accurate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure "peace" and "wartime" will work -- the Nazis were sorta at peace but definitely preparing for war in 1938, so dealing with that as a dichotomy is gonna be tough. Your system would require them in both sections, I fear. Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I picked those terms for a couple of reasons. One, they are fairly clear delineations IMO to the average reader (yes, people can debate specific dates, but I'd argue that most people understand even historically "when war time is imminent", "war is happening", and "war time is over") and, Two, its a loosely chronological schema that provides a framework far less determined by opinion and less likely to be obfuscated (whoo hoo, don't get to use that one often) by WP:UNDUE sections. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle with changing the format of the article, but I think an important prerequisite is to decide on the scope of the article, and to provide some sort of coherence. It seems to be accepted that "gun control" is a different thing from "gun legislation" or "gun politics", but there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what "gun control" actually is, or how it is distinguished from the other two concepts. The History section illustrates this perfectly. "Australia" deals with the reaction to two crimes involving guns, in 1996 and 2002; "United States" deals with 19th-century laws aimed specifically at slaves, then at blacks, before moving on to 20th-century laws that regulated certain kinds of gun or certain kinds of people, without providing much by way of rationale; "Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms", well, we know what that deals with; "Bolshevik Russia" (now deleted) talked about the fact that the Tsarists allowed revolutionaries to get guns, but the Bolsheviks made sure that counter-revolutionaries couldn't; and "Japan of the Shogunate" talks about the jealousy of 17th-century samurai! I can't see any connection whatever between these, apart from the similarity between American oppression of blacks and Nazi oppression of Jews. Simply changing the subsection headings to "Wartime", "Peacetime" and (Whatever you decide the third will be) will not give us a coherent history of gun control, or even a coherent definition. In fact, even if you decided to (and you were able to) make this an article about all these different concepts, I don't think it's appropriate to have a History section at all, because such a nebulous concept doesn't have a history. Better to have

Forms of "gun control"

Control for prevention of crime

Control for prevention of revolution or counter-revolution

Control for oppression of minorities

Control for protection of elites

etc., and use the Australian, Russian, American, German and Japanese cases to illustrate these. When we've sorted these issues out in our heads, maybe we can better decide what other section headings to have. Scolaire (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire, excellent suggestion and I find those perfect additions to either the "Terminology and context" section or possibly the proposed "Opinions, beliefs, and factions" section. Please also see my reply to Collect above which take your analysis into consideration as well. But I do not find the history of this topic to be nebulous, its varied and complex, but it indicates two causalities. An event happens which triggers a reaction, or, there is a pre-emptory action to accomplish a certain outcome. You've already given examples of both. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that all of these directions is probably better than the current version, which could merit inclusion and consolidation of the disputed content in a way that gives it appropriate weight compared to other uses of gun control, and correctly attributes historical facts vs opinions regarding those facts. Between the 3? choices I think the generic "Gun control for political purposes" is probably the best. The more narrow groupings above I think will be subject to contention over how to characterize the policies correctly. The war vs peace thing I think does not provide a lot of value in its organization, and would prevent the grouping of the jewish issue with the US jim crow issue, which I think are good compliments for each other (and would possibly allow for condensation (improving the WP:WEIGHT) of the content since much of the argument regarding the two sets of policies is similar and from similar sources). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gaijin (Welcome back!), so if not War/Peace, then "Gun control for political purposes" along with...?? Alternatively, what do you think of my "causality" delineation: An event happens which triggers a reaction, or, there is a pre-emptory action to accomplish a certain outcome. Both involve "control", but separate them by their intentions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think political purposes, vs crime & accident prevention perhaps as the obvious alternative. Obviously there could be conflict even with these two broad categories but most historical things will be easy to drop in one bucket or the other at this point. (Certainly even the opossers above would not argue that the nazi gun laws were for cime/violence/accident protection?) For modern issues where there is live debate, we can place the arguments of each side in the appropriate section (with appropriate WP:DUE weight of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, so maybe...

Lead

1 Terminology and context

2 Legal/Legislative basis (Magna Charta, Blackstone, 2nd Amendment, worldwide gun laws, etc.)

3 Opinions, beliefs, and factions (the main sides of the debate and/or an explanation of the continuum they represent)

4 Studies and debate (why they believe what they believe)

5 Implementation Causes(not in any particular order)

5.1 Crime prevention

5.2 Political purposes

5.3 Safety and consumer protection

5.3 Other (revenue, ecological, etc.)

6 History

7 Implications of firearm development

7.1 Firearm evolution (firesticks to match/flint/caplocks to cartridge guns to machines guns/assault weapons)

7.2 [Related development] or some other/better title (smokeless powder, self contained metallic cartridge, changeable magazines, etc.)

7.3 3D printing

8 See also

9 References

10 External links

8 Further reading

? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For #5 I would say "uses", perhaps, but not "causes". Gun control, however we decide to define it, is not "caused"; it is implemented by somebody for some purpose.

I still can't see how you're going to write the History of gun control. "Gun control first arose in the 17th century when Japanese samurai whinged about the downgrading of swordfighting, developed into a slavery mechanism in 19th-century America, served as a medium for exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany, and emerged as an insidious tactic to infringe the civil right to bear arms / a policy for reducing epidemic levels of gun crime in late 20th-century America and Australia"? I could write a section on arms control in Ireland during the Home Rule Crisis, 1912-14. It would be impeccably referenced, completely in line with current Irish historiography, and add another layer of utter confusion onto an already utterly confusing narrative. Better to integrate the historical material into the discussion of the varieties and uses of gun control. Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Even better wording... As for the history, I'd like to not be mired in the various rhetoric that's been tossed about. We can craft a couple of basic paragraphs explaining that its been used as a political tool as well as reactionary means over the decades, centuries, or whatever using the uncontentious examples of the lot. I'm not trying to provide an outlet for every claim. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with such a section if it could be fully inclusive as to time and place and it could be fully sourced from scholarly works that deal with the history of gun control as such. The state of the article at present strongly suggests to me that that will not be doable. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire that it is likely impossible to write such a history in a coherent fashion from the available sources. It might be possible to write a history of this US debate on gun control and the use of (instrumentalisation of) history and holocaust imagery, etc, within it, but I think that that is all. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole article should be about this US debate on gun control and the instrumentalisation of history and holocaust imagery etc. within it. Everything else that's in it at the moment is just for show, to pretend that this is some global historical subject when in fact pretty well all the editors are interested in just this one thing. Scolaire (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've repeatedly made the same suggestion: except that we already have an article on that subject: Gun politics in the United States. There is no need for another article on the same debate, though expansion may be an option, if proper sourcing from academic literature discussing the subject of the U.S. gun debate as a wholecan be found to avoid the WP:OR issues the article is currently burdened with. Given the subject matter, I'm sure such sources exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I presume the implementation of that suggestion would require a RFC on an article merge/delete? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Although it might theoretically fall under one of the headings, to me it seems to give short basic straightforward coverage of significant instances of gun control. This would probably be best done by countries. And when there is significant history, that would usually fall best under the country. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The way it "falls under the country" at the moment, you mean? Because I thought the idea was to improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That sort of implies the "under the country" is bad, but I don't know why such would be. Either way, that would be just one way to organize it. But I would think that straightforward coverage of significant instances of gun control would be central to the article. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See my two posts above for what I think about the current "under the country" format. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Guns and Germany, reboot

I've been reading Bernard Harcourt, "Hitler and Gun Registration" (it's linked in the article). Interesting stuff:

But even before the Treaty [of Versailles] was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession: on January 13, 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)—a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. (Page 8)

In other words, gun laws in Germany were much stricter in the time period before Hitler's rise to power: Hitler's restrictions had nothing on those of the Weimar Republic. If Hitler's supposed tightening (which we now all know was only one of a number of measures) of gun laws is worthwhile mentioning, then certainly Weimar's draconian gun laws are worth mentioning. So why don't we? Because the Weimar Republic is not a totalitarian regime--when the good guys enact strict gun control, we don't mention it, it seems. I don't know if all editors here have read Harcourt; they should. For the sake of NPOV, I'll order one of these shooting targets tonight. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that if we want a fork that goes into all the conspiracy theories then we should follow WP:FRINGE, which allows that, provided we have a neutral title. There are articles about how the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc. Why not have an article about what extreme gun people think? TFD (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

One really ought to follow AGF -- the "reductio" argument that all who believe Nazi Germany did, indeed, disarm the Jews are "extreme gun people" and that it is like saying the moon landing was faked is not really going to gain any traction in a reasoned discussion about gun control history. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Who says that, Collect? TFD isn't saying what you say they're saying. They're pointing at the well-known conspiracy theory about authoritarianism and gun control, I think, not about basic facts (which are a lot more complicated than has been proposed on these pages). Drmies (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In which case - read my comments above - and note what I consider a neutral section title, and that it could easily cover the topic properly. When aiming at a straw man, it helps to make sure it is actually made of straw. Collect (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I gotta say, I was already very wary about the inclusion of this stuff in the first place--reading what a real historian has to say is very insightful. Above, in the ole RfC, someone says "sure Hitler was all about gun control", so what Harcourt signals has been very effective. He also discusses that famous quote:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

And that quote turns out to be, basically, bogus--unattested, unverified, incongruous with the time and the events, etc. So by now I'm dead-set against its inclusion: it's not just cherrypicking from the 1938 legislation or from the historical record of all countries in all of the world, it's marred by basic errors, misreadings, and inconsistencies. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Harcourt is another law professor - this gun control argument has, not surprisingly, yet to make any kind of impact on the scholarly literature dealing with the history of holocaust. The fact that no historians address it (the argument and interpretation rather than the fact that there was such legislation) is a measure of its significance in the historiography of Nazi Germany. In my opinion, Halbrook et al. belong on WP, if at all, only in article dealing with the gun control debate in America (possible Brazil too) and only with proper contextualisation that traces the introduction of this historical analogy with the passage of the US 1968 Gun Control Act which it was alleged (by the advocacy group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) was a direct copy of the 1938 Nazi legislation. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968, and the recent history of that article, where this came up and has now gone the way of other conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't advocate the inclusion of a JFPO source or the treatment of their allegation regarding the 1968 legislation as in any way credible. The JFPO are fringe, no doubt. Rather, I think it would be valuable and informative to trace the origins and development of the analogy of firearm regulation with Nazism in American political discourse. Harcourt provides a lot of this context and, as with other sources [15], he indicates that the JFPO are part of the relevant context. The earliest reference I can trace for the comparison of firearm regulation to Nazi policies is to some militia periodicals in the early 1970s [16]. There are other reliable sources on the use of "holocaust imagery" in the US gun control debate that could also be used for context [17]. There have also been interesting treatments on the attempt to export US gun lobby rhetoric to Brazil [18] and (far less successfully) the UK [19]. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what weird sideroad you guys are going down with this Harcourt argument... but I agree with Drmies original post... the entire history of gun laws for the relevant regime should be included. That's a far cry from Drmies "very wary about the inclusion of this stuff" comment, but we already knew that's how you feel Drmies. There's obviously going to be battles over the language of that, but I think this is a no brainer resolution. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

On this, see Scolaire's excellent post above. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The "weird sideroad" is the Halbrook argument, "First they came for the guns." Harcourt merely writes about Halbrook's argument. Take out Halbrook and there is no need to add Harcourt. TFD (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, that the entire history for the relevant regime should be included is pure rhetoric: it cannot be done here, and if it's done anywhere it should be done in Gun legislation in Germany, which might be an interesting thing to write up. There is no rationale whatsoever to write up Germany here and not every other country in the world. You can give no reason for including Germany (and possibly Edo-Japan or Mao's China?) and excluding Finland, England, Swaziland, Mauritius, Mongolia, and every other country in the world--unless your argument already is that "totalitarian regimes restrict guns for blah blah", a presupposition previously made true in our article by cherrypicking and poor reading. So no. Harcourt is not a sideroad: the article clinches the scholarly assessment that the dictatorial gun controller thing is a myth (FRINGE). That's important here: Harcourt provides the rationale for excluding any partial mention of German gun control. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

drmies We currently have two overview articles This one, and List of gun laws and policies by country. This article should be an overview of the concept, not details on individual countries implementations. However, there are different types/puropses of gun control. (general) crime prevention, accident prevention, stopping spree killings. Other types oand purposes of gun control are obviously political - stopping revolution, class/race warfare, etc. It is entirely appropriate to have examples of each type for discussion in the overview article here, and the NAZI use (along with the weimar use, and perhaps others) are legitimate uses of illustrating and exemplifying the archetypes of gun control implementations, or as arguments for/against gun control (just as we include quotes and examples of how nifty it is at reducing crime in some place, but not others). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

drmies I think the harcourt article is excellent, both because it provides additional context (particular in regards to the '19 and '28 weimar law), and in fact directly agrees to the basic premise of the argument.

It is widely accepted (harcourt, library of congress) that the early laws were targeted directly against the Nazis, and other paramilitary groups that were threatening, and attempting to overthrow the weimar republic. (The government having effectively disarmed by the surrender terms of wwI was unable to control the armed groups engaging in what we today would probably term gang warfare). As late as '32 Heinrich Bruening attempted to ban the SA and SS (see rise and fall of the 3rd reich) (Ironically setting up the situation that enabled the Nazis to legally take control).

The subsequent laws enacted by Hitler were to a) rearm the nazis, in particular the private army SAs. 2) ensure familiarazation of the about to be conscripted public with firearms usage. 3)ensure the disarm all political opponents, specifically calling out jews. Harcourt repeatedly and explicitly gives up the game - sure he disagrees with the NRAs use of nazi imagery in modern debate. Yes he says "the nazi's were not in general pro gun control".

Both of those prior arguments are straw men, which do not in any way disprove the core history being argued - the core history which Harcourt specifically and explicitly admits to "Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weaponsincluding firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide ofthe Jewish population" or "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide".

Nobody on either sidedisagrees that Hitler armed his private army (SA, party), while disarming the people he was about to exterminate. So the fact that the nazis armed themselves and the "loyal" german public is really not an argument against the meme! Harcourt discusses this directly as well, quoting The Nazi minister of the interior "“If these provisions guarantee that no enemies of the National Socialist state possess any weapons, then it is justifiable and appropriate to relax the current limiting provisions of the Weapons Law for the population faithful to the state".

To AndyTheGrump (Saul)WP:FRINGE You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (/Saul) What part is fringe? That the nazis implemented gun control? That the gun control specifically targeted Jews? That there are a plethora of memos, diaries, and documents saying "Go attack the jews, they are disarmed so you shouldn't have any resistance"? That the jews were later exterminated? Please identify the specific facts which you think are fringe. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• What is fringe is the implication in this article that Nazi firearms regulations are in any way whatsoever central to an international overview of firearms regulation. You have been asked on countless occasions to provide sources to demonstrate that anyone but a minority of U.S. right-wing pro-gun activists consider it significant. You have entirely failed to do so. You can't because it doesn't exist. But again and again you resort to every tendentious and policy-violating trick in the book to promote this pseudohistorical propaganda. Either produce the sources required under policy to justify the inclusion of such material in this article, or find another platform to peddle this horseshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion, but in any case it is irrelevant. Neutrality says we represent ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Not just the ones you like. Not all points except pro gun activists. It is a notable pov, it should be included. You have previously admitted that this opinion is presented in reliable sources. That is the end of the discussion. ALL POVS from RSs should be included. " We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased" "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" I note that your repeated accusation of fringe is entirely baseless - as you have yet to identify a single factual assertion you think is untrue. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, you grossly misrepresent Wikipedia policy in order to promote your propagandistic hogwash WP:UNDUE is completely and utterly unambiguous on this:

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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Produce the evidence, from academic sources discussing the general topic of firearms regulation, that this particular 'Nazi' issue is relevant to the broader discussion, rather than being the ahistorical propagandising of a fringe minority within a single country. Or accept that you will have to find another soapbox. Significance within a topic only be demonstrated by sources which discuss the topic as a whole - no matter how much cherry-picking and Google mining you engage in, without such sources, WP:WEIGHT has to apply, and this issue relegated to its proper place - in an article on U.S. discourse on firearms regualation, as the opinion of a small fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And where is the reliable source which says that Nazi Germany was a significant development in the history of gun control? If you had this, you wouldn't be digging through old newspapers to piece together your partisan jumble of "facts". — goethean 18:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Gaijin, at the risk of sounding pedantic, can you please insert paragraphing? My old eyes can't follow your argument very well. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done

What's fringe, and what makes a mockery of NPOV, is the version of history that you have forced into this article, in which Nazi Germany is a major development in the history of gun control, when you have failed to cite a single mainstream historian who endorses this story that you're telling. There are plenty of sources available for it,[20][21] indeed, thousand and thousands of them. But they are editorials from right-wing magazines and emails that one gets forwarded from one's senile uncle. No mainstream historian would endorse your partisan version of history. But tellingly, you have been successful in forcing it on this article since ROG5728's original bad edit in April, when he moved the material from "Arguments" to "History". If this article is to maintain a semblance of neutrality, the OMG NAZI GUN CONTROL!!!111 material must be returned to the "Arguments" section, where it belongs. You are misusing sources, pretending that they talk about gun control when in fact they do no such thing. — goethean 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to putting this information in the arguments section (or in the alternative structure being discussed elsewhere, as one of the examples of "gun control for political purposes". Under that latter grouping, the weimar laws would also be applicable, which would provide more context and balance as well. I cannot of course speak for others. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then can we just get rid of the entire History section, since the material is more appropriate at the Gun politics at x articles? — goethean 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY it is perfectly appropriate to have overview articles that give examples and explanations and duplicate content that is discussed elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All of this should be moved to Gun legislation in Germany. Into history, and out of the POV of the gun debate. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Its history! Its argument! the opposers should decide on what grounds they are opposing perhaps. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're obviously not as organized as the supporters. — goethean 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's already treated in a more neutral manner, at Gun politics in Germany. Why we need to repeat it here in a more partial, slanted, partisan way is difficult to say. — goethean 16:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that enthralled with Harcourt. He relies over much on the arguments of the notorious neo-nazi William Pierce. He admits embarrasment to be in the position of agreeing with the neo-nazis but goes forward anyway. He dwells over-much on the Regulations of 1938 as if the nazis did nothing related to firearms before 1938. Other writers spend considerable time and detail with the gun-control activities by the nazis before Nov 11, 1938. The regime used the previous restrictive laws to first disarm the communists, other parties, then jews and gypsies. There was plenty of flexibility within the pre-38 laws to deny their political opponents access to and ownership of weapons. This makes for a different discussion. But it does seem to point the way towards a more nuanced history. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

He does not "rely on" Pierce, he mentions him because he is explaining how the Right in the U.S. views the 1938 act. Similarly he mentions Halbrook but does not rely on him. TFD (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

From his conclusion "How is it, you may ask, that I-the faithful and loving son of a Jewish refugee ... would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard? This is the truly bizarre, surprising, and somewhat uncomfortable product of culture war." That seems like he is making it, if not central to his discussion, certainly important to it. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, what is bizarre is that anyone would put that spin on his article. Did you read the article and come to that conclusion or did you get that idea from a website? TFD (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Was this article ever any good?

I don't have time to trawl through the page history, and I don't mean to insult any of the main editors, but was this article ever any good? It's terrible right now, so maybe the best thing is to just commence a complete rewrite or put it up for deletion.--MONGO 18:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of good people have tried to make this article good but it's always been two steps forwards three steps back. There is a lot of passion around this topic and there has been a lot of creative destruction. We see this in the recent talks over recent deletions. It's like that for almost all the edits - painful. I will say that Gaijin42 has been very willing to adjust to the changing winds and people have worked hard to add good content which is not necessarily un-contentious. Which is why I sometimes am a bit overzealous at protecting those hard fought additions against summary deletion by one editor. I've always been of the mind that this should be a "short beefy" article vs a long contentious one but it's been hard getting there. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd come up with a new informal outline and skip over how individual countries handle gun control...maybe even just use modern legislation such as those enacted since the end of WWII and title the article that way...Gun Control since the end of the WWII....suggesting this since that will eliminate the ongoing disagreements with what the Nazis did or didn't do....etc.--MONGO 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the era of mass production of guns is the logical demarcation -- allowing the laws against blacks having guns etc. would certainly be of interest to the reader. Until good guns were mass-produced, there was no real call for "gun control" = Colt put an end to that. Collect (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect, for once more confirming that on the issue of firearms regulation, few U.S. contributors are capable of thinking beyond the borders of their own narrow nationalistic concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a straightforward comment and idea. Are the insults really necessary? North8000 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an insult, it was an observation - one that is self-evidently true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? You personally observed a representative sample of "U.S. contributors" (I would be interested in how large your sample was and what method you used to identify nationality) and, using some sort of magic test that appears to be unavailable to anyone else, managed to determine what they are "capable of thinking beyond" -- something that psychologists and neuroscientists have trouble ascertaining in a clinical setting? And yet you, and you alone, are able to not only derive these deep psychological insights from a few words posted on a talk page, but to go further and determine that these rather insulting insights are "self-evidently true"? Alas, Wikipedia policy forbids me from writing down what I am thinking right now, so instead I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. And yes, if I haven't made this clear. I do consider "Few U.S. contributors are capable of thinking beyond the borders of their own narrow nationalistic concerns" to be an insult. I would also note that I am still not taking sides concerning your content dispute; whether someone is rude and insulting has very little to do with whether they are right. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'sample size' is that which can be found on this talk page, and its archives. I suggest that if you have the stomach for it, you read it - and then decide for yourself whether I am right. The evidence seems clear enough to me. THis is supposed to be an article with an international perspective. It is utterly dominated by the U.S. discourse on firearms - as clear an example of systematic bias as can be found anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It does read like a very parochial debate and this is reflected in at least some of the article content. The US is an outlier in terms of gun ownership and is certainly very distinct in terms of its political discourse on gun rights and control. This is perhaps most evident when attempts have been made to transplant this discourse to other settings which seems to have resulted in a certain degree of incongruity and incoherence (e.g. the Brasil referendum on gun regulation). To frame the issue of gun control in an international context in terms of the internal US debate is to introduce a major distortion and editors should be mindful of this. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Utterly dominated by the U.S. discourse on firearms - as clear an example of systematic bias as can be found anywhere on Wikipedia" is acceptable and helpful.

"It does read like a very parochial debate and this is reflected in at least some of the article content." and "To frame the issue of gun control in an international context in terms of the internal US debate is to introduce a major distortion and editors should be mindful of this" is acceptable and helpful.

"Few U.S. contributors are capable of thinking beyond the borders of their own narrow nationalistic concerns" is not acceptable and is not helpful. This isn't about whether there is a systematic bias. It is about using insulting and demeaning language that requires diagnosing someone's capabilities and motivations based on some talk page comments and then defending the clear insult as "just an observation". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay....well...how many disparate but interrelated articles do we have on this matter? Was this the father article from which POV forks were branched from or is it the other way around? The only related article of similarity I have worked on was Gun violence in the United States. I'm thinking the best way forward if the article has to exist is to simply document what the legislative history is and avoid discussion in the article about whether that legislation is good or bad, etc. I recognize we would like to make correlations between things, but how else do we achieve NPOV in such a hot topic?--MONGO 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• The recently-renamed[22] Gun politics article pretty much covers the same scope as this article, including sections on arguments and on laws by country. — goethean 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control according to Merriam Webster is defined as, "laws that control how guns are sold and used and who can own them". The term Gun politics is not in the dictionary, therefor is a much newer term or one that does not merit inclusion yet. The accepted term for discussing the laws that control how guns are sold and used is gun control. In some world I can see gun politics as being a broader term but in reality it's a narrower concept because "gun politics" is just the process that you go to enact gun control. Gun control is the accepted term that encompasses these types of laws.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I will make this addition for the newcomers who might not know, gun control has recently since 2013 become a bad word within the communities of people who are for well, "gun control." There appears to be a rebranding effort to try to substitute "gun control" with "gun safety" or "gun politics." The onslaught to remove "gun control" from the wiki is political. It's the same battle that goes on with "assault weapon" vs "assault rifle". These kinds of things are very common in the world of politics. Both sides are trying to paint their efforts in the best light they can. The article is sadly stuck in the middle of a vast battleground --- hence the quality issues. Now, the sad reality for better or for worse gun control is the term that is in the dictionary and gun politics is not because gun control is the accepted term for these things.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I don't care if its at gun politics or gun control, but there should only be one main article. And the gun politics article is currently far superior to this article. — goethean 22:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily of that mind. Climate change and global warming are sibling articles and there are few in the community advocating that we fold them into one today. This is a big space to cover. Gun control is a clear concept that is found in the dictionary while "gun politics" is a new term created by renaming an article. My argument is that gun control should be a "short beefy" article that describes the concept and maybe a bit of the general history of the concept without getting too contentious.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Global warming is a subset of climate change. Gun control and gun politics are very nearly synonymous, certainly enough so not to justify two largely over-lapping articles. Having two articles in the same scope simply encourages POV forking which is exactly what we have here: Gun politics in Germany and then here we have the American right-wing version of gun politics in Germany. It's nonsense. — goethean 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For an international article, "firearm regulation" would be a better title. Certainly, to talk about gun politics in Ireland is just bizarre. I have yet to read a substantive reason why the content of this article should not be merged or deleted when the topic receives adequate and more neutral coverage elsewhere in WP. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Though I'd suggest that 'Regulation of firearms' might be a possible neutral alternative for an international article. Though of course this has been rejected out of hand in the past - I suspect possibly because 'gun control' is the U.S. buzzword, and this article naturally finds itself amongst the first few Google hits, whereas the oddly-named 'gun politics' is well out of the way of searches. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The Oxford dictionary also lists gun control as, "laws that restrict the sale and use of guns", so it's not just an American thing or buzz word. It's the accepted term in the English language. I'm all for cleaning the article up or reshaping it in a logical fashion.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"It's the accepted term in the English language". Prove it. With a source that actually says so - dictionaries define words or phrases. They rarely tell us which possible alternative is more commonly used. THe source you cite certainly doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I did prove it. Gun control is in the dictionaries both English and British English and I gave the definitions. Your compound words and the words proposed by others are not in the dictionaries. Gun control is the term. Sorry. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control I could probably live with, I guess. Gun politics makes no sense in other national settings and really, outside of the US and some other countries, "Regulation of firearms" or similar should be preferred. For the record the OED entry on "gun control" states: orig. and chiefly U.S. The statutory regulation of the licensing and use of firearms; an instance or aspect of this. (Now the usual sense.) Although there was a movement in the United States in the 1930s to regulate firearms, we have found no evidence that the term gun control was used. The use of the phrase became widespread in the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy (22 November 1963). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the article needs a rationale for existing at all, at this point. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The term itself I'm sure has a rich history that should be in the article under an term origins section. I'm not certain but I imagine it will date back to the culture wars of the 60s or 70s, don't know how it came to mainstream use and into the dictionaries but that's the kind of stuff that is un contentious and merits inclusion. It's the accepted term for the regulation of firearms today. We should not contort ourselves to find another substitute without substantial rationale. If we do, we look biased. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a rich tapestry ... As the OED indicates, and it traces the first usage of the term (1964 Sat. Evening Post 1 Feb. 12/1 'In framing gun-control laws we must think carefully about the constitutional aspects'), "gun control" is a phrase that originates from and is chiefly used in the US. It is most appropriate for use in a US context and probably not a for an article which should be addressing an international perspective on the topic of firearm regulation. Such an article would have a significantly different content to the current iteration of this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the content of such an international article of firearm regulation is apparently already in the article List of gun laws and policies by country. How is it intended that this article will differ? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gun control" is the most common and notable name for government regulation of ownership and use of firearms. It's a big, wp:notable topic. And "regulation" is clearly not a synonym with "politics". It really isn't that complicated. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to legitimise this forking of the topic, you need to provide a source that explains why the subject matter needs to be subdivided in this way. Without such a source, the forking is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

since gun control is the core term, others are forks. This is the core term found in dictionaries, common vernacular, google, newspaper articles. It's WP notable and merits inclusion. It's also a term of historical importance in and of itself. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there something about the phrase 'provide a source' that you find difficult to comprehend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, nice try. Trying to say that someone is supposed to full a ridiculous gauntlet (find a source that has addressed wikipedia article organization and naming question, and when there is zero basis in policy requiring such such (e.g. in wp:ver, wp:nor) if they don't fulfill that quest then your opinion stands by default. Nice try. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2013 (UTCrules byu

Well, you're kinda saying the same thing -- that in the absence of RS, your opinion stands by default. — goethean 04:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I never asked for one or said that one was required. The reasons why I didn't and don't are the same two reasons given in my previous post. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have a working definition of Gun Control: according to the OED it is a term used "originally and chiefly in the US", which "became widespread in the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy". Surely that's what this article should be about: the debate in the US over the last fifty years. As such it would be a subset (NOT a POV fork) of Gun politics in the United States, which is a rather unwieldy article with lots of history and other stuff. It would overlap considerably with Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, and that, perhaps, is an article that could be usefully merged with this one. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I agree with Fiachra that in general, "Gun politics in..." articles should be renamed "Regulation of firearms in..." Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gun politics", while it may be arguably logically sound as a title just sounds like a poor choice of words for the title.North8000 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Law journals and peer review

According to Washington and Lee University School of Law's Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking system, of over 1000 law journals in the US only about 150 of them are "refereed" (i.e., peer reviewed).
None of the law journal sources cited in this article are peer reviewed (as of 20:04, 19 December 2013).

Rank	Journal	Student Edited	Peer Edited	Refereed	Refs
6	Michigan Law Review	Yes	No	No	8
12	Fordham Law Review	Yes	No	No	20, 28
30	Washington University Law Quarterly	Yes	No	No	26
49	Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy	Yes	No	No	42
94	University of Maryland Law Review	Yes	No	No	51
333	George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal	Yes	No	No	9, 10
358	Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law	Yes	No	No	22

Use law journal sources with caution. E.g., Always check the author's affiliations for conflicts of interest or lack of scholarly standing, etc. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an old fight, probably has no place here - Let's be careful we don't impose an improper mental model/framework here. The Process for the acceptance of papers for publication in law journals is very different from those of the scientific community. They are not synonymous. See law review. The fact that most law reviews are not peer reviewed in the same manner as say climate change articles for the journal nature, in no manner means that law journals are without rigor or that any paper makes it in is without substantial review. Law journals have their own rigorous process- arcane as some might think, it is there. And yes an important part of the process is that it is student driven....that's not a detractor....example #6 Ranked Michigan law review is not peer reviewed and is student driven. A lot of the reviewing of a paper can involve very laborious and tedious research into a case history for an article.....work well suited for a student learning the ropes but well beneath a peer scholar...something peer review just can't accomplish. Value is created through the rigorous, supervised verification process and less from just having another peer look at the argument being offered. Also, many journals forbid double submission.....once you submit once a paper, you can't resubmit it somewhere else if it is rejected. To those familiar with the scientific method and the very warped consensus paradigm that has evolved there recently, you'll probably be led by the above to immediately disqualify all law journals for inclusion in the wiki. This would be a grave error. Law journals and their process are the accepted process in the field today. While I applaud the good faith work of @ArtifexMayhem, it. Might not be relevant here. It's a very different field governed by very different rules. Now, the field, like all fields is evolving. Some law journals are adopting the per review process, however, there is no valid rationale for us to give more weight to one versus another. Like all academic writings, we should use caution here and not be sloppy in how we boil this down. It's too soon to tell whether the peer review consensus model will grab hold here or not. This thing that @ArtifexMayhem offers, seems logical on the surface but is in reality is very dangerous. We should be very careful here. The humanities vs science war has been going on for centuries and that's a rumble we don't want to pile onto to this poor little article. This poor little article is in desperate need of a bit of water, maybe some fertilizer and some tender loving care, and it does not need two 1,200lb Kodiak bears to come have a rumble on top of it. For the love of god. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary the review model favoured by North American law periodicals is highly relevant to an assessment of their reliability in areas that lie outside the law, such as complex historical events. Halbrook's interpretation of Nazi history remains unevaluated by anyone with expertise in the subject. He is uncited in the relevant literature on the holocaust where his thesis has had no impact whatsoever. The focus and influence of his publications cited in this WP "Gun control" article extend to the US gun debate almost exclusively. If you actually look at the citations for Halbrook's Halbrook, SP (2000). "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews". Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 17 (3): 483–535. it returns 35 citations with some false positives. Leaving aside the false positives, none of these citations are from authors who publish on the history of the holocaust; almost all of them are from participants in the US gun control debate (Kopel; Harcourt; Kates; Spitzer; Alonso; Springwood; Horwitz); and the vast majority are US law review publications. His articles such as the above are relevant only to the US gun control debate and do not speak to an international context. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Justanonymous, we can't just ignore the issue. It was explicitly claimed in the title of a thread above [23] that the journal in question was peer reviewed. If the discussion over its supposed reliability was based on misinformation (deliberate or otherwise), we will at minimum have to discuss again whether the source merits inclusion - and it may well be necessary to look further at other sources, to check whether other misreporting of the status of sources has gone on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

it was peer reviewed per the standards of the field, that is what I meant. no, your argument has been refuted above. Peer review as used in science is not relevant here. It was peer reviewed per the standards of this professional and academic community. The journal is pristine, in the standard manner and custom for this field. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

and be careful, this is a huge can of worms. If these journals are not acceptable then all others that don't fit your flawed understanding of the field won't be acceptable either and worse, they won't be acceptable anywhere in wikipedia. Since the vast majority of academic law journals are not peer reviewed in the limited manner you propose -- in the course of carrying out that crusade, you're going to bump into far bigger fish than I. I'm just trying to help you here. In short, you won't be able to keep out this entire class of academic content once the big guys show up....and this will go before arbitration. WP:Competence.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You state that "it was peer reviewed per the standards of the field". Can you cite a source for that assertion? It seems to run entirely to what ArtifexMayhem writes above - and you cannot possibly both be right. As for your supposed 'can of worms', since WP:RS has never asserted either that 'all peer reviewed articles are reliable' or 'no non-peer-reviewed articles are reliable' there is no can, and no worms. What matters here is that the thread above asserted that the journal was peer-reviewed, and argued that this was evidence of reliability. Any assertion of reliability based on questionable evidence must necessarily itself be questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've said what I've needed to say and I've clarified what needed to be clarified. I don't feel a need to further rehash. I'll let others weigh in and I'm sure it'll be resolved in due course.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have said it - but I see no reason why what you say should be seen as of any significance, given that you have failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Without evidence that the source in question was subject to any review process, its claims to reliability are clearly on even shakier grounds - though I think that FiachraByrne's point above about the lack of citations for the source beyond the narrow confines of the U.S. 'gun control' debate is already quite sufficient to suggest that we shouldn't be using it as any sort of source for statements of fact about Nazi Germany. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Andy, I make no claims on the actual source's suitability for use here. I defend legal journals as WP:RS sources when used carefully and I caution against us attempting to discard legal journals as not being WP:RS. I leave it to others to defend whether this content should be used here. I merely defend that the fact that it comes from a journal makes it credible. Making it into a legal journal makes it academically rigorous because it has been through that process and it's categorically unqualified to attack the journal simply because it's student driven. Student driven is the norm in this field. I leave it to more specialized minds to defend the actual content or whether to decide if it needs to go elsewhere. I just don't want it to be arbitrary and definitely not POV deleted. It needs to be discussed civilly here. Reach consensus and we can do whatever is needed. Until then, I resist forceful deletion. I know you want it gone and so does goethean and there are others that want it here. I'm simply refuting the argument that because the journal doesn't use the process of another entirely different set of disciplines that it is not academically rigorous -- it is. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear, this thread to me is only about whether student driven legal journals are worthy of WP:RS. Yes they are, that is the gold standard. Regarding the broader question on what content to have in the article -- Andy -- recommend you guys do that in a separate thread so we don't pollute what this is about. Student driven legal journals is the norm and they are just fine. I've said my peace on that. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No. This thread isn't about hypothetical questions. It is about the sources cited in this article - any discussion of anything else doesn't belong on this talk page. And no, you don't get to state what is or isn't a 'gold standard' regarding sources. As WP:RS makes entirely clear, there is no such thing as a 'gold standard' for sourcing. All sources have to be considered on their merits - and since no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the Halbrook article in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law has been subject to any form of review, despite claims to the contrary in an earlier thread, its appropriateness as a source is entirely open to question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that that they were saying that wp:rs is held to be the gold standard by wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:Biased, "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Here, even if the Halbrook article is biased, it is perfectly fine as a source for the statement that, "Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish." Or are Halbrook's footnotes phony? I'm no great fan of the argument he made to SCOTUS in McDonald v. Chicago (substantive due process), and I'm all for skepticism, but he seems to be citing rock-solid sources on this particular point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIASED goes on to say,

"While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."

So, is Halbrook a a reliable source in this context? I would say no, because,

1. he is not a historian,
2. he is not a recognized expert on "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews",
3. his paper was published in a journal that is not peer reviewed, and
4. by is own admission, the topic "has never been the subject of a comprehensive account in the legal literature", and that "Although [the topic] does not appear to be the subject of any historical study, numerous excellent studies have been published on armed Jewish resistance in the Nazi-occupied countries" (Halbrook 2000 at 484).

Our article currently suggests, has put forth by Halbrook, that gun control allowed "the Nazis [to murder] millions of unarmed people"[24]. That is a very strong claim that requires very strong sourcing. Halbrook's interpretation of primary sources is not even close. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed a very strong claim. Where is it suggested in the present article? I search in vain for the phrase "millions of unarmed people". Is any Wikipedia article guilty of that suggestion, if it mentions Hitler's disarmament of the Jews?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

At the wp:RSN they also apply the missing criteria which is expertise, reliability and objectivity with respect to the items which cited it and I think that we should do the same here. For a clarity-via-extremeness illustration of the point, if Rush Limbaugh or an op ed columnist at the New York Times said "The President gave a speech in Atlanta on December 20th", most would consider either of them to be reliable on that fact. (even though either could be technically knocked out) But if they said that the speech was "to appeal for bi-partisanship" or "a political move to vilify the Republicans for not giving the Democrats their extreme tax and spend way under the guise of an appeal to bi-partisanship" most would not consider either of them to be reliable sources to support putting those statements in as fact. As a minimum, either would need to be attributed, and those would probably only be a (primary) source for what their own opinions are. I think that the same applies for covering mere instances of gun control vs. drawing conclusions from those instances. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove duplication notice

A duplication notice was inserted here, on 18 December. The notice was directed at a small section of the article which was titled "Nazi disarmament of German Jews" — a section which was alleged to duplicate another Wikipedia article titled "Gun politics in Germany" that includes a section titled "The 1938 German Weapons Act". The relevant material in the other article states:

“ The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law....[U]nder the new law....Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]....On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[6][7] ”

The relevant material in the present article when the notice was inserted (on 18 December) stated:

“ Nazi disarmament of German Jews

Main article: Gun politics in Germany
Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish,[20][page needed][21][page needed][22][23][page needed] and were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][25][page needed][26][page needed][27][page needed][28][page needed] The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 relaxed gun control requirements for the general population, but prohibited manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[29] During the initial reports of events that would later be called Kristallnacht on November 9 and 10, 1938, the Police President of Berlin had announced that police activity in the preceding few weeks had disarmed the entire Jewish population of Berlin by confiscating 2,569 of their hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.[30] Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[23][unreliable source?][29]

”

The relevant material in the present article now (on 21 December) states:

“ Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms

Main article: Gun politics in Germany
Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish,[20][21][22] and were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 relaxed gun control requirements for the general population, but prohibited ownership, possesion, sale, and manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[28] During the initial reports of events that would later be called Kristallnacht on November 9 and 10, 1938, the Police President of Berlin had announced that police activity in the preceding few weeks had disarmed the entire Jewish population of Berlin by confiscating 2,569 of their hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.[29][30] Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[22][28]

”

First off, I think the duplication notice probably should have been inserted down in the relevant section, but (be that as it may), the section header has changed so the Notice is obsolete. Moreover, according to WP:RELART, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." That is the case here, so I suggest removing the duplication notice, which in any event is obsolete (due to the new section header) and misplaced (it should have been at the top of the section instead of the top of the article). Also, I suggest the link to main be changed to a seealso, since this article is not summarizing that one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC).

The Nazi section violates the policy against content forks. Please do not remove the duplication template. The articles are not on distinct and separate topics, they are two POVs of the same topic. — goethean 19:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You inserted the Notice, and I am happy to discuss it. You have not addressed the fact that the Notice refers to a nonexistent section, and that the notice belongs in a section, if at all. Also, I never said the topics were separate. They are related topics. Moreover, this article emphasizes the "control" aspect, whereas the other article is about German gun law regulation as well as deregulation. Are there particular facts that you dispute in the present section? Are you saying that this article should not mention Nazis at all?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that no source whatsoever has ever been put forward to suggest that firearms regulation under the Nazis is seen as of any significance to a general discussion of the subject beyond the narrow confines of sections of the U.S. gun lobby, no, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, except possibly (neutrally presented, and with due weight) in a historical discussion of firearms regulation in Germany, and in an article on the U.S. 'gun control' debate - again with due weight, clearly indicated as as a minority perspective, and with no suggestion that this issue is seen as of any significance by mainstream historians. Anything beyond that violates WP:WEIGHT. This is supposed to be an international overview of the subject - not a platform for fringe material from one particular perspective from one particular country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming that it would be fine for this article to have subsections on Japan, Australia, and the U.S. while verboten to mention Germany, that would call for an undue weight tag in the section, not a notice at the top complaining about POV forks and mentioning a nonexistent section of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Duplication" between articles is immensely common and accepted in Wikipedia. To start with, the summary when there are sub articles, and also articles commonly overlap. I have not yet to track down and review the claimed policy basis for implying that is a problem that needs to be fixed. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The claimed policy is at Wikipedia:Content forking. This is not a question of whether we have a policy -- we do -- or whether what we are discussing is a fork -- it is -- but rather of whether this particular fork is described in Wikipedia:Content forking#Acceptable types of forking or in Wikipedia:Content forking#Unacceptable types of forking. I have no position on that question. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that we have any kind of content forking here. Both articles mention the Nazis taking weapons from Jews, but that doesn't seem like a duplication of scope. Per WP:Overlap, articles may need to be merged if there's a large overlap. Here, the overlap is small.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is clearly a fork of the oddly-named 'gun politics' article. No reliable source has ever been offered to explain why issues regarding the regulation of firearms should be subdivided into 'politics' and 'control' - (though I'm sure there will be plenty more WP:OR to 'justify' this arbitrary division - the archives are full of it), and furthermore it is a POV-fork in that while supposedly presenting an international perspective, it in fact presents the viewpoint of sections of the U.S. gun lobby. POV-forks are of course forbidden by Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no Gun politics article. What article are you referring to?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am referring to that article which was named 'gun politics' until 5 days ago, when - without any consultation whatsoever, and without notifying anyone - Gaijin42 evidently moved it to List of gun laws and policies by country. [25] Note that this is all that Gaijin42 has done. The the lede still starts by defining (without a source), what 'gun politics' is, though since the name change it is entirely unclear why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lead paragraph of that article was superfluous and have removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that template should even exist, much less get used. Except for special cases where more specific templates are available (e.g. POV fork) it is implying policy / guideline "rules" that do not exist. There is no policy or guideline that per se prohibits duplication of an item in two different articles. In fact, such is common, accepted, and often essential for coverage of the topic of a particular article. Of course, this is not the place to delete/modify a template, but templates are not policy or guidelines, and this is the place to discuss whether to put a (misleading) statement such as that at the beginning of / top level of the article. I think that it should not be placed there, and doubly so prior to any consensus to do so. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion about the existence of the template, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

References to Japanese section

If contributors will not see sense and delete this section, could they at least reference it properly? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

While I don't condone the section I do have the refs for it already templated. I'll add them shortly. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ps. I also have all the law review sources templated and will add them in a bit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ta. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

A list of some journal sources - some address US specifically but some are more international in character. Some are probably irrelevant. Feel free to add to the list ... Most stats on homicide, suicide and violence related to guns and gun ownership are from the US. That doesn't mean, however, that the article should focus unduly on the US domestic debate as the control and regulation of small arms is clearly an international issue in terms of domestic violence and post-conflict situations, etc. The single best source, however, for the topic of this article (firearm regulation in an international context) are the yearbooks by the Small Arms Survey, available here

Valenti, Maria (2007-01-01). "Armed Violence: A Health Problem, a Public Health Approach". Journal of Public Health Policy. 28 (4): 389–400. ISSN 0197-5897. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Ball, S. (2012-10-12). "Britain and the Decline of the International Control of Small Arms in the Twentieth Century". Journal of Contemporary History. 47 (4): 812–837. doi:10.1177/0022009412451286. ISSN 1461-7250 0022-0094, 1461-7250. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

McDowall, David (1983-05-01). "Collective Security and the Demand for Legal Handguns". American Journal of Sociology. 88 (6): 1146–1161. ISSN 0002-9602. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Kovandzic, Tomislav V. (1998-07-01). "Comment on the Recent Work of Kwon, Scott, Safranski, and Bae: No, Your Evidence Doesn't Prove What You Think It Does!". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 57 (3): 363–368. ISSN 0002-9246. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Arya, Neil (2002-04-27). "Confronting The Small Arms Pandemic: Unrestricted Access Should Be Viewed As A Public Health Disaster". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 324 (7344): 990–991. ISSN 0959-8138. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Kleck, Gary (1988-02-01). "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force". Social Problems. 35 (1): 1–21. doi:10.2307/800663. ISSN 0037-7791. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Kingma, Kees (1997-08-01). "Demobilization of Combatants after Civil Wars in Africa and Their Reintegration into Civilian Life". Policy Sciences. 30 (3): 151–165. ISSN 0032-2687. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Hepburn, Lisa M (2004-07). "Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 9 (4): 417–440. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00044-2. ISSN 1359-1789. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Amiri, A (2003-09). "Firearm fatalities. A preliminary study report from Iran". Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine. 10 (3): 159–163. doi:10.1016/S1353-1131(03)00082-8. ISSN 1353-1131. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Hugenberg, Florian (2007-01-01). "Firearm Injuries in Nairobi, Kenya: Who Pays the Price?". Journal of Public Health Policy. 28 (4): 410–419. ISSN 0197-5897. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Bellesiles, Michael A. (2001-01-01). "Firearms Regulation: A Historical Overview". Crime and Justice. 28: 137–195. ISSN 0192-3234. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Grillot, Suzette R. (2011). "Global Gun Control: Examining the Consequences of Competing International Norms". Global Governance. 17 (4): 529–555.

Cukier, Wendy (2012-01). "Globalization of gun culture transnational reflections on pistolization and masculinity, flows and resistance". International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. 40 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2011.09.001. ISSN 1756-0616. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Rodríguez Andrés, Antonio (2011-06). "Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995–2004". Health Policy. 101 (1): 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.005. ISSN 0168-8510. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Shermer, Michael (2013-01-05). "Gun Science". Scientific American. 308 (5): 83. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Rosenbaum, Janet E. (2012-02-01). "Gun Utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland". Journal of Public Health Policy. 33 (1): 46–58. ISSN 0197-5897. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

John, Ime A. (2007-01-01). "Gun Violence in Nigeria: A Focus on Ethno-Religious Conflict in Kano". Journal of Public Health Policy. 28 (4): 420–431. ISSN 0197-5897. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Grillot, Suzette R. (2010-06). "Guns in the Balkans: controlling small arms and light weapons in seven Western Balkan countries". Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 10 (2): 147–171. doi:10.1080/14683857.2010.486945. ISSN 1743-9639 1468-3857, 1743-9639. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

S. Parker, Jeffrey (2001-10-01). "Guns, Crime, and Academics: Some Reflections on the Gun Control Debate". Journal of Law and Economics. 44 (S2): 715–723. doi:10.1086/jle.2001.44.issue-s2. ISSN 0022-2186. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Murray, Douglas R. (1975-10-01). "Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence". Social Problems. 23 (1): 81–93. doi:10.2307/799630. ISSN 0037-7791. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Celinska, Katarzyna (2007-06-01). "Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun Ownership and Attitudes Toward Gun Control". Sociological Perspectives. 50 (2): 229–247. doi:10.1525/sop.2007.50.2.229. ISSN 0731-1214. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Lindaman, Kara (2002-03-01). "Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars". Political Research Quarterly. 55 (1): 91–110. doi:10.2307/3088067. ISSN 1065-9129. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Wyatt, Charli (2001-07-01). "Light and Lethal". The World Today. 57 (7): 13–15. ISSN 0043-9134. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Lodgaard, Sverre (1997-08-01). "Managing Arms in Peace Processes". Policy Sciences. 30 (3): 143–150. ISSN 0032-2687. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Kleck, Gary (1999-05-01). "National Case-Control Study of Homicide Offending and Gun Ownership". Social Problems. 46 (2): 275–293. doi:10.2307/3097256. ISSN 0037-7791. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Lindgren, James (1981-05-01). "Organizational and Other Constraints on Controlling the Use of Deadly Force by Police". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 455: 110–119. ISSN 0002-7162. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Langbein, Laura I. (1993-11-01). "PACs, Lobbies and Political Conflict: The Case of Gun Control". Public Choice. 77 (3): 551–572. ISSN 0048-5829. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Graaf, Henny J. van der (1997-08-01). "Proliferation of Light Weapons in Africa". Policy Sciences. 30 (3): 133–141. ISSN 0032-2687. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

MACOLA, GIACOMO (2010-01-01). "REASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FIREARMS IN CENTRAL AFRICA: THE CASE OF NORTH-WESTERN ZAMBIA TO THE 1920S". The Journal of African History. 51 (3): 301–321. ISSN 0021-8537. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Devi, Sharmila (2012-11). "Researchers call for reform of US gun control policies". The Lancet. 380 (9853): 1545. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61865-0. ISSN 0140-6736. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Winkler, Adam (2007-02-01). "Scrutinizing the Second Amendment". Michigan Law Review. 105 (4): 683–733. ISSN 0026-2234. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Wolpert, Robin M. (1998-09-01). "Self-Interest, Symbolic Politics, and Public Attitudes toward Gun Control". Political Behavior. 20 (3): 241–262. ISSN 0190-9320. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Mkutu, Kennedy Agade (2007-01-01). "Small Arms and Light Weapons among Pastoral Groups in the Kenya-Uganda Border Area". African Affairs. 106 (422): 47–70. ISSN 0001-9909. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Konty, Mark (2012-11). "Small Arms Mortality: Access to Firearms and Lethal Violence". Sociological Spectrum. 32 (6): 475–490. doi:10.1080/02732173.2012.700832. ISSN 1521-0707 0273-2173, 1521-0707. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva, Switzerland), Small Arms Survey (2010). Small Arms Survey 2010: gangs, groups, and guns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521146845 0521146844. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Chivers, C.J. (2011). "Small Arms, Big Problems". Foreign Affairs. 90 (1): 110–121. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Miller, Matthew (2007-02). "State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003". Social Science & Medicine. 64 (3): 656–664. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024. ISSN 0277-9536. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Grundmann, Martin (1997-08-01). "Symposium on Managing Processes of Peace and Rebuilding Societies: Small Arms Disarmament and Reintegration of Combatants". Policy Sciences. 30 (3): 113–116. ISSN 0032-2687. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Marsh, Nicholas (2007-01-01). "Taming the Tools of Violence". Journal of Public Health Policy. 28 (4): 401–409. ISSN 0197-5897. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Pierce, Glenn L. (1981-05-01). "The Bartley-Fox Gun Law's Short-Term Impact on Crime in Boston". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 455: 120–137. ISSN 0002-7162. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Moore, Mark H. (1983-01-01). "The Bird in Hand: A Feasible Strategy for Gun Control". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2 (2): 185–195. doi:10.2307/3323282. ISSN 0276-8739. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Cook, Philip J. (1981-05-01). "The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 455: 63–79. ISSN 0002-7162. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Kwon, Ik-Whan G. (1997-01-01). "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 56 (1): 41–50. ISSN 0002-9246. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Kwon, Ik-Whan G. (2005-04-01). "The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage: A Holistic Measure of Gun Control Legislation". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 64 (2): 533–547. ISSN 0002-9246. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Makarios, M. D. (2008-08-04). "The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis". Crime & Delinquency. 58 (2): 222–244. doi:10.1177/0011128708321321. ISSN 1552-387X 0011-1287, 1552-387X. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Geisel, Martin S. (1969-08-01). "The Effectiveness of State and Local Regulation of Handguns: A Statistical Analysis". Duke Law Journal. 1969 (4): 647–676. doi:10.2307/1371564. ISSN 0012-7086. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

C. Bice, Douglas (2002-04-01). "The Market for New Handguns: An Empirical Investigation". Journal of Law and Economics. 45 (1): 251–265. doi:10.1086/jle.2002.45.issue-1. ISSN 0022-2186. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Miller, Matthew (1999-03). "The relationship between firearms and suicide". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 4 (1): 59–75. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00057-8. ISSN 1359-1789. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Smith, Stuart (2006-11-01). "Theorising gun control: the development of regulation and shooting sports in Britain: Theorising gun control". The Sociological Review. 54 (4): 717–733. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00668.x. ISSN 0038-0261. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Efrat, Asif (2010-01-20). "Toward Internationally Regulated Goods: Controlling the Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons". International Organization. 64 (01): 97. doi:10.1017/S0020818309990257. ISSN 1531-5088 0020-8183, 1531-5088. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

Waltz, S. (2007). "U.S. Small Arms Policy: Having It Both Ways". World Policy Journal. 24 (2): 67–80.

"UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms". The American Journal of International Law. 95 (4): 901–903. 2001-10-01. doi:10.2307/2674649. ISSN 0002-9300. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Miron, Jeffrey A. (2001-10-01). "Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross‐Country Analysis". Journal of Law and Economics. 44 (S2): 615–633. doi:10.1086/jle.2001.44.issue-s2. ISSN 0022-2186. Retrieved 2013-12-22.

Kleck, Gary (2009-09). "Why do people support gun control?: Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans". Journal of Criminal Justice. 37 (5): 496–504. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.010. ISSN 0047-2352. Retrieved 2013-12-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

FiachraByrne (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Parker authoritative??

I see a Geneva survey from Sara Parker being used in the article @ Regulation of Civilian firearms. In reading the article, I found this quote, "At the US state level, the majority of jurisdictions have adopted the so-called ‘Castle doctrine’, also known as ‘Stand your ground’ laws." It's very clear that our friends in Geneva don't understand the basics of US law if they are saying that castle doctrine and stand your ground are synonymous. Also the editors are making very broad generalities from a very limited survey. Ie, the us and Yemen are exceptional in the world......but the survey was not about the world but rather a handful of countries, and the methodology for selection of those is not clearly articulated. If they get castle doctrine wrong and their methodology is not clear, what else is wrong!? This is is not like any academic paper, I've ever read. I'm not sure this goes in the right direction-Justanonymous (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed, Cambridge University Press, mulit-authored survey that takes an international perspective on the topic of small arms and small arms regulation. Can you suggest a better, more authoritative source for an article on gun control from an international perspective? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, according to them it's, "an independent research project." So no peer review of any kind is visible -- within any field.....where are you seeing that? Cambridge University Press is just the publisher but they don't vouche for the quality of the content except by association. This hasn't gone through any kind of peer review or other kind of rigorous process outside of perhaps an editing process from what we can see (no scientific peer review or legal or otherwise) This is akin to a book at best....a limited book with visible errors to this editor.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, I just went to their website http://www.smallarmssurvey.org and I find this in their goal:

"The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people."

This isn't peer reviewed. This is pro-gun control stuff. I'd be just as guilty if I went and lifted content out of the NRA and NAG websites and used it liberally here under the auspices of "peer review" of which there has been none apparently, since it's an "independent project." Sorry guys that's gotta go. Unless you're all ok with other editors going to the NRA websites and getting their "peer reviewed" ahem ahem content. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So, sources published by Cambridge University Press are not WP:RS because of some perceived bias (i.e., "This is pro-gun control stuff") but articles written by attorneys for the National Rifle Association and published by student edited non-peer reviewed law journals are WP:RS? Even when said attorney has no credentials for the field they are writing in (e.g., history)? Have I got this right or am I missing something? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous seems to have been rather selective in his quotation from the website - how about this bit:

Contributing Partners

Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and by sustained contributions from the Governments of Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Survey is also grateful for past and current project support received from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States, as well as from different United Nations agencies, programmes, and institutes.

I'd say it would be utterly ridiculous to call this an unreliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

it's pro gun control and that is clearly their goal regardless of what pro gun control regimes fund them or why?? Government funding is very suspect. I don't buy the whole appeal to authority argument you make Andy. Also they have errors and we're misciting them. Beyond that artifex is missing something. Cambridge university press is simply a publisher. They don't do peer reviews or anything like that that I'm aware of and they don't require that their authors have an NPOV on a subject....they just print the books. I have a bible from cambridge! In this case cambridge university press published a book by a pro gun control "independent project"....that should be as radioactive as us citing a pro life book written by Glenn beck or a pro gun rights book funded by the nra. By contrast, Michigan law review is a high reputation legal journal that goes through the rigors of what is accepted for peer review in their field. Now, you do a disservice by your marginalizing of "student driven" portion. student driven just means that the students go and do the tedious research to verify the submitters claims and legal history.....some smaller schools who don't have enough students so have to use a weaker traditional peer review process....because they don't have the manpower! Student driven, drives quality especially bright students....that's why 90% of law journals including the top ones are student driven!! Why am I having to explain these basic things? Twice now. If you don't know how these fields work, just don't edit. Not being disrespectful here, it's just hard to get editors up to speed on these basics and I explained it already in a separate thread. -Justanonymous (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, Justanonymous, you do not need to "explain these basic things" to me. You do, however, need to support your assertions with actual sources. You have made wide variety of claims concerning peer review and law journals, [26][27][28][29][30][31], but you have yet to supply any sources to support your claims. You have been provided with information on the actual peer review status of most US law journals, and still you persist [32][33][34][35][36][37].

Whether or not you believe I "know how these fields work" is immaterial. Sources tell the tale, and on the issue of law journals and peer review the sources simply do not support you claims,

• Liptak, Adam (October 21, 2013). "The Lackluster Reviews That Lawyers Love to Hate". The New York Times.
• McCormack, Nancy (February 7, 2009). "Peer Review and Legal Publishing: What Law Librarians Need to Know about Open, Single-Blind, and Double-Blind Reviewing" (PDF). Law Library Journal. 101 (59).

However, because reliability is always based on a combination of factors, this does not mean that law journal articles can never be used as reliable sources–and to the best of my knowledge, no editor here has made that claim. Newyorkbrad, in a previous discussion concerning the use of Halbrook, summed it up nicely:

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.
— User:Newyorkbrad 02:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is imperative that you understand the functions, meanings, and interrelations of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

The explanations you have given[38][39][40][41][42] in defense of your removal sourced material[43][44][45][46] are examples of tendentious editing and indicative of a battle ground mentality. This must stop. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Ps. I do my very best to avoid addressing other editors in the first person and I apologize for not avoiding it here.

also just because you won a Grant from the US at some point, does not mean the US endorses you or your findings. Same for the UK. There are a ton of grants given. And all so they can get castle doctrine and stand your ground wrong!! Money poorly spent. Maybe that's why we didn't renew. The group is marginally a thinktank. But if you want this, I can bring "the heritage foundation". They have a senator.....surely that has to be WP:RS!-Justanonymous (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Small Arms Survey is an internationally-recognised and authoritative source on the subject matter of this article - in fact I'd suggest that you would be hard put to find a better one. If you really want to argue that we shouldn't use it as a source, I suggest that you raise the matter at WP:RSN - but before you do, do a little research on the organisation, before you make a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

let's see what others think. I'm sure we can get consensus here. I hate those other forums makes us look like we can't solve any problems here. And I'll read up more on this think tank. It didn't pass the quick sniff test but I could be wrong. Appreciate the patience. But let's not make it out to be something it's not. It's not peer reviewed and it's not objective. They have an agenda. I suspect some of their content will be WP:RS. And some will blatantly be not. We also should not make generalizations beyond the cited material.....if the sample is 15 countries that they took, we can't generalize it to , the majority of the world. We can't say that the us is exceptional just because in their contrived sample only the US and Yemen acknowldge human rights. We have to be discrete. In any case, we're in no hurry let's we what others say.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No. If you won't take the 'Small Arms Survey' to WP:RSN, I will - I see no reason whatsoever why an internationally-recognised source with the finest credentials should be rejected on the flimsy grounds you have offered so far, and I see no reason to waste further time here - there has been endless stonewalling already on this article, and I see no reason to allow it to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cambridge university press is simply a publisher. They don't do peer reviews or anything like that that I'm aware of and they don't require that their authors have an NPOV on a subject....they just print the books." See "reliable sources": "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The only thing you have right is that they do not require their authors have an NPOV on a subject. But that shows your lack of understanding of academic research. TFD (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Per talk page consensus I've reinserted the deleted material. I think I'd have to suggest that there may be competencies issues at play here. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion which appears to be the argument. The material is heavily slanted. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There's been no specific argument presented against the inclusion of the article content derived from this source. The source itself is impeccable and the conclusions it presents are derived from an empirical study of the issues. There is no more appropriate source to use for the construction of an article whose subject is gun control from an international perspective. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the sources were checked and did not support the statements made. If the editors had stuck to the scope of the statement and attributed it correctly we might have been fine. They could've said, "According to the smallarmssurvey, a gun control thinktank, they find that within the scope of their study of 11 countries they found that only two believe in inalienable rights" Instead they cited it as fact and said something like, "the US and Yemen are exceptional in the world".....but the smallarmssurvey only deals with a handful of countries in their survey. It's beyond the scope of the study to make the leap from the scope of the study to the entire world based on this work....and then to present that whole thing as fact without any attribution is purely POV push editing. It's a contentious article so we can't come and just do it this way.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A simple question for Justanonymous

Which of the data cited to the Small Arms Survey in the section you have deleted [47] are you suggesting is unreliable? And on what grounds are you suggesting that the data being cited is unreliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

that content was not deleted, it was moved to small arms article where it belongs. It might be too slanted for there it it's definitely wrong here. This article is about gun control not gun proliferation. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of gun control is to limit the availability of firearms. The source is about as on-topic as one could get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what others thinks. We have a small arms article that is in dire need of content and I thought that content belonged there as it deals with the distribution of small arms around the world. Now, I will say that the content could be biased. It'll require some careful analysis. Some of the worst content that comes from partisan think tanks are statistics, because they look solid on the surface but they generally don't release their methodologies completely and they wind up not standing up scrutiny (both pro and against gun control partisan stats are like that). If these guys don't know the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine, the confidence level in them doing stats is very doubtful. But, we can discuss on the small arms page.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious bullshit. You have refused to raise the source at WP:RSN. Either do so, or drop it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The content got moved to the small arms article. This article is about gun control not proliferation of small arms. I'm not going to go cry to mamma. We can solve it here. It might take a week or two. Be patient. Most editors aren't on here 24/7. Give it time, we're in no hurry.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"This article is about gun control not proliferation of small arms". I have to suggest that if this comment isn't grounds for a block on the grounds of tendentiousness, it is one on the grounds of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The section would be better if it had a seealso at the top to the "small arms" article, and if it would be focussed more on how gun control affects prevalence of small arms among civilians. I am not aware that gun control in any country is directed at reducing the number of small arms possessed by law enforcement agencies and armed forces, so I'm mystified by why those stats are presented here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

'The term "gun control" means any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms.' Weapons procurement, sale, disposal and use by law enforcement agencies and military forces are subject to national and international regulation. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A good roadmap

Put in the straightforward significant neutral factual material as information.

The heavily slanted sources should have the heavily slanted material put in attributed as being from an advocacy source, identified as such, and preferably in an "arguments" or "opinions" section.

And lets stop trying to put the latter in as the former. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Which material are you referring to as 'heavily slanted', and on what grounds? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, it's super easy -- the material that we disagree over. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"I don't like it" isn't grounds for exclusion. You have claimed that the source is unreliable, but refused to raise the matter at WP:RSN. You have claimed that the source is 'biased', but offered no evidence beyond a cherry-picked quotation, and your own opinions - clearly shaped by your self-evident opposition to gun control. You have claimed that it is unreliable both because it is 'independent', and because it receives funding from multiple governments. You have claimed that "Government funding is very suspect" - on which grounds, if accepted, almost every academic source on Wikipedia would have to be excluded as a source. Frankly, your arguments are both contradictory and tendentious, and should you persist in repeating them - rather than raising the matter at WP:RSN as has repeatedly been suggested - I shall raise your behaviour at WP:ANI, and ask that sanctions be taken against you. This article has been WP:OWNed by the U.S. gun lobby for far too long, and I see no reason whatsoever why such a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies should be allowed to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, from an editor behavior standpoint, that rant, threat, mis-characterizaion-into-false-accusations, inventing-bad-faith, attempting to deprecate and intimidate an editor through villainizaiton is I think the worst thing I've seen on this whole page. Let's talk about content and content issues. North8000 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Everything I wrote can be demonstrated in the content of this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! North8000. I tire of this behavior. Andy, "I don't like it" isn't grounds for exclusion but neither can "I like it" be grounds for inclusion. We all know that this is a contentious article. Bringing a partisan thinktank viewpoint into the article is going to have it challenged....be it some Geneva based pseudoscientific pro-gun control thing or the NRA so let's just not do it. We also can't just go crying to ANI or RSN or some other acryonym soup Wikiforum that someone stole my marbles. We have to be grown-ups. It's a tough article so let's demonstrate some good faith and try to bring only the best. Eurpean based nonpeer reviewed, POV slanted think-tanks that don't know the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine are hardly the top of the list. We can do better. By the way, if I bring an NRA article into the forum -- I can expect it to be rightfully challenged.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that amongst your many facile objections to the Small Arms Survey, you appear to be objecting to it as being "Eurpean based". I would respectably point out the U.S.A. is not the centre of the universe. Get a clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality says we represent ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Not just the ones you like. Not all points except pro gun activists. It is a notable pov, it should be included. You have previously admitted that this opinion is presented in reliable sources. That is the end of the discussion. ALL POVS from RSs should be included. " We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased" "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" — goethean 15:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes Goethean. that's what North is saying. If we want to use smallarms survey, we need to state what the group is and their viewpoint and then WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and BALANCE puts the onus on the editor to find the competing viewpoint and add that viewpoint. Here the viewpoint of a partisan thinktank was added as gospel. Very wrong.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There are areas where policies/guidelines do not provide enough guidance, which is why articles on topics representing a real-world contest are generally eternal messes/grief. And a common phenomena (NOT) speaking about anything here) is to wililawyer wp:ver , wp:nor, wp:npov, wp:rs etc. to try to POV an article by gaming in biased material as "fact" in the voice of Wikipedia. Again, I'm NOT speaking about anything at this article. But my suggested roadmap, (which is consistent with policy but which is not policy) suggests a way to avoid all of that eternal grief in our case here. Maybe this article can be an exception to "articles on topics representing a real-world contest are generally eternal messes/grief" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the repeated refusal of those objecting to the use of the Small Arms Survey to bring the matter to WP:RSN, one can only legitimately conclude that they do not do so as it is self-evident that the source is reliable. Accordingly, unless and until they do raise it at WP:RSN, it seems entirely right and proper to ignore such objections. The choice is theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's only partially about the source's biases. It's also about the generalizations made and the attribution style. It's not NPOV the way it's written. Let's edit a version and get an NPOV presentation. In good faith please work with us below.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good faith forum to edit the content that was found contentious

This is the content that I removed. Can we rework to find consensus and re-incorporate:

Barring a few exceptions, most countries in the world allow civilians to purchase firearms subject to certain restrictions. A major distinction between different national regimes of firearm regulation is the question of whether gun ownership is seen as a right or a privilege. Countries such as the United States and Yemen are exceptional in viewing firearm ownership as a basic right of civilians and these states have more permissive regimes of civilian gun ownership than is the international norm. In the rest of the world, civilian firearm ownership is considered a privilege and the legislation governing possession of firearms is correspondingly more restrictive.

Specific issues:

• We're stating these things as facts when they are the opinion of a thinktank
• The study's scope was only about 11 countries so we can't from that deduce the composition of the entire world

Can we work to fix these things so we can re-add. Maybe:

A 2011 survey of eleven countries by the smallarmsgroup.org, a Geneva based thinktank, found that very few of their countries studied banned all firearms. most countries in the study allow civilians to purchase firearms subject to certain restrictions. A major distinction between different national regimes of firearm regulation within the studied group found a distinction between whether gun ownership is seen as a right or a privilege. Of the studied group, countries such as the United States and Yemen view firearm ownership as a basic right of civilians and these states have more permissive regimes of civilian gun ownership. In the rest of the studied group, civilian firearm ownership is considered a privilege and the legislation governing possession of firearms is correspondingly more restrictive.

I'd be ok with something like the above. It's just that the way it was inserted before, the content from a pro small arms control think-tank makes generalities that are not supported by the data. I need to go count the countries in the survey....it might be a few more or less than 11 but it certainly did not encompass the world. Thoughts? I hope this demonstrates good faith in attempting to improve the article. Again, we're in no hurry so let's see what people think. We don't have to solve this today. Give it a week? and then we can decide if this merits inclusion once we get consensus? -Justanonymous (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You don't get to dismiss an internationally-recognised source like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And keep in mind that this content is much better sourced than your Nazi material, which you insist has to be kept in the article, despite the fact that it violates WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. You want to improve the article? Get rid of the Nazi garbage. — goethean 17:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have Nazi material??? You must have me confused with someone else.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some legitimate points here, I think, in terms of the representation of the study and findings in the first version I inserted into the article. The suggested text by Justanonymous, however, misrepresents the sample (28 countries & 42 jurisdictions in total over 5 continents and not 11 countries). One would have to precise, also, in determining what the authors conclude from their sample and otherwise. I've included details of the sample in a revised wording for the section [48] as I think that properly informs the reader. I'm less sure about whether the study should be attributed intext- although for the moment I've referenced and wikilinked the Small Arms Survey in an explanatory note - so I'd be interested in any valid consideration on that point. Merry Christmas/food festival/consumer orgy/bleak nothingness/whatever to everyone. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

thank you much for the consideration and good faith. I think the section is more neutral now after this last modification. Merry Xmas.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Votes

Second Version is Stronger -- I'm not dismissing Andy -- I'm proposing we correct the attribution and replace the unsupported general statements with supported statements and improve the article. Let's see what others think.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. And until you take this to WP:RSN, nothing more needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I note that AndyTheGrump has refused to discuss the matter on how to improve the article in the talk and intends instead with his cohorts to edit war as evidenced by edits on the actual page. I see this as bad faith and blatant violation of WP:BRD. I will have no part in an edit war and I don't intend to spill 15,000k in edits on some forum that will likely reach no-consensus. Have at it. Merry Christmas. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A source meeting the "floor" of wp:rs is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. There's only space in the article for about 1 millionth of the relevant material meeting that criteria, so (contrary to what seems to be the main argument) meeting it is a requirement for inclusion, not entitlement to be in the 1 millionth that actually gets in. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If something is to be removed, it should not be material sourced to the most authoritative source in the article. It should be your Nazi garbage. — goethean 19:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Your adjectives aside, although I'm in favor of straightforward coverage of significant instances of gun control (e.g. Nazi Germany), I'm neutral on some of the related stuff, I did not put it in so I don't know where you get the "my" from. Either way, my last post was not an argument against inclusion (that is elsewhere), it was saying the main argument used for inclusion is not valid. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Nazi garbage needs to be removed. You have failed to produce a single mainstream historian who considers the Holocaust to be an important instance of gun control. The inclusion of this material is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It must be removed immediately. — goethean 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to start debating you on the non-existent policies that you are inventing. By the standard that you just claimed, 99% of Wikipedia would be erased. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

False. Most of Wikipedia is not partisan horseshit forced into articles by partisans who sit on it and gloat at real Wikipedia contributors. There is a gigantic turd which you have placed in the middle of the article. Discussing anything else while that turd sits there is pointless. — goethean 20:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to carry on / continue a discussion down on that level. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're not going to discuss the material, you're just going to edit war when I remove it. Now it is your material. You are the one inserting this garbage into the article. You are the one violating Wikipedia policy. Take some responsibility for your actions. You need to defend keeping this garbage in the article, or you need to stop edit warring over it. — goethean 13:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I undid your mass blanking of the whole area under discussion. This was from a process standpoint; if I started editing it instead of merely reverting the blanking, I would be guilty of what you did which is trying to make it my preferred way (which would be different than the current) by aggressive editing instead of resolving at talk. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

First you say that it's not your material; then you say that you won't discuss it; then you revert my removal of it; then you claim that it is under discussion. What you are communicating is that you don't care about Wikipedia process or policy, but only care about getting your way on the article. The material must be removed. Your reverting of my removal is a flagrant, blatant voilation of Wikipedia policy. I have no problem getting blocked for enforcing Wikipedia policy. If an admin wants to take your side, against Wikipedia policy and block me, that is fine with me. — goethean 14:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The second version is tendentious. It attempts to discredit the facts reported by the "Small Arms Survey", not smallarmsgroup.org, btw. The expression "Geneva based thinktank" reminds me of what the mayor of Toronto said when Aaron Brown of CNN asked him why he thought the WHO was wrong to advise people not to travel there during the SARS epidemic. "They don't know what they're talking about. I don't know who this group is. I've never heard of them before. I had never seen them before. Who did they talk to? They haven't even been to Toronto. They're located somewhere in Geneva."[49] It is an ad hominem/ argument. We might as well say it is part of the New World Order. TFD (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

??????-Justanonymous (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Article format and sections, continuation

So we now have as of the most recent series of edits...

Lead

1 Terminology and context

2 Global distribution of small arms

3 Regulation of civilian firearms

4 Studies, debate, and opinions

5 3D printing

6 History

6.1 Japan of the Shogunate

6.2 United States

6.3 Australia

6.4 Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms

7 See also

8 Notes

9 References

10 Bibliography

11 External links

...and there is a proposal for...

Lead

1 Terminology and context

2 Legal/Legislative basis (Magna Charta, Blackstone, 2nd Amendment, worldwide gun laws, etc.)

3 Opinions, beliefs, and factions (the main sides of the debate and/or an explanation of the continuum they represent)

4 Studies and debate (why they believe what they believe)

5 Implementation (not in any particular order)

5.1 Crime prevention

5.2 Political purposes

5.3 Safety and consumer protection

5.3 Other (revenue, ecological, etc.)

6 History

7 Implications of firearm development

7.1 Firearm evolution (firesticks to match/flint/caplocks to cartridge guns to machines guns/assault weapons)

7.2 [Related development] or some other/better title (smokeless powder, self contained metallic cartridge, changeable magazines, etc.)

7.3 3D printing

8 See also

9 References

10 External links

11 Further reading

Is there a merger of the two that makes sense and mitigates or meters the controversial content? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can point to an academic general source discussing firearms regulation from an international perspective which indicates its significance, much of the proposed material appears to me to be off-topic. Personally, I think we need to avoid going into peripheral topics, and if anything to remove some existing sections, rather than editing more. The 3D printing section for instance seems out of place, and we have as yet to be shown sources which actually demonstrate that any of the specific 'history' sections are considered central to the debate by anyone beyond a specific minority (in worldwide terms) lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but to some extent I agree with you Andy... :) I am in favor of eliminating "off-topic" subjects, but how do we decide what "is" and "is not"? I was hoping that discussion of the article sections would accomplish User:Scolaire's suggestion of determining the scope of the article. If we can come up with a good outline, it should facilitate content sourcing and placement that is clinical and balanced. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Scolaire was suggesting that it is premature to decide what your section headings are going to be before you know what the scope of the article is. If it was me, I would hold a straw poll in which the only question would be, "what is gun control and what is the article about?" I would ask respondents to be reasonably brief while indicating as best they could what they saw as the whole scope of the article. Probably there would be divergent views on what it is and what it covers, but working on establishing a consensus about what the article is about seems to me a prerequisite of establishing a consensus about how it might be laid out. Scolaire (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think a proper discussion/straw poll of the article subject and scope would be a very useful exercise for everyone. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never conducted a straw poll, anyone care to edify me? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Like this [50] but I'd ask a somewhat more open-ended question or questions initially such as that which Scolaire suggests above. I might also ask for source-based arguments in relation to scope. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally I would agree on a source-based criteria, but that's how this is going to devolve quickly. We can all find sources on the subject of gun control that clearly are pushing a viewpoint. IMO what is needed is for us to review sources and come up with an outline and format that distills the major viewpoints into a digestible article. Assuming that's possible... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The kind of straw poll I'm talking about, sourcing doesn't come into it. Scope and content are two completely distinct and unrelated issues. You have to agree what the scope will be before you can even think about content, and it's only content that has to be source-based. My suggested question above was simply what participants think the article is / should be about. Only when we have that nailed down can we know whether we need sources for Shogunate Japan or whatever. Besides, we would want the maximum input: people should be free to say "gun control is about how to grip a pistol properly" or any such thing, and they won't have that freedom if there's going to be people shouting at them demanding reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

OK Scolaire. If no-one else does, I'll initiate a straw poll along the lines you've indicated above in the next few days when, hopefully, I'll have a little time. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• The History section would need a subsection on Europe in the post-WW2 period as well, and possibly one on Canada. All the overviews I have looked at describe strict "Gun control" as characteristic of European style liberal democracies. They dedicate a lot more time to comparing US to Canada and Europe than to mentioning Nazi germany (several of them do not mention NAzi germany at all). The article needs to describe how gun laws have developed in Europe and Canada.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you list the sources you're referring to here Maunus? FiachraByrne (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Mikhail Kalashnikov obit

Mikhail Kalashnikov is dead. NYT obit by C. J. Chivers. [51] FiachraByrne (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's odd, because this figure is actually relevant to the topic of the article ... FiachraByrne (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

One tiny piece of the recent back-and-forth

Wikipedia souring/source policies place source requirements for the presence of material. The policy places (sourcing and sorcability) conditions on the presence of the material, not on the presence of sources. So it is incorrect and baseless to claim a policy justification for removal of sources. (The IMO invalid claim against the source being a separate question) North8000 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sincerely attempting to parse your comment, but it makes no sense. Sources which are unreliable can be removed per WP:RS. Material which is poorly sourced can be removed per WP:V. The material under discussion violates WP:NPOV and must be removed. Additionally, Halbrook is unreliable and should not have been used as a source, and should be removed. — goethean 16:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your third sentence, and what follows that is beyond the mini-scope here. So what's left here is your second sentence. The first half of your second sentence is ambiguous, (meaning of "unreliable") but that is also not germane in this mini-topic. So what remains is the second half of your second sentence which is germane here but vague. (precise meaning of "can be removed per WP:RS") Let's take a hypothetical, where the statement is "XYZ", and consensus is that "A" is a very high grade source which is sufficient to support XYZ, and consensus is that "B" does not meet that high standard and that "B" is not sufficient to support XYZ.

• If XYZ is challenged, and sourced only by "B", policy supports the removal of XYZ, (and the cite of "B" for it would no longer have a purpose/home and of course be removed, although the source might be used elsewhere in the article.) So the cite went because XYZ went; not because policy supported removal of the cite.
• If XYZ is source by both "A" and "B" policy does NOT mandate or support the removal of the "B" cite.

In short, policy placed conditions (involving "A" & "B") for the presence of XYZ, not for the presence of "A" and "B". North8000 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Utter hogwash. If a source either (a) doesn't support the statement it is being cited for, or (b) isn't considered reliable regarding the statement it is being cited for, citing it has no legitimate purpose, and can only mislead readers. Misleading readers certainly isn't supported by policy. Obviously. 20:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question. Your response changes the subject and bears no relation to it, and (if one includes the already-extant / implicit claim that it shows that policy supports removal of the cite/source) has obfuscating faulty logic in the whole new area. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

FTFY

The section about Nazis has nothing to do with gun control. It's only been linked to the topic by pro-gun extremists who liken reasonable restrictions on nuclear hand grenades to Nazis disarming and murdering part of the population. MilesMoney (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with the mini-topic here, so I'll not respond here. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

At the time of my post this was inserted into the previous section. Afterwards a new section header was placed over it. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Current warring would remove legitimacy from the results if it temporarily stands

There are a large amount of current material and sourcing that is under discussion which was blanked by Goethen and re-blanked by someone. If such blanking were to stand even temporarily, it would remove legitimacy from whatever (temporarily) emerges from it thus delaying any actual resolution. Can't we have a more civilized process? North8000 (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not blanking to remove content that is currently under discussion and which there is no consensus fits into this article. I was very surprised to the the content in the article given that the RfC is about whether there are grounds for including any of it in the first place. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

there was consensus here about a year ago. Look at the archives. Not my content but some editors agreed that it belonged. There is blanking and edit warring on the page right now and has been since Andy and Goethean showed up. I'm refuse to edit war. This'll get sorted out when the normal editors get back from vacation or when an admin starts blocking editors. North....I'll help clean up later after the barfight.....as usual. Justanonymous (talk)20:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There has never been 'consensus' regarding this article. What has occurred, on and off, is that the supporters of the NPOV-violating pro-gun propaganda have driven off any contributors actually interested in creating an informative and neutral encyclopaedic treatment of the subject by tag-teaming, tendentious and circular stonewalling talk page 'discussions', and the periodic holding of bogus NPOV-violating 'RFCs' clearly intended to rally supporters rather than encourage any outside input. Sadly for them (but not for Wikipedia), it seems to have backfired this time, and we actually have a significant number of experienced contributors from beyond the U.S. gun lobby willing and able to knock the article into credible shape. As for what happens next, I very much doubt that such new contributors are going to stand back and have the article return to the dreadful state it was in before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas day warring to blank long-standing material which is under discussion is clearly problematic. It also de-legitimizes itself, your shrill and nasty attacks aside. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

agreed. We need to use the talk vs edit war on the article. If an editor is unwilling to discuss edits on the talk, they should not edit these contentious articles. Bottom Line, it's christmas in the US and some people are just taking advantage but it's not constructive to blow up the article without regard to policy just to make a point its not helpful. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And when you can't defend your edits, call your opponents "shrill and nasty". — goethean 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to simply erase a significant aspect of the gun control debate from this article

I suggest that a more useful section would read as follows, first with wikicode, then without:

Participants in the gun control debate have on occasion alleged that restrictive firearms policies in [[Germany]] rendered Jews defenseless against genocide during [[World War II]].<ref name=Carter>Bryant, Michael. [http://books.google.com/books?id=oD46JBOhMU0C&pg=PA411 “Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control”] in Carter, Gregg. ''Guns in American Society'', pp. 411-414 (ABC-CLIO 2012).</ref> The Nazis disarmed the Jews after [[Kristallnacht]] in November 1938, but writers such as [[Bernard Harcourt]] do not construe that Nazi action as either pro- or anti- gun control, whereas others such as [[Stephen Halbrook]] do.<ref name=Carter /> Had Jews been armed following Kristallnacht, and therefore been able to resist with force in 1938, they may well have hastened the genocide rather than averting it.<ref name=Carter /> There is no evidence of genocide plans until 1941, after which Jewish resistance occurred for example during the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprising]] in 1943.<ref name=Carter /> Regardless of whether a better-armed uprising in [[Poland]] would have ultimately saved any Jewish lives, it arguably could have raised the costs of the genocide for the Nazi perpetrators, according to gun control opponents.<ref name=Carter /> On the other hand, Hitler was reckless and indifferent to costs, which makes it less likely that he could have been deterred by armed Jewish resistance, especially given Hitler’s fervent commitment to the “[[Final solution]]”.<ref name=Carter /> It is clear, though, that Hitler did see danger in armed resistance in places like Poland, as he explained in 1942:<ref name=Robberson>Robberson, Tod. [http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/lets-stick-to-the-facts-when-discussing-gun-control.html/ “Let’s stick to the facts when discussing gun control”, [[Dallas Morning News]] (January 15, 2013).</ref> <blockquote>The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Without wikicode:

Participants in the gun control debate have on occasion alleged that restrictive firearms policies in Germany rendered Jews defenseless against genocide during World War II. The Nazis disarmed the Jews after Kristallnacht in November 1938, but writers such as Bernard Harcourt do not construe that Nazi action as either pro- or anti- gun control, whereas others such as Stephen Halbrook do. Had Jews been armed following Kristallnacht, and therefore been able to resist with force in 1938, they may well have hastened the genocide rather than averting it. There is no evidence of genocide plans until 1941, after which Jewish resistance occurred for example during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. Regardless of whether a better-armed uprising in Poland would have ultimately saved any Jewish lives, it arguably could have raised the costs of the genocide for the Nazi perpetrators, according to gun control opponents. On the other hand, Hitler was reckless and indifferent to costs, which makes it less likely that he could have been deterred by armed Jewish resistance, especially given Hitler’s fervent commitment to the “Final solution”. It is clear, though, that Hitler did see danger in armed resistance in places like Poland, as he explained in 1942:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The first two (or possibly three) sentences could well be a way of dealing with the Nazi Germany issue, but the rest of it to my mind is irrelevant to the subject of gun control. The "what-ifs" of if Jews had not been disarmed do not affect the question of whether disarmament was gun control or not. If you wanted to include the content of the third sentence, it would have to be in the form: "The Nazis disarmed the Jews after Kristallnacht in November 1938. Some ^[who?] say that this led to the Holocaust, but it has also been argued that had Jews been armed following Kristallnacht, and therefore been able to resist with force in 1938, they may well have hastened the genocide rather than averting it.^[4] Writers such as Bernard Harcourt do not construe that Nazi action..." On balance, I would be inclined to leave it at just the first two sentences. Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need Hitler to tell us that occupiers typically disarm local populations? Surely no one questions that. The U.S. for example disarmed or attempted to disarm Ba'athists, Taliban and al Qaeda. The subtext is that because occupiers disarm local populations, the American Occupation government is disarming citizens because they plan to turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany. Hence fears of door-to-door gun confiscations and FEMA concentration camps. TFD (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're completely right. MilesMoney (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll be curious what others think. It seems to me that the Warsaw & Poland stuff is key. Even if gun control opponents are wrong that gun control in Germany made a big difference, that says nothing about whether gun control in places like Poland made a big difference. I'd like a balanced and neutral section, not just a section that favors only one side. I strongly support including the Hitler quote because it balances the paragraph by supporting a major argument of gun control opponents: that gun control leaves a population more vulnerable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disarming the population you're conquering has almost nothing to do with gun control. MilesMoney (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your POV is reflected by the sentence about Harcourt. We can't very well say "Harcourt and Miles Money", eh? All the sources that discuss the Warsaw Uprising in relation to gun control are discussing conquered territory. So why not follow the sources?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should go with our sources. But what our sources tell us is that the whole idea of connecting American gun control to Naziism is an NRA talking point. Read the Fordham paper, for example. Why are we trying to pass off an NRA talking point as fact? MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If you'll re-read the proposed paragraph, you'll see that much of it is devoted to carefully explaining why the NRA talking point may be defective. In any event, I've got other commitments right now, and so regretfully excuse myself, but will look forward to comments from other editors. Happy holidays.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No. The proposal violates WP:NPOV - asserting speculative opinion as fact - and appears to be synthesis. More fundamentally though, unless and until it can be demonstrated through relevant reliable sources that the disarmament of Jews in Nazi Germany is seen as significant by anyone but sections of the U.S. gun lobby, the inclusion of material on NaziGermany is unjustifiable. The fringe views of sections of the U.S. pro-gun lobby no more merit inclusion in this article than any other fringe views in any other article. And without verifiable evidence that this viewpoint has any credibility beyond the said lobby, Wikipedia must assume that it is indeed fringe - and the onus is on those suggesting otherwise is to provide the necessary evidence from credible sources. This is really all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(As an aside, since the proposed content is unjustified anyway, I'd have to point out that there is an obvious and glaring failure of logic in the text - Warsaw isn't in Germany, making the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 utterly irrelevant.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Andy. Some brief questions....Do you think the book by Carter is fringe? Do you think the proposed paragraph distorts anything Carter said? Do you think it's a fringe point of view that if the German Jews had weapons after Kristallnacht then that might have hastened their own demise? Do you think it's a fringe view that Hitler was unlikely to be deterred from the final solution even if the German Jews had been armed? Do you think it's a fringe view that Hitler said what he is quoted above as having said? Do you think it's a fringe view that he disarmed the Poles prior to the Warsaw Uprising? Do you think it's a fringe view that a vast number of reliable sources discuss (and disagree with) the opinion that gun control within Germany led to the holocaust? Thanks in advance for answering.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in speculative debate. Provide the necessary evidence - as Wikipedia policy requires - or accept that material on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you decline to answer a single one of the very relevant questions that I asked in good faith, I withdraw my thanks, and decline to answer any inquiry you may have about a phrase ("Weapons Law of 1938") which is not in the paragraph I proposed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing 'relevant' about discussions concerning material for which the necessary sourcing to prove relevance have not been provided (and if your contribution isn't supposed to be about Nazi laws concerning the regulation of firearms, what in hell's name are you posting it on this talk page for? - this isn't a forum) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't even try to ask me a question after dismissing every reasonable question I have put to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

agree with Anythingyouwant, you can't just blank sections when there is obviously no consensus. Please come to talk and discuss the merits civilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanonymous (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your questions are not reasonable. They are based on the assumption that we should provide parity between reasonable views and those expressed by fringe elements in the U.S. who see gun control laws as part of a conspiracy. TFD (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no such assumption. No way is it unreasonable to ask whether a source is fringe or not (that was my first question).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The source (Carter) is not fringe. He is a sociologist. His encyclopaedia is on "Guns in American Society". It is about the U.S. discourse on the subject - evidently including a section on "Holocaust imagery and gun control". I've not got access to the book, so can't say whether Carter considers such imagery fringe or not, or whether he even expresses an opinion on the matter. I can say that the mere presence of an encyclopaedic entry in a book isn't evidence that the topic (which is 'imagery', not Nazi firearms regulation) is actually relevant to a general discussion on the subject matter of this article. We certainly aren't going to cover every entry in Carter's encyclopaedia in this article, purely on the basis that he has an entry on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to simplify this for you. If you can't show that this view is held outside of the NRA PR dept., there's no way that section can be in the article. The onus is on you. MilesMoney (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What view is that, Miles? Perhaps this one in the proposed paragraph: "Had Jews been armed following Kristallnacht, and therefore been able to resist with force in 1938, they may well have hastened the genocide rather than averting it." You seriously think that that is a fringe view?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The view that Nazi policies about guns have any relevance to gun control issues. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

the nazi gun policies were gun control against the Jews especially the laws that banned Jews from having arms. It's pretty plain. milesmoney, let me make it simpler for you.....the content is sourced credibly. Why are you bringing the nra into this? Do you refute the sources? Prove it here with logic. No personal attacks, no insults, no marginalizations.....discredit the sources. Please do so logically....bring it.otherwise go away. I tire too. -Justanonymous (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no shortage of reliable sources regarding Nazi firearms regulation. That isn't what is required. What is required is evidence that anyone but fringe elements of the U.S. gun lobby consider such regulations as of any particular relevance to a general discussion on firearms regulation on an international level. Provide such evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, one of the sources already in the article links this line of reasoning to NRA PR. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

not good enough. Plenty of bias on all sides. Just because one biased group agrees with an argument does not make it unworthy here....take small arms survey. You're perfectly happy with that even though it's pro gun control....why no issue from you with that blatant bias??? What's good for the goose.. Now make a solid argument or go away..-Justanonymous (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there to reply to, so I'll just remind you that the Fordham article proves my point. Merry Christmas! MilesMoney (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are probably more sources claiming that this idea is a creation of the NRA's PR department than there are claims by the NRA about everything. Whether or not Dodd was inspired by his father's investigation into the Reich's firearms laws neither of them has ever addressed. That they haven't denied the charge over the decades may or may not be significant; they're politicians, so how much faith can be put in such statements? People forget that the NRA was in favor of the GCA '68, so they'd be complicit in the Nazi gun implementation you're claiming they opposed ... htom (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Every country in the world has laws restricting the ownership and use of firearms, and no credible sources argue against the necessity of such laws, only about specific laws. There are not "two sides" if we follow neutrality". TFD (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that yet again, no source whatsoever has been provided to support the assertion that the Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 are "a significant aspect of the gun control debate" in terms of the international scope of this article, rather than merely the obsession of elements of the U.S. gun lobby, it has to be noted that the section title is misleading, to say the least... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The source I cited by Carter (Guns in American Society, pp. 411-414, which you may want to actually look at) is emphatically not from the perspective of the U.S. gun lobby, and it instead argues against that lobby. Like it or not, the U.S. gun lobby is huge and influential; its views about Germany circa 1938 are widespread, and rebuttals to it are also widespread. The theory that the U.S. gun lobby is not entirely correct about Germany circa 1938 is broadly supported by scholarship in the field of gun control, it is mainstream, and it is the majority view. In contrast, the so-called NRA view is a significant-minority view. The mainstream rebuttal to the NRA view is given clearly and concisely in the proposed paragraph.

The paragraph proposed at the top of this section says: "The Nazis disarmed the Jews after Kristallnacht in November 1938…." This is a virtually undisputed fact that occurs in lots of reliable sources, including many histories of Germany, various biographies, many books about gun control both in the U.S. and generally, et cetera, et cetera. Here are a few more sources:

• Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007).
• O’Neill, Terry. Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints Digests), pp. 46-47 (Greenhaven Press 2000).
• Fisanick, Christina. Gun Control, p. 15 (Greenhaven Press 2010).

I'm having some difficulty understanding why you have singled out this factoid about Germany, instead of, say, the material in this Wikipedia article about Japan or Australia or the United States, which each has a separate subsection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they will be discussed in due course. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll be curious to learn what you think about them, though based on your comments thus far I will not expect enthusiastic satisfaction. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would we include a fringe view in the first place, even if we also include the rebuttal? This seems like stealing credibility from critics. The analogy would be to say Creationism is science because scientists refute it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, a portion of the so-called Halbrook-NRA thesis may be fringe, and I am willing to suppose so for the sake of argument (and even for the sake of editing this Wikipedia article), but it is not a fringe view that Hitler and the Nazis said and did what they said and did. But getting to your point, WP:FRINGE does not command: "do not mention any fringe viewpoint". Quite the contrary, Wikipedia seeks to educate people about why particularly common views are actually fringe views. WP:FRINGE says: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". It does not say "delete fringe information on sight and wage war at the talk page to keep it deleted." In the article about evolution, for example, we have this and much more: "In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Today, the modern evolutionary synthesis is accepted by a vast majority of scientists.[49] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[284]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether the Nazis took weapons from Jews is not and never has been the issue. The issue is framing these events as a notable event in the history of gun control, which no reputable historian does, but which the NRA does. And which this article currently does. That's the issue. — goethean 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you suggested any alternative framing, other than blanking?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No I haven't, because the content should not be in the article at all. Why should I suggest an alternative way to insert NRA talking points into the article? I haven't suggested an alternative because I respect Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia readers. Why should our readers be indoctrinated with this paranoid, senile version of history? The neutral alternative is to remove the section. If you insist, it may be possible to write a well-sourced, well-framed version. But the Nazi material as it is must go, and it must go now. — goethean 19:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do suggest "a well-sourced, well-framed version".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly will not, because I believe that our readers and the Wikipedia project are better served by a refusal to insert crazy NRA talking points into articles. It is only as a compromise that I offered to consider such a proposal. — goethean 19:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, please suggest compromuse language. I am open to considering it. I have tried above to draft such a paragraph that explains why the majority view is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Accurate representation of sources

The "more useful section" proposed above...

Participants in the gun control debate have on occasion alleged that restrictive firearms policies in Germany rendered Jews defenseless against genocide during World War II. The Nazis disarmed the Jews after Kristallnacht in November 1938, but writers such as Bernard Harcourt do not construe that Nazi action as either pro- or anti- gun control, whereas others such as Stephen Halbrook do. Had Jews been armed following Kristallnacht, and therefore been able to resist with force in 1938, they may well have hastened the genocide rather than averting it. There is no evidence of genocide plans until 1941, after which Jewish resistance occurred for example during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. Regardless of whether a better-armed uprising in Poland would have ultimately saved any Jewish lives, it arguably could have raised the costs of the genocide for the Nazi perpetrators, according to gun control opponents. On the other hand, Hitler was reckless and indifferent to costs, which makes it less likely that he could have been deterred by armed Jewish resistance, especially given Hitler’s fervent commitment to the "Final solution". It is clear, though, that Hitler saw danger in armed resistance in places like Poland, as he explained in 1942:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

...is not an accurate representation of the sources.

• From the first source (emphasis mine),

Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control

The basic argument is that regulation of gun ownership will lead society down an infernal path toward genocide, much as it did in Nazi Germany. Indispensable to such an argument is historical comparison. "All history," the historian Charles Maier has written, "is condemned to comparison" (Maier 1988, 99). While comparison is inevitable in historical analysis, it has to be undertaken with caution. Legitimate comparison accounts for both similarities and^{(page 411)} differences between the things being compared (Bloch 1963, 16—40). When surface similarities are emphasized and critical differences ignored, we have reason to suspect the comparison is, in Maier's words, "actually misleading and tendentious"—that is, motivated by "a partisan intent." Maier's test for tendentiousness may be applied to the Holocaust arguments of Poe, Zelman and Stevens, Halbrook and their confreres to assess two important issues: the truthfulness of the claims staked and the motives underlying them.^{(page 412)}

...snip...

Conclusion

In exaggerating similarities and ignoring differences in their comparisons, gun rights advocates violate Charles Maier's test for tendentiousness. Their use of history has selected factual inaccuracies, and their methodology can be questioned. More generally, rather than examine evidence scrupulously, some adherents of the Nazi analogy cherry-pick it by decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odds with their thesis.^{(page 414)}

• From the second source (emphasis mine),

Then come the Hitler quotes, such as this one: [quote above]. Hitler made that statement in 1942, not anytime even remotely close to his assumption of power. And he made the statement in reference to the people of countries he had conquered. I’m not defending Hitler, but the fact is, this is what conquerors do when they occupy a foreign land. Guess what the United States and NATO tried to do in Afghanistan in 2002-2003: Disarm all Afghan militias and establish the central government as the sole authority in charge of the country’s security. Guess what the Northern Ireland peace accord set out to do in 1998: Decommission weapons and disarm the militias. When you fail to do this, you get a situation like the one that exists in Lebanon, with Hezbollah competing against the central government for the claim to authority over the Lebanese people. So, in that context, Hitler was simply stating what conquerors as well as peacemakers have stated for decades if not centuries.

But did Hitler disarm his own people? No. In fact, the supposed "disarmament" campaign in Germany was the Law on Firearms and Ammunition passed in 1928, specifically to stop the growth of private militias, such as the right-wing brownshirts, and to prevent coup attempts such as the one Hitler attempted in 1923. Hitler's rise to power and subsequent dictatorial domination was not the result of gun control. It was in spite of it.

References

If we are going to have a section on "Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms" it must be properly sourced. Currently it is not. Arguing that consensus is required before removing material that is not properly sourced or uses sources in misleading manner is not in the best interests of this project. Please take the time to read over the sources and govern yourselves accordingly. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks properly sourced to me. Instead of waving the sources, please specify what is unsupported or otherwise incorrect. I provided external links to both sources, so people could already easily see what they say. The sources say much more than you quoted, but obviously we cannot include it all, and you have omitted quoting parts that support the draft paragraph.

Moreover, you have incorrectly represented the sources for the proposed paragraph. It does not cite to "Parker".

Additionally, the proposed paragraph is not in the Wikipedia article. It is a subject of discussion, and hopefully improvement. Therefore, I am bewildered by your comment about "removing material". How can material be removed if it has not yet been inserted?

I would be glad to present additional sources if you would identify what particular parts of the proposed paragraph are not adequately sourced. Did I misquote Hitler? Or perhaps the first sentence is incorrect ("Participants in the gun control debate have on occasion alleged that restrictive firearms policies in Germany rendered Jews defenseless against genocide during World War II")?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting your wrong citation to Parker, ArtifexMayhem. Also, please keep something in mind regarding the second source, which is an editorial in the Dallas Morning News. Since it is an opinion piece, I deliberately surmised that the source is reliable only for statements of fact, such as the Hitler quote. It is not reliable for opinion, unless it is attributed in-text, which I saw no need for. It would be against Wikipedia policy to use that source as if its opinions were reliable, and so much of what you quoted is irrelevant, and therefore quite misleading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ref tags were included in sections above without an associated {{reflist}} template. So they appeared in the {{reflist}} of this section. It was not a "wrong citation." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It came out looking like an assertion by you that I had cited Parker, which I did not do.[52] Thanks for fixing the error.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Circling a couple posts back, yes, in the wording there seems to be confusion on what is and isn't in there. What is currently in there is a short, heavily sourced paragraph with a straightforward description of gun laws and disarmament in Nazi Germany. What is discussed above (and which has gone in an out of the article over the last several months) is analysis an opinions on that. That is NOT currently in the article. The article had "analysis" and opinion type coverage, but it is NOT currently in the article. The recent attempted blanking was of the small amount of "mundane" coverage that is currently in the article, not the analysis etc. that is being discussed above. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the current version is NOT well sourced and neither is the proposal. Please read the sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? What's in there now (on Nazi Germany) is straigtforward history type statements, with a lot of sourcing. (and that is what a couple of folks attempted to blank on Christmas day) The analysis / inferences / opinion stuff which was in the article is currently not in there, was not in there even before the attempted blanking, and that type of thing is what is being discussed above. (Or are you saying that the sourcing is insufficient to support the straightforward history stuff that is currently in there? If so, we could pick a few and go to wp:rsn, but I would think that that would be a wp:snow "yes" for straightforward historical statements.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not "straightforward history" to say what no reputable historian would ever say or ever endorse, or to say what you have FAILED to provide sourcing for. The Holocaust is NOT an instance of gun control, and you have FAILED to find a source to back up that bullshit claim. You've failed to find a source because no reputable historian would ever make such ludicrous claims as are made in this article which is filled with your NRA garbage. NRA talking points are not "straightforward history" and to say so is a LIE. "Blanking" the section is bringing the article in line with basic Wikipedia NPOV policy, which your actions have repeatedly and flagrantly violated, and for which you would face serious sanctions if any Wikipedia administrator had the backbone to enforce basic Wikipedia policy. — goethean 15:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

[53]Christmas Day? Is Wikipedia a Christian organization? — goethean 15:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm Jewish myself, and have never been an NRA member. Christmas Day is a fairly common term to designate a day of the year. It's not exclusively a term reserved for use by Christians, or by NRA members. Atheists often refer to "Thanksgiving", for example. Do you have reliable sources to the contrary? If so, they must be FRINGE. I think we should stop talking about this gun control stuff, and instead focus on this kind of holiday nomenclature issue exclusively. What do you say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that not all the people in the world live in the United States. TFD (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources? No surprise there. Still, Carter for one is an ideal source for any article which covers the U.S. gun debate, as he accurately summarises the tactics of the pro-gun 'holocaust imagery' crowd: "rather than examine evidence scrupulously, some adherents of the Nazi analogy cherry-pick it by decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odds with their thesis." What it doesn't establish of course is whether this tendentious cherry-picked and decontextualised 'data' (and of course the description of it as such) belongs in this article at all - as I have said, we need sources (proper ones, not tendentious nonsense) which describe the firearms regulation level in broad international terms - where I've seen no evidence that the argumentum ad Hitlerum of Harcourt and co. has had the slightest traction at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief correction to your tirade, Andy: Harcourt has criticized and denigrated the so-called NRA view, and he has immense traction in the scholarly literature. If you want to accuse me of misrepresentation, I would have expected that you (unlike Artifex) might do me the favor of quoting something specific from the paragraph I proposed, so that I can respond specifically.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed text is fine if it goes in the "Studies, debate, and opinions" section, and not in the "History" section. You know, since it is an argument, and not mainstream history. Like it was before User:ROG5728's bad edit in April 2013. — goethean 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Although you need a better (much better, like scholarly) source than the Dallas Morning News editorial opinion piece blog post(!) for that incredibly hackneyed/NRA BFF Hitler quotation which shouldn't be in the article at all. — goethean 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How come? Does anyone dispute that the quote is accurate? I can get more sources, but why? You say it's hackneyed, but where is the policy or guideline against hackneyed quotes by extremely famous people that are extremely relevant? If I get more sources confirming the quote, it would still be hackneyed in your view. Do I need a source explicitly saying "The Hitler quote is not hackneyed"? If so, I'd rather not waste my time trying to find it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be self-evident why a reliable source is needed for your ripped-out-of-context Hitler quotation. See WP:V for details.

Yes, it is a stupid, highly instrumental quotation. Let's give an example. In writing a history of the German language, should we quote Mark Twain's well-known insults of the German language? Mark Twain is extremely famous. People ho hate the German language would find his quotations highly relevant. We need to try to write a high-quality article which serves our readers, rather than bludgeoning them with our intense feelings about how GUN CONTROL IS NAZIS!!!111 If you must quote Hitler, then (1) it must be in the "Studies" section, not "History", and (2), you must cite a reputable, non-gun nut historian who uses the Hitler quotation in an article on gun control. Quality articles. Don't bludgeon the reader. — goethean 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler seems much more relevant to a paragraph about Nazism than Mark Twain is to a paragraph about the German language. You really think that's a valid comparison? You object to articles by "gun nuts", but the cited source is obviously not such an article. How many "quality articles" would be sufficient, given that you have not cast an iota of doubt on the authenticity of the quote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler seems much more relevant to a paragraph about Nazism

We're writing about gun control, not Nazism. Hitler isn't relevant to gun control. At least not to reputable, neutral historians.

How many "quality articles" would be sufficient, given that you have not cast an iota of doubt on the authenticity of the quote?

It should be self-evident that an anti-gun control blog post is completely unacceptable. I don't think that there should be any Nazi material at all in this article, given that no reputable historian engages in such rhetoric. One quality article by a reputable historian, on the topic of gun control (not on the Holocaust) is sufficient. — goethean 18:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be self-evident that I have not cited any "an anti-gun control blog post".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you call this? [54] Nevermind, it's pro-regulation. Doesn't matter. Still a blog post. Still unreliable. Still inappropriate. — goethean 18:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you have decided to read the cited source (better late than never, as they say). In addition to that pro-regulation source from the Dallas Morning News, see also this source that is not pro-regulation: Resnick, Ronald. “Private Arms as the Palladium of Liberty: The Meaning of the Second Amendment”, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, Vol. 77, Issue 1 (Fall 1999) at page 50, n. 154.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Zing! Are you glad that you wasted my time with a link to an unreliable and obviously inappropriate blog post? And now you're doing what...trolling through law journals — which are not works of history or written by historians — searching for any articles which mention Hitler and guns. GUN CONTROL IS HITLER!!!!11111 Are you interested in improving the article, or just in bludgeoning the reader with your ideology? And I notice that you have decided to ignore my condition that the Nazi material must be in "Studies" section rather than the "History" section. — goethean 19:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Get back to me after you've looked at the cited source, and when you have proposed some actual text to put in a "Studies" section. The quote is extremely reliably sourced. And it is often cited, for example here and hereAnythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there something about the phrase "reputable historian" that you don't understand? — goethean 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Trevor-Roper was a very reputable historian, and I've also shown very prominent use of the quote by both supporters and opponents of gun regulation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing. Here is the content that is in the article that I am calling straightforward. I put 100% of it in, verbatim, except that I removed the numerous references and split it into statements/sentences:

1. Among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish were restrictions of weapon ownership,
2. The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 relaxed gun control requirements for the general population, but prohibited ownership, possession, sale, and manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.
3. During the initial reports of events that would later be called Kristallnacht on November 9 and 10, 1938, the Police President of Berlin had announced that police activity in the preceding few weeks had disarmed the entire Jewish population of Berlin by confiscating 2,569 of their hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.
4. Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.

Goethean, are THESE the statements that you are identifying as:

• "what no reputable historian would ever say or ever endorse"
• "your NRA garbage"
• "what you have FAILED to provide sourcing for"
• flagrant violation of policy
• "incredibly hackneyed/NRA BFF Hitler quotation"

Or are you talking about the analysis / opinions etc. (not currently in the article) that is being discussed in the bulk of this talk page section? North8000 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not Harcourt has "immense traction" is irrelevant to whether or not his argumentum ad hitlerum, which has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, has traction. His traction is in his arguments about the meaning of the 2nd amendment in U.S. v. Heller, not his writings on Nazi Germany. TFD (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

I've said it one hundred times, so why not make one hundred and one times, right? No reputable historian considers the Nazi disarmament of the Jews to be an instance in the history of gun control, and you have failed to produce a source to the contrary.

Imagine that you are writing an article on ravioli, and one editor insisted that the history section should consist of an account which connected the history of the ravioli solely to Nazis, serial killers and pedophiles. Let's imagine that the anti-ravioli text was completely factual and well-sourced: Hitler loved ravoli, John Wayne Gacy loved ravioli, pedophiles love ravioli. All true statements. So your article's history of ravioli consisted of all these psychopathic murderers who loved ravioli. Would that be neutral? That's what you are doing here at this article. And you are calling it neutral. — goethean 18:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I hear you Goethean but I also hear the other side. No the history of Nazi Germany is not the history of Gun Control but neither can we say that gun control was not a part of the history. It is part of that history, perhaps or perhaps not a central piece of the history, people disagree, but it was present there. At one point the Nazi regime targeted Jews specifically, first with firearms ownership restrictions and then with far more horrific things. Raviolis are made from flour.....we can't leave that important and relevant detail out. It's also no coincidence that the jpfo.org was created by jews -- they're committed with their lives this time to never letting that happen. You can go tell them what you think directly but don't expect a warm audience from that very smart and learned crowd. Now, that does not mean that "all" instances of gun control will inevitably lead to tyranny but most certainly we can say that an unarmed population is more prone to being subjugated. There are also examples of armed militias in Africa doing terrible things with guns to poor people who didn't have any, other armed militias etc. The examples in history are rich with this kind of stuff. It's not for us to pick and choose. We just document it as impartially as we can. I'm not entirely sure how this article should take shape but we'll get there. Let's just not edit war and let's try to follow the policies as best we can and be respectful that some of our fellow editors disagree. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is in horrific, hideous shape because you and North8000, et al have edit warred and bullied and dissembled in order to keep unsourced, non-neutral content in the article because it aligns with your ideology. Those are the facts. You have failed to provide a single reputable historian who engages in the kind of outrageous rhetoric that this article does. Stop bludgeoning the article's readers with your ideology. Remove the Nazi material immediately. — goethean 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, I'm not going to respond down on the level of your false accusations and mudslinging. But on the relevancy issue, the analogies you gave are not representative because they are one step farther removed. They are not directly the topic, they are people's opinions of the topic. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is only the opinion of fringe pro-gun lobbyists that Nazi firearms regulations are relevant to the topic of this article. And per WP:FRINGE, such material doesn't belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If you choose not to defend your poorly sourced, non-neutral addition to the article, I will assume that you have agreed with my analysis and have assented to my removal of the material. You can't just disengage and expect your poorly sourced, non-neutral content to stay in the article, especially considering that you have failed miserably to back up any of your arguments for inclusion with any remotely relevant source. — goethean 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have said that the statements in the article (listed above) are straightforward and sourced. And neither you nor Andy or others have even attempted to address the actual statements. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, you have nothing. Nothing but edit warring. — goethean 19:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis did not target the Jews "first with firearms ownership restrictions." 1933: Jewish doctors, lawyers and businesses were boycotted. Jews were banned from the civil service, including universities. Marriage and sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews were outlawed. Jews were forbidden to hire young non-Jewish women as domestic servants or to fly German flags. 1935: citizenship of Jews was revoked and they were prohibited from joining the armed forces. 1936: Jews were banned from all professions. By 1938, only 214,000 Jews remained in Germany, as most Jews had been able to emigrate. Even though you and gun rights activists think that the ban against Jews owning firearms was critical to carrying out the Holocaust, scholars who write about the Holocaust do not agree with you. TFD (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is of course also worth bearing in mind that the overwhelming proportion of Jewish Holocaust victims were not German by nationality - making the Nazi firearms regulations even less relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The firearms regulations internal to the borders of Germany, perhaps. But the distribution of Jewish Holocaust victims perhaps gives added relevance to Poland, the Warsaw Uprising, and Hitler's determination to disarm the conquered people of Eastern Europe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD, your are describing "first with firearms ownership restrictions" "ban against Jews owning firearms was critical to carrying out the Holocaust" as if they were in the article or as if I was proposing adding those, and then arguing against those as if that were the question. Neither is the case; they are not in the article and I've not proposed putting them in the article.North8000 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added numbers to the verbatim list of statements that are in the article. As indicated before, if someone is saying that any or all are unsouced, pick one and let's either discuss or go to wp:RSN with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your refusal to engage is a failure or refusal to "get the point". As I explain very clearly with the ravioli example, the Nazi material is off-topic to this article. No one has ever argued that Nazis didnt take guns away from Jews. No one has ever argued that. Nazis did take weapons away from Jews. That's a fact. However, no reputable historian regards this episode as a notable event in the history of gun control. Including it in the article is similar to writing an article on ravioli featuring Nazis, serial killers and pedophiles. It's not neutral. It violates NPOV. — goethean 20:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You and others have argued that the material is not properly/sufficiently sourced. Sourcing policies (wp:ver and wp:nor) apply to supporting the statements as written in the article. So, contrary to your "I didn't hear that" crap/accusation, what I'm bringing up is not only directly addressing that, and engaging on that, but is the only relevant direction with respect to policies requiring sourcing. On the different topic of relevancy, wikipedia does not have a relevancy policy. If it did, I'm sure that this inclusion (coverage directly about a major instance of the subject of the article) would pass whatever criteria that it would include. The standard that you are trying to invent for this case would call for deletion of 99% of Wikipedia and would certainly not be in it.

The closest thing that there is to a relevancy policy such is wp:npov, particularly wp:weight, and IMO it goes beyond permitting inclusion onto supporting inclusion. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I arrive here late, what with Chrismas and all. North8000, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in your last comment, but my misunderstanding may or may not be relevant. Let me just say that the Hitler quote, "The most foolish thing" etc, has no place in this article. Read the relevant pages from Hitler's Table Talk: this is in the context of ruling conquered countries, it's hardly a comment on civil legislation regarding gun ownership, as is made abundantly clear by reference in the next sentences: "let's not have any native militia or native police". This has nothing to do with "gun control", and we don't need a "relevancy policy"--we already have that. We shouldn't have irrelevant content. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. You have (understandably) fallen victim to the "conflation confusion" here. People have been talking about stuff that is not in the article and then implying that such is about things are are in the article. And this section hops back and forward between those two. My comments were about what is in the article; I was not supporting addition of the things that you are discussing which are things that are not in the article and I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North, only the first sentence was directed at you, North. The rest was "you" in general. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies Cool / thanks for clarifying. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute

WP:FRINGE is not applicable in any way to this dispute. The Nazi disarmament of Jews is undisputed fact. Even those who disagree with NRA/Halbrook (In particular Harcourt) admit the core facts "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide". WP:FRINGE specifically discusses pseudo-scientific content. Opinions regarding the historical importance, or modern political relevance of undisputed historical facts by definition cannot be fringe science. I defy anyone to find a relevant set of quotes from the guideline that are in any way relevant to opinions regarding undisputed historical facts. Beyond that, those disparaging this opinion have repeatedly refereed to them as "NRA talking points" etc. The NRA is one of the most influential and notable gun rights organizations in the world, Halbrook as the most obvious proponent of this particular viewpoint is an exceptionally notable voice in the gun rights debate. WP:NPOV clearly and repeatedly states that all points of view should be represented. This is obviously a point of view (certainly controversial) and saying that there may be no mention of it is an obvious failure of neutrality.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Surely there are fringe versions of history. — goethean 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed there are. (the example from the guideline would be conspiracy theories such as JFK). This is not one of those though, since the history is undisputed fact.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes the facts, as has been mentioned over and over and over again. What is disputed, and what you have failed to provide a source for, is a reputable historian who paints the holocaust as an event in the history of gun control. This is about the tenth time that I've said this. It seems like you just want to circle round and round and round and round the same exact argument over and over again, ignoring my argument, while you edit war on the article to keep your unsourced, against-consensus version of history in the article. — goethean 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Its not unsourced. You don't like the sources, but that is not the same thing. This is not a history article, this is a gun control article. The relevant population of opinion is those who write about gun control. Many gun control sources (including neutral ones) have covered this topic as one of the notable viewpoints on gun control However, in any case, there are numerous holocaust histories that discuss the disarmament of the jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

However, in any case, there are numerous holocaust histories that discuss the disarmament of the jews.

The use of such sources violates WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."

If you don't plan to cite reputable historians, then the material needs to be moved from "History" to "Studies". You really think that the opinion of reputable historians is irrelevant to the "History" section that has been created at this article? That's a self-evidently absurd statement, and we will be taking this to a noticeboard. — goethean 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated multiple times, I have no objection to moving the content to an arguments/analysis/studies section of this article. There is no WP:OR all of the primary sources are directly referenced by the secondary sources for the content being referenced. the kristalnacht history book directly discusses the NYT article and disarmament, and Halbrook also directly references the NYT article as well. "The New York Times reported from Berlin that “Nazis Ask Reprisal in Attack on Envoy,” and that “Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews--Victim of Shots in Critical State.”207 Its account repeated the above statistics from Police President von Helldorf of weapons seized and the announcement that “any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment". this is a classic allowed case of using primary and other secondary sources to illustrate the point made by the secondary source doing the analysis. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source"Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "fringe" relates to opinions, in this case the fringe view that the 1938 German law was significant either to the holocaust or the subject of gun control. See the ravioli analogy above. TFD (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant section of the guideline that in any way indicates relevance to opinions regarding significance of facts. These facts are by definition notable because sources have chosen to write about them. there do not need to be sources writing about the sources that write about the facts. Those would be WP:TERTIARY and are not required (and in fact less preferred than secondary sources)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What is currently in the article is straightforward presentation of sourced historical facts which nobody has disputed the accuracy of. The areas of opinion/ analysis / conclusions are being discussed earlier in the page and not currently in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• What isn't fringe is that the nazis disarmed the Jews. What is fringe is that that is somehow a significant part of the history of gun control. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a higher bar than anybody is claiming or for mere presence in the article. I think that "is a significant instance of gun control" is closer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be what you think but it is not what informed observers think. Articles are supposed to provide the same weight to information that one would find in a university level textbook, an encyclopedia or an analysis article in a mainstream newspaper, not what might appear in a fringe publication. TFD (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

this content is not fringe. To claim that it is is nothing more than POV pushing. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This content is fringe because no credible historian of the Holocaust considers Nazi firearms regulations (which would only ever have applied to a small minority of Holocaust victims) to have played a significant part of the Holocaust. To claim that the tendentious cherry-picked decontexutualised horseshit peddled by U.S. gun advocates is anything but fringe is to falsely suggest that pseudohistorical 'analysis' concocted by advocates for a debate in another time and place about entirely different issues can be put on the same footing as serious historiography of the Holocaust. It cannot be. Wikipedia cannot lie to its readers by presenting concocted partisan propaganda as 'fact'. If you want to peddle this hokum, do so elsewhere. Meanwhile, Wikipedia can give firearms regulation (and coverage of the Holocaust) the coverage it deserves - based on proper academic research, not on facile pseudohistorical nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• It applies because it is a fringe view that Nazi gun legislation is relevant for contemporary debates about gun control in democratic nations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Only in one democratic country and even then it is restricted to the fringe, although fringe views are popular in the U.S. Note all the publicity for fringe takes on the Kennedy murder, 9/11, evolution, climate change, black helicopters, chemtrails and the belief that tin foil hats will stop the New World Order from reading one's mind. TFD (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's nice Andy, but NO ONE in here said that the Nazis' disarmament of the Jews caused the Holocaust, or had great significance to the Holocaust. Keep beating on that strawman. As you demonstrated in your ANI of Gaijin42, you're great at twisting and misrepresenting the facts to get your way. The article in its current state contains neutral, factual statements regarding what took place in the disarmament of the Jews by Nazi Germany; nothing more. ROG5728 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If noone said that then why are we even discussing whether to include it in this article?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The contention is that this is a fringe idea. Here is US Congressional testimony before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. 478 (1968)Rep. John Dingell (D. Mich.) offered:

“Sportsmen fear firearms registration. We have here the same situation we saw in small degree in Nazi Germany. There they did not prohibit citizens from having guns. All they said was first of all we want to register them, and we are going to stop crime by it.”

Now I get it that some people don't attribute the holocaust to gun control. However, for a very long time this argument has been debated even in the halls of the US Congress. To call it "fringe" is ludicrous. It's blatant POV pushing. If you want to attack it in some other fashion, go ahead I'm sure someone will. But it's very clearly not fringe. Can we stop please?-Justanonymous (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That a congressman blatantly violates Godwins law does not make this a mainstream view. If you think that "some people donøt attribute the holocaust to gun control", then no, you donøt get it. Noone seriously does. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was elected to a legislature too, that does not make his opinion on every subject mainstream. TFD (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Do you know how also supported gun control? HITLER!" - This argument is entirely fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be jamming this up by blending a discussion about things that aren't currently in the article (I guess potential future additions) yet speaking as if the conversation is about things currently in the article. Maunus, Goethean, Miles and Andy, you have been stating and arguing against things (e.g. farther-reaching assertions) that aren't even in the article. It is fine to discuss those in the context of potential future additions (or wanting to avoid such additions) but it really confuses the discussion when you talk about such and blend it in with discussions about current content. I'll list a few of these potential future additions i n a minute so that we could discuss them separately and untangle the confusion. (I'm not suggestiong or promoting addition, just listing them) North8000 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. The 1938 German law was significant to the holocaust
2. That the ban on Jews owning firearms was a significant aspect of carrying out the holocaust
3. Reflecting on registration initiatives elsewhere by suggesting Nazi Germany as a parallel, because in that case, registration was a step towards confiscation
4. Including (explicitly) a statement that Hitler was a supporter of gun control.
5. The Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 are a significant aspect of the gun control debate
6. Discussing association of gun control with totalitarianism
7. Hitler having bearing or significance on the subject of gun control

Again, I am not promoting addition of these (there are a several that I would oppose), I am just listing them to try to untangle the discussion. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea that what Hitler did has any bearing on the subject of gun control is itself fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless and until it can be demonstrated through reliable academic sources from beyond the U.S. gun lobby that such matters are considered relevant to a discussion on firearms regulation, none of it belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

that's not per policy.... say it with me WP:RS -Justanonymous (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the NRA is not a RS on Hitler. MilesMoney (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See "Balancing aspects" which is part of the policy of "Neutrality": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Also, since the reason you want to include this information is to argue the viewpoint expressed above by North8000, "Due and undue weight" and "Fringe" also apply. The significant of rs is that npov requires us to select the weight provided in rs. A paper published in a non-peer reviewed law journal decades ago, and only mentioned in peer-reviewed papers when discussing fringe views has no weight. TFD (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

it is neutral, it's not fringe. It's a small part of the article. It's fine. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not neutral and it's definitely fringe. It's not acceptable. MilesMoney (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I offered facts. Those claiming fringe are just screaming. Sorry. Facts rule here. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's a fact, back it up. Show us some reliable sources taking the Hitler/gun thing seriously. Don't show us sources dismissing it as stupid, or biased sources (NRA, etc) endorsing it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not enough to provide facts, the facts presented must be in proportion to their relevance. For example, if you were to write a 300 page book called States of the United States and 200 pages were about Delaware, 50 pages about Wyoming and about one page devoted to each of the other states, with a few left out, then no one could question you for facts, but it would fail to be balanced. Same thing here. Why are we devoting so much attention to an obscure piece of legislation no longer in force? TFD (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

maybe because 6 million souls were slaughtered in part with the help of that legislation!? Seems balanced. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

...per NRA talking points. — goethean 04:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The legislation had fuck all to do with it. The Nazis needed no laws to slaughter millions. The Nazis murdered in spite of legislation, not because of it. They passed no legislation to 'legalise' genocide. They needed no legislation, and ignored what legislation there was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh really, Andy? Then why did the Nazi regime even go to the trouble of disarming the Jews? If the Jews' weapons didn't really matter, why do you think the Nazi regime went to such great lengths to rid them of those weapons prior to the Holocaust? Do you think it was done for the good of the Jews? Why do you think Hitler, Mao, and other such figures are on the record stating that disarmament of these groups of people was an important means to their political ends? ROG5728 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, your contention is that they woke up one day and just killed them. You haven't read your history...No, it was slow and systematic and started out under the banner of "common sense." Well intentioned but, ignorant men of zeal laid the groundwork for the monsters that came later. And it might all have truly been well intentioned but those good intentions didn't help and at some point the true monsters abandoned the charade and said explicitly Jews couldn't have arms. It's all very well documented. Curse if you want. Deny it if you want. Be blind if you want. Some of us refuse to buy that denial. Call it what you will. It's well documented. It's been discussed in congress for decades. It happened. There are books written about this. It's appropriate and balanced. Then one day in '42 Hitler himself laid it bare. He might not have crafted the early gun control laws of Germany but he took advantage of them and then for the east, he was going to make it clear:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

it's all very clear.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, I have had just about enough of your clueless patronising fuckwittery. I happen to hold a first-class honours social science degree from a leading British university - which on several occasions involved material relating to the very subject matter of the Holocaust, what lay behind it, and how the Nazis were able to do what they did. I am therefore well aware of the history of the Holocaust (though I was hardly ignorant of the topic before entering university for that matter), and don't need lessons from propaganda-peddling gun-crazy loons who are ready and willing to exploit the deaths of millions to provide pseudohitorical 'arguments' about another time, another place, and and another debate entirely. No serious historian takes this horseshit seriously, and Wikipedia isn't going to either. If you want to engage in pseudohistorical debate, find a forum - but stop pretending that you have a clue here. You self-evidently don't. Spread your POV-pushing ignorance elsewhere. Or preferably, read some real history, written by real historians. You clearly have much to learn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Andy, are you trying to add to your already extensive block log? Grow up or go away. You're not convincing anyone with your juvenile temper tantrums. ROG5728 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were true, it would be irrelevant unless it had obtained mainstream support. TFD (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WTF?! Since when does disarming conquered peoples have anything to do with gun control? Did Washington DC conquer Texas? MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

hum full disarmament is the most extreme type of "gun control"......get it?.......and since when is acceptance by some supposed mainstream a requirement for admission?? Hasn't been before. WP:RS and the other policies rule.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying "RS" but you don't seem to understand what it means. There have been no reliable sources offered for the Hitler/gun-control theory. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

go to the article and read it's all there. Read a few books on it too while you're at it.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Read this page, where the proposed sources were shown to be fringe, hence unreliable. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

let me see, congressional testimony, quotes by madmen dictators....nope, nothing fringe there. exactly what are you referring to?Justanonymous (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to persuade you. MilesMoney (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You think "madmen dictators" are reliable sources? TFD (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its history on historians, not Congressmen and lunatics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Would that that were true ... FiachraByrne (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're in luck FiachraByrne, because it is true to some extent.[55]Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you've misunderstood what I have said. Besides which, as that guideline indicates, it's not applicable for an exceptional claim. If you believe it's so apposite why not insert this material into the article Gun politics in the United States.FiachraByrne (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking here generally, and not with regard to any particular claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nazi disarmament of German Jewish population, the passage of the 1938, etc, can be established with reliable historical sources. As these reliable sources do not establish a linkage between these acts and the debate on gun control, placing these facts within the context of "gun control" as understood from an international perspective is either an act of synthesis or relies on the use of sources which are evidently fringe to the mainstream history of the Holocaust. They are fringe to the history of the holocaust because they have never been cited by an serious scholarly treatment of the holocaust. They are so fringe that no mainstream historian of the holocaust has even deigned to rebut them - that's because they are, effectively, outside of any serious scholarly discussion of the holocaust. Such theories are relevant almost only to the domestic US gun debate - outside of that context they are pretty much incoherent, almost untranslatable and certainly irrelevant. Unless you can show that this fringe historical interpretation is germane and has been influential on the issue of small arms regulation in a global context it should be excluded from this article. How people can believe that they are improving the article while pushing to have this material included is beyond me - there's lots of material not in the article that is self-evidently relevant. Regardless of whether you are pro or anti gun control or even care, this is a massive waste of everyone's time. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you're entirely correct, FiachraByrne, and would like to explain why. First, you insist on global implications for inclusion in this article, but then how do you square inclusion of specific subsections on Japan, Australia, et cetera? Second, even if we assume that the material in question is 100% fringe (which I don't think it is), WP:FRINGE says that it may be included in context: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". Third, the stuff in question is covered in many many many reliable non-fringe sources, such as Bryant, Michael S. (2012). "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control". In Carter, Gregg L. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. pp. 411–414. Do you think that source is fringe? Moreover, Hitler's devotion to gun control in conquered territories is far beyond dispute.[56]. And, have you consulted these sources already cited by more than one Wikipedia editor?....

• Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007).
• O’Neill, Terry. Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints Digests), pp. 46-47 (Greenhaven Press 2000).
• Fisanick, Christina. Gun Control, p. 15 (Greenhaven Press 2010).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think separate subsections on Japan and Australia should be in the article. Those sections are totally arbitrary. We could have a section on every country in the world and that would be totally unworkable. We need comparative content.

If it's fringe, which I believe it is, we have a bit of problem in contextualising Halbrook's (et al.'s) claims - at least in terms of its plausibility. That is because we lack a source with true expertise on the holocaust that discusses this minority viewpoint in regard to the wider historiography of the holocaust. It is so fringe that it doesn't register at all in the scholarly literature of the holocaust. It is almost exclusively referenced within the US gun debate to make a political point germane to US domestic politics.

Bryant's chapter in Carter's edited volume is chiefly about the tendentious and sometimes only implicit comparison with gun regulations in Nazi Germany and the US and the whole Hitlerian trope in the US gun debate. It's a reliable source for content on the US gun debate and as a description of the arguments and imagery used in that debate. Bryant is no more an expert on the holocaust than Halbrook or, indeed, Harcourt for that matter (remember that Harcourt's article title explicitly called for historians ('A Call for Historians')- that is, those with expertise on the topic - to get involved in the debate). In my opinion, these are fine sources for aspects of the US internal debate.

The first source you list above is Donna Goldstein's chapter on the Brazilian referendum on gun control [57] which I've referenced previously on this page. This is about the attempted exportation of the rhetorical tropes used in the US gun debate by the NRA during the Brazilian referendum. Goldstein's doubts whether 'the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler' by the NRA during this campaign. The source itself is not indicating that this particular argument was of particular relevance, or even coherence, in a Brazilian context.

I don't have access to the second source so I can't evaluate. It looks like a reader of pro and con views. Is it international in scope?

The third source is a Juvenile non-fiction one. But it does look to at least include international viewpoints. I don't have access however. If these sources are derived from a Google Book search could you post a url for the search result? Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi FiachraByrne. Sorry for the delayed response. I've been traveling a lot today. I'm not sure if I can access libraries the next couple days, but will try, and then give you a fuller response. It seems that learning about this particular issue via Internet alone may not be adequate. If you get a chance, perhaps you can also comment about whether gun control has been used by many armies of occupation, and whether that ought to be mentioned in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I will probably be visiting a decent library on Monday, most are closed this time of year. In the mean time please consider this source which is fully accessible online and makes clear that the gun lobby internationally has used the Nazi facts to make its arguments. Again, even if this stuff is WP:FRINGE, it still ought to be put in context with the majority view in this Wikipedia article. I also note that I have been requesting for an entire week to move a section titled "arguments" into this article from List of gun laws and policies by country (see discussion at talk page for that list).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to that source, here is a Canadian gun control book discussing the Nazi argument as well. http://books.google.com/books?id=2zHo7woTbZsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Arming+and+Disarming,+A+History+of+Gun+Control+in+Canada&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nOS-UsS_McKVygHq3oHYCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nazi&f=false Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Page number?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the current treatment of the material in the article treats the material as mainstream history. This deceives the reader into thinking that this fringe material is not fringe, but is accepted by reputable historians, which it is not. This bad material has been sitting in the article like this since April when User:ROG5728 made a bad, highly POV edit, and then North8000 and Gaijin42 edit warred to keep ROG5728's bad edit intact for eight months, despite the fact that they were informed again and again and again and again on the talk page that this material violated Wikipedia' core policy. Additionally, North8000 and Gaijin42 were supported in their flagrant and repeated violations of Wikipedia policy by a large gang of right-wing editors, including some administrators. This is shameful behavior on the part of these editors and administrators. This issue should go to ARBCOM, and the editors who participated in this shameful episode should be blocked from editing. — goethean 14:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK -- your personal opinion is clear. The problem is that Wikipedia only requires that articles be properly sourced and worded in a neutral manner. That you personally find behaviour by right wing editors and administrators (whom you do not name, nor furnish evidence thereof) to act despicably is interesting, but not really pertinent to the stated purpose of the article talk page. Heck -- I have seen editors blindly revert without an edit even looking into the clearly stated reasons for the edit. Would ya believe even admins can do that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you would be in a much better position to get me and your other adversaries banned by ArbCom if you would please suggest an alternative paragraph for the section instead of simply trying to blank what's there. Then if we refuse to discuss your alternative, voila, ArbCom will ban us all. (Not that they won't in any event.).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the American right-wing discourse about Nazis, which mainly takes the form of forwarded emails from senile uncles, is a significant aspect of the worldwide debate over gun control. Besides, this article is a POV fork of gun politics, and should be merged with that article. I don't usually make suggestions about how to insert nonsense right-wing talking points or crazy, paranoid versions of history into Wikipedia articles. — goethean 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Collect. My personal opinion has exactly nothing to do with anything. All that matters is Wikipedia policy, something on which you find many opportunities to lecture other editors.

The problem is that Wikipedia only requires that articles be properly sourced and worded in a neutral manner.

The Nazi material is not properly sourced and violates NPOV. No source has been furnished who contends that Nazi Germany is a significant part of the subject of gun control. And yet there it is in the article, telling readers about the oh-so important facts that Nazis took weapons away from Jews in the 1930s. It is unsourced. Its inclusion is not neutral. And yet you have defended its inclusion in this article. Perhaps that has something to do with your personal opinions rather than Wikipedia policy. — goethean 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North's 12/27/13 AM submitted overview

North's 12/27/13 AM submitted overview Folks keep conflating currently-in-the-article content and potential additions in arguing against the current material. The current material is straightforward heavily sourced history, which nobody has challenged the veracity of. They've implied a sourcing challenge, but when I listed the statements verbatim, and said to pick one to go to wp:rsn with, they faded away on that. This has included claiming that sources used do not meet some higher-than-Wikipedia's standard that they imply, but if they are essentially claiming that they are insufficient to support the material as written, I have called their bluff and said to pick the statement they want to challenge and let's go to wp:rsn with it. They are still invited to do so, but lacking that, there is no specific challenge to the sourcing of the material as written. If there is any implicit "claim" in the mere presence of material it is that it is an instance of gun control (and a look at any definition in a dictionary IMO makes that a pretty obvious "yes".) And that the instance of gun control has at least enough significance (whether it be based on coverage in sources or whatever) to merit a small paragraph in the article. Some folks do not want even a mention of this instance of gun control in the article. In addition to the insults and villianizing, mudslinging etc. by a couple people (e.g. Goethean's last post) their arguments seem to have two common themes, IMHO both not valid. Ones seems to be to say mere coverage of it implicitly makes more far reaching claims (e.g. that it is extremely significant in the history of gun control, that it was a significant tool in the implementation of the Holocaust) and then arguing against those (straw man) claims, as if the mere presence of coverage makes or requires such claims. IMHO the mere presence of straightforward historical coverage does not make or require proving such claims. The second theme of arguments is to say that in order for the material to be in the article, that sourcing must be produced for not only what is in the article, but to support such farther reaching claims which were never made. IMHO this is invalid several times over. First such claims are not explicitly or implicitly made made by the material or by the presence of the material. Second, the presence of the material does not require making or proving such claims. Third, by policy (wp:ver and wp:nor) sourcing requirements are for the material as written, not for the sources to have made statements that it is of huge significance etc. And fourth, sources write about the topics, they do not address suitability/significance for Wikipedia articles/coverage under Wikipedia article topics, and so attempted requirements for sources that do so are impossible to meet and not required by Wikipedia.

Finally, there have been some discussion on other opinions/analysis/inferences/associations that are NOT in the article, such as the association between gun control and totalitarianism. Those are just that, discussions about things which are NOT in the article, and should be kept separate rather than conflating them with things that ARE in the article. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000's continued, adamant refusal to acknowledge arguments that have been repeated dozens of times on this talk page constitutes tendentious editing. No reputable historian considers Nazi Germany to be a significant event in the history of gun control. Yet North8000 insists that this article say — without attribution — what no historian would ever say, but which partisan right-wing American anti-gun control activists do say. This is a direct violation both of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's most core principle. Due to North8000's continued intransigence, I again suggest ARBCOM. — goethean 15:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it takes. This article is a blight upon Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, ::Please stop the mudslinging and mis-representation. I'll not respond down on that level but instead address your point yet AGAIN. But let me ask you specifically....where is the statement "Nazi Germany to be a significant event in the history of gun control" or something to that effect made or required? IMHO again the answer is that it is NOT made and NOT required, but I'll let you answer it. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just uncivil the way some editors come on here and just berate others and use profanity without even a willingness to discuss the actual changes on the page. For what it's worth, there have been improvements to the article even through the storm. Nobody is going to agree with everything on there right now but it's a compromise and perhaps the best we can have given the nature and contentiousness of the subject. I agree with North8000, let's stick to discussing the actual edits on the article and avoid blanking. This is not a forum. Peace to all.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Incivility is nothing compared to gross violation of core Wikipedia policy. The entire section espousing the Nazi gun control theory is fringe and must go. MilesMoney (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. There is nothing about that section that violates any policy of Wikipedia, and you know it. The use of gun control measures by the Nazi regime is not a "theory" either, it's fact. ROG5728 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that it has nothing to do with gun control. It's an NRA crackpot theory with no RS. MilesMoney (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a theory, it's fact (supported by numerous RS). And it constitutes an instance of gun control, so yes it is relevant to an article on gun control. ROG5728 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Others disagree MilesMoney, and editors need to collaborate. Yelling at the top of one's lungs using profanity, cursing, berating, belittling and aggressive reverting just creates an environment that good editors just don't appreciate. It creates an acrimonious editing environment and editors just want to switch off. That should not be our goal here. This is not a WP:Battleground. We don't agree on everything, that is normal. But, we should attempt to be civil and offer suggestions vs one line attacks without backup. We have to collaborate, nobody is leaving apparently so let's just come to the table and collaborate. FiachraByrne and I have agreed on some edits by being civil and discussing the problems we see discretely. It's give and take. The rest of us should try to do the same vs this incessant pouring of hate. Let's discuss the specific changes as North8000 suggests.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

They can disagree all they want, but it doesn't change policy. MilesMoney (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed where you were corrected above for trying to claim violations of policy. There is nothing about the section that violates any policy of Wikipedia, and you know it. ROG5728 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ROG5728. Please provide a reference to a reputable historian who says that Nazi Germany is an important event in the history of gun control. Please quote the reliable source that you have provided. That should be a very, very simple matter, right? — goethean 16:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you came up with that bogus criteria to try to keep the material out of the article. You won't find that anywhere in Wikipedia policy. The bottom line is that the material is factual and is covered by numerous reliable sources, therefore it is noteworthy. That's all that's necessary for including a brief paragraph such as the one currently in the article. Now, if the article devoted a massive amount of time to discussing the subject of Nazi Germany then you might have a point, but it does not currently do that, so you do not have a point. ROG5728 (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you even looked at WP:UNDUE? I think you should. MilesMoney (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I just said, it's a brief paragraph. If the article devoted a massive amount of time to discussing the subject of Nazi Germany then you might have a point, but it does not currently do that, so you do not have a point. It's a brief paragraph. ROG5728 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? Then let's put some factual, reliably-sourced lasagna recipes in the article. By your understanding of Wikipedia policy, That would be completely appropriate. Except that it's not. Because the material needs to be on-topic. Unlike your Nazi material. Which is in the article. Because of your edit warring and refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy. Please undo your edit. — goethean 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It was gun control, and this is an article on gun control. That makes it directly relevant to this article. ROG5728 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a fringe NRA theory. It has no RS. It is UNDUE. And yet you keep edit-warring to retain it. User:Collect helped edit-war, because he's a helpful guy who's definitely not WP:STALKING me or anything. It just looks that way because, you know. MilesMoney (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL -- you have a way of ignoring facts about your own sudden absolutely coincidental appearance at the Chick-Fil-A talk page etc. don't you? As for your accusation of me "edit warring" -- go to AN/I and make that an open accusation -- but unless you are willing to do it, such an accusation might be seen by others as trying to deflect from the nature of your own edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a theory. It's fact. It has multiple RS. It's only a short paragraph, so it's not undue. ROG5728 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you a reputable historian? — goethean 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have common sense. ROG5728 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:V, a core policy that your edit violated. — goethean 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles and Goethean, you keep hurling accusations and then when we try to engage on the specifics you don't answer. So let me try again with MilesMoney's last post. Miles, can you pick a statement that is in the article that you feel is a "fringe NRA theory". And can you pick a statement that is in the article that you feel "has no RS"? North8000 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire section is undue. Only fringe NRA theorists believe Hitler's policies have any significance with regard to gun control. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, your question has been answered many times. Your continued refusal to engage with my argument above constitutes a violation of WP:TE.[58] No reputable historian considers Nazi Germany to be a significant event in the history of gun control. Yet North8000 insists that this article say — without attribution — what no historian would ever say, but which partisan right-wing American anti-gun control activists do say. This is a direct violation both of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's most core principle. — goethean 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that North has no response to this. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed it thoroughly. Miles, any response to my question? And Goethen, (quit the misrepresentation of me) what is in the article is straightforward history that sources did say. And AGAIN, pick a sentence that you think is an overreach or not sufficiently sourced and we'll go to wp:RSN with it. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi North8000. Would it be okay if I inserted some lasagna recipes into the article? If not, why not? It is not okay because there is no source which connects lasagna recipes to gun control. Just as there is no source which connects your Nazi material to gun control. In fact, I removed Rummel, a source which doesn't mention gun control, and you undid my edit.[59] This is a violation of WP:OR. This is bad for you. — goethean 17:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS/N. [60] — goethean 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. The entire notion that Hitler is relevant to the topic of gun control exists only as an NRA talking point. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. 'Straightforward history' would be written by straightforward historians. And unless and until the only appropriate response - cited evidence from reputable historians to the contrary - is submitted, per Wikipedia policy this pseudohistorical revisionist 'theory' about the Holocaust does not belong on Wikipedia. Not only is it unsupported, contradictory and nonsensical, but it does a great injustice to the memory of the millions of victims of Nazi genocide to use their deaths for propaganda purposes regarding debates about other subjects, in other places and times. There have been repeated calls from multiple representatives of Jewish communities for such misrepresentation of history to stop (I'll not bother to cite them here for now, as I'm sure those involved in the U.S. gun debate are well enough aware of them), and while it isn't in Wikipedia's power to prevent such behaviour elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason why it should be allowed to continue here. This is not a forum, and I see no reason why we should even continue to discuss an issue entirely lacking in the appropriate sources. Without sources of the appropriate nature, the material does not belong in Wikipedia. And this isn't open to negotiation here, any more than it is in any other article. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Respondinig to Geothean's question, That's two different topics. On the first, what you said is not analogous, it is two steps farther removed. One step closer would be a lasagna recipe in the lasagne article, and a match would be lasagna in the lasagne article. On the second, the source is to support the statements which cited it, a requirement that the source state the title of the article does not exist. I would think that you would know that this is common in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:OR may indeed be common. That fact is perfectly irrelevant. — goethean 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that using a source for a statement in the article that does not state the title of the article makes such it OR? That's wrong twice over. Once because it is a source, not a statement. Second because there is nothing that says so. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I can include my lasagna recipes? — goethean 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Another change of subject. Back to the question, Are you saying that using a source for a statement in the article that does not state the title of the article makes such it OR? North8000 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a change of subject. If you can include Nazi material in the absence of a source connecting the material to the subject of the article, then why can't I include lasagna recipes, or any other reliably-sourced, factual information? — goethean 17:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to take a breather from this nasty, mudslinging incoherent mess, and folks blanking the longstanding section in an effort to preempt the discussion. Several folks are just hurling mis-representations of what editors said, sarcasms, mud-slinging and refuse to engage on the specifics. Editors do not need to be subjected to such abuse, especially that by AndyTheGrump and Goethean. My direct addressing of the topics and arguments at hand remains that at "North's 12/27/13 AM submitted overview" above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how long that section has been there; it doesn't belong. Age is not a defense against policy violation. MilesMoney (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your refusal to engage on the talk page, combined with your edit warring on the article is indicative of tendentious editing. This is bad for you. — goethean 17:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you can keep repeating the word 'policy' over and over all day, but it's already been explained to you why the section does not in any way violate any policy of Wikipedia. What policy violation are you talking about? Quote the policy directly. Oh and Goethean, you're the only one refusing to engage on the talk page (blathering about the NRA doesn't count as discussion). ROG5728 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

It's really that simple. MilesMoney (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And that is determined by WP:CONSENSUS not by shouting it. At this point, it appears that there is an ongoing RfC -- and trying to shut it as being inapplicable to seeking consensus is silly at best. Collect (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include the poorly-sourced, off-topic Nazi material. There never has been. Ever. — goethean 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus cannot change policy. Policy says this material is undue. MilesMoney (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, my loyal sock. Seeing the position of the Stats Master/Inspector Gadget ("Go Go Gadget OLS Regression!") doesn't surprise me Are a substantial number of other people still defending this fringe nonsense? These policies had nothing whatsoever to do with support for gun control and everything to do with anti-Semitism and disregard for all the rights of Jews. People who want to call this "gun control" fail to understand the importance of context in the definition of words. Steeletrap (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, policy is not on your side. You're attacking a strawman. The only (possibly) fringe viewpoint in this is the idea that gun control somehow led to the Holocaust. However, the text in the article is not making that claim, nor are any of the sources. The article does not say that gun control led to the Holocaust or something of that sort, it simply states that gun control measures were used to disarm the Jews in Nazi Germany, which is true and is a fact that no one seriously disagrees with, therefore it is not fringe. ROG5728 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(sorry if this is the wrong place in the thread: i lost track of the discussion, and while I'm not sure it is, I'm going to assume that the identation indicated what is replying to what, and that the blow statement is thus a reply to the OP. Feel free to relocate)No, there is currently no RfC on whether the current section is any good in the article. It asks two questions, are the statements sourced, and if any coverage of gun control laws could be included in the article. It isn't an RfC on due weight of the section. It is exceedingly unlikely that we can use the outcome of the RfC on the question if the section should stay, and if so, in what form or how extensively, and if not, if (part of) the content can be used elsewhere. It's probably a pretty useless RfC, but it will at least shed light on the quality of the sources themselves, which may help for future discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source which connects the Nazi material to gun control. — goethean 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In a tortured literal sense of the term, it may be gun control. But understanding the meaning of words requires attunement to context. Similarly, a white Afrikaner [EDIT- who immigrates to America] is (literally) an "African American", but would not be defined as such in the context of modern America. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely an Afrikaner is a native of South Africa, not America? Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. It's obvious I was referring to an Afrikaner who immigrates to the U.S.; and my analogy is instructive to those who don't appreciate the importance of context in the meaning of words. It is highly relevant that virtually no historians, right or left, characterize Nazi Germany as practicing "gun control." Steeletrap (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also bizarre to cast the gun control dispute as between advocates and opponents. The right to keep and bear arms is the only constitutionally guaranteed right which is denied to people in prison, and gundamentalists are not demanding that they be allowed to have them, even though with all the violence in prisons one would think it would make them safer. Essentially the dispute is about whether to tighten or loosen controls. People like Hitler and U.S. gun rights advocates agree in loosening them. TFD (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that with such a polirised/heated debate it's a good idea skip the subject matter and fast forward to to implying that the proponents of relaxing gun control is agreeing with Hitler. The current article leading the reader to "gun control is what HITLER did" is bad enough. Switching it around to the other side of that debate is just as reprehensible. I'd appreceate it if everybody tried not to pull the gun control debate into this content dispute any further than it already is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:FRINGE theories and must be deleted right away. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right that this crazy Hitler conspiracy theory is totally fringe and must be removed. I suggest we request an admin to make the edit, as the article is protected. MilesMoney (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently the Hitler quote is from Table Talk. Hugh Trevor-Roper did not write the book, he never sat around with the table with Hitler, he just edited it. Whether or not Hitler said everything in the book is in doubt. TFD (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not as if we needed more reasons to remove this Nazi theory, but... MilesMoney (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The purpose of this poll is to come with 1) a definition of an overall scope for the article and 2) a list of suggested sections for the purpose of organizing content. In other words, how do we write about gun control without debating it in the article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope

1. Personally I think the first sentence still works, but I'd like to make one addition (bolded), "The term "gun control" means any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, allow for, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms." Control doesn't always equate to "limitation", control is what "can" and "cannot" be done.

Sections

1. Comment - it should be mentioned that the Lead and the Terminology and context section along with the inclusion/use of the standard See also, Notes, References, Bibliography, and External links sections seem to be uncontested or at least uncontroversial.

Comment/Discussion

• Comment - The scope described in the first sentence is not anything I was involved with. It looks okay to me. Some people have argued for a more limited scope, so that many things would be excluded, like: (1) laws that non-uniformly discriminate against some citizens (thus excluding the Nazi's actions toward the Jews), and (2) gun control in occupied territory (thus excluding the Nazi's actions in Poland and other places). As I said, the current scope looks okay to me, but people who want to narrow the scope need to give some reasons other than making sure those pesky Nazis are not detracting and distracting from the wonderful idea of gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this straw poll makes no sense whatsoever. Firstly, you should be asking what the scope of the article is or should be, not what "a definition of an overall scope" should be. Wiktionary can give you a definition of overall and of scope, but "a definition of an overall scope" is meaningless. This is not being trivial: a straw poll on a confusing question cannot give a clear result. Secondly, conflating scope and the opening sentence is ridiculous. Perhaps the opening sentence as it stands is fine, but that doesn't stop the rest of the article from being awful. The question we need to ask is what should be / will be covered in the article, what the limits are, not what would be a snazzy definition of gun control that we can pin the same crap on. Finally, asking about scope and section headings at the same time is beyond ridiculous. Until there is some sort of idea of what the scope of the article should be there is no way of knowing what the section headings should be. Essentially you're asking each respondent to re-write the article completely in their response! FiachraByrne said he would open a straw poll on sensible lines in a few days. I think you should close this one PDQ and wait for him to open his. Scolaire (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Closed per Scolaire's recommendation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks Scalhotrod. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

There's a lot of nonsense here. Goethean and Andy seem to think that this article should be "Gun control" as seen in the United States. That's an absurd subject for an article. The article formerly known as "Gun politics" has a point, but a general discussion of "gun control" (if it's a real subject) should not be organized by country, except in cases where a specific country's specific actions represent an exemplar of a general case, as seen by reputable historians. (This does include Hitler's actions of restricting firearms in the hands of "enemies of the state" (Jews, Gypsies, etc.), while removing restrictions and the hands of the Nazi Party; and restrictions on ownerships of firearms by slaves (and later, Blacks) in the US.)
In other words, if an article "gun control" should exist, it is not at all similar to the article formerly known as "gun politics". I think the article should exist, and it should include many facets recognized as relevant by reliable sources, even if not all are recognized as important.
Also, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, or in common sense, that a demarcation between Wikipedia articles must be reflect a demarcation recognized as "important", or even of interest, to anyone else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you taken leave of your senses? I have been arguing for months that this article (and all other non-nation-specific articles on firearms regulations) needs to present an international overview of the subject, rather than being dominated by the narrow discourse of the U.S. gun control debate. As for the rest, I won't repeat what has been said before - except to make clear that this article in no more a legitimate place to be presenting fringe theories about the Holocaust than any other Wikipedia article - and the claims of some U.S. pro-gun lobbyists that Nazi laws relating to firearms were of any significance to the Holocaust are clearly fringe - they have absolutely no support whatsoever from mainstream historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur: I have said no such thing and I'd appreciate it if you could read and comprehend what I write rather than sticking words in my mouth which I have never said or implied. Please check the page history. The Nazi material was under "Arguments" until User:ROG5728 moved it to "History" (April 2013)[[61]] in an attempt to give more legitimacy to NRA arguments which associate gun control with authoritarian regimes. THAT is where the "by country" history section came from. Other countries were later filled in in order to give legitimacy to the Nazi material. Look at the page history. — goethean 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate, and it's become clear that there are some fringe topics -- such as the crazy Hitler theory -- being shoehorned into what is otherwise a well-defined article. If there were reliable sources suggesting that Hitler's actions were relevant to the field of gun control, then things would be different. Even then, you're simply not going to find anything but the most fringe sources (further right than your NRA) suggesting that gun control leads to genocide. That sort of lunatic theory has no place in this article, according to WP:FRINGE. MilesMoney (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that what you "know" is a "lunatic theory" is not the issue. The issue is whether Germany enacted laws to remove arms from a significant proportion of the population, and that references to such laws are reliably sourced. Your interpolation of your own POV is interesting, but worthless in the discussion about inclusion of sources discussed in the past. There is an RfC still open on the topic, and I suggest you wait until it is closed before averring that you are omniscient on the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly "Germany enacted laws to remove arms from a significant proportion of the population". This is beyond dispute: the laws enacted under the Weimar Republic (the "Decree of the Council of People’s Deputies concerning Reduction of Military Weapons in the Territory of the Reich (1918)" and the "Decree Concerning Weapons Possession 1919)", and later laws were to result in a complete ban on possession of firearms by civilians - though an 1928 law allowed possession of some classes of firearms, with a permit which was only to be issued to "reliable" persons. The Nazi law of 1938 of course relaxed regulations further for the majority of the population. Post-war, the occupying powers were to once again ban possession of firearms entirely - with the possibility of capital punishment for lawbreakers (see Bryant, M. S. "Germany, Gun Laws". In Carter, G. L. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Volume 1 (Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2012). pp. 314–316). None of this is apparently relevant to a discussion on 'firearms regulation in Germany' however, as it rather spoils the absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum nonsense of sections of the U.S. gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect's POV is worth no more than MM's. The issue is whether reputable historians characterize Nazi Germany's laws as gun control. — goethean 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no such RfC open. There is an RfC open if the statements sourcing is ok, and if sourced statements can be presented in this article. There is no RfC on the due weight of weapon restrictions against the "Jewish" population of Nazi Germany within this article. It is exceedingly unlikely that the outcome of the RfC will be that the section should stand, as that is not what is being asked in the RfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Geothean is right; it comes down to sources. The lack of reputable historians endorsing this Nazi link is why we must remove the section. MilesMoney (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still mostly nonsense; the discussion should relate to the scope of the article, without which discussion of specific content is of little use. If the article is to be about the politics of gun regulation (which should be somewhere), then the notable (although falsely interpreting the facts) arguments about what the Nazis did should be included. If it is about gun regulations in general, then the Nazis' actions should be included under the general category of "removing guns from (groups discriminated against)", including Nazis with Jews and gypsies, the southern United States with slaves (and later) Blacks, etc. The article former known as "gun politics", now "gun (something) by country", should be a subarticle of that "gun (something)", whether it be regulation, control, or politics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Good sense

Here's something that maybe everyone can bring themselves to agree about. There's a section in another article that really belongs here in this article. See Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Arguments (I have never edited that section). If you disagree about moving it into this article, at least be polite about it. It may be that the absence of that section has exacerbated tensions here at this article. And ... happy forthcoming New Year's to one and all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why we need two articles on the same subject at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A country-by-country overview seems like an appropriate level of detail for a separate article. Is there something sinister about that? I don't take your comment as an objection to moving the particular section in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Or how this fixes the Nazi fringe problem. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not necessarily fix the Nazi fringe problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'd call fixing it the highest priority for this article. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree that the section would be more appropriate here? If you'd rather not give an opinion, that's fine too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion at this time. I'd prefer to focus on the biggest problems first. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if anyone objects, and if not then I'll do an edit request. Once the section is here in this article, I think that section would be the best place to briefly summarize the international gun lobby's very well-documented use of a Nazi argument, and briefly explain why the majority of scholars say it's mostly wrong. All of the Nazi material could be removed from the "history" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless and until it can be demonstrated through mainstream historiography that Nazi firearms regulations are considered significant to the Holocaust, there can be no 'best place' for such material. We don't cover fringe 'theories' in articles on mainstream topics. And incidentally, describing it as 'international' is questionable - the odd parroting of the line elsewhere doesn't alter the fact that only in the U.S. has it ever gained any traction at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, please see here regarding the international gun lobby's international Nazi- related campaigns. And please see WP:FRINGE: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". In the article about evolution, for example, we have this and much more: "In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Today, the modern evolutionary synthesis is accepted by a vast majority of scientists.[49] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[284]". Please respond regarding these things that I'm referring to. Please....Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I am responding to you. Specifically, I am responding to your refusal to accept that Wikipedia content on history should be sourced to historians, not gun-lobby propagandists. The Nazi material is fringe because it is unsupported by mainstream historiography. As for our article on evolution, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not responded in any meaningful way. What I see is a group of editors determined to erase any trace or hint of a POV that they disagree with. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, Andy, but I agree with you that's how it does work. Our bans come next. Without referring to you Andy, I will say that this general trend at Wikipedia is shameful and frightening.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not responded in any meaningful way. What I see is a group of editors determined to insert fringe pseudohistorical 'theories' regarding the Holocaust into Wikipedia - and you are clearly trying to do the same thing. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And that they have been allowed to get away with this behavior for so long is shameful, obnoxious, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. This is the Holocaust we are referring to here, not some petty dispute about an episode of The Simpsons. We owe a duty to our readers not to allow this misrepresentation of history to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm guilty of wanting to follow policy by removing a fringe POV from this article. The question is why you want to violate policy. Any answer? MilesMoney (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to quote WP:FRINGE to you people. "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". It doesn't 't say: erase everything!Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You have omitted the start of that sentence: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and..." The field is the historiography of Nazi germany. The scholarship supporting the theory is non-existent. The 'due weight' (in proportion, by simple arithmetic) is none whatsoever. Any 'weight' at all, unsupported by scholarship, is out of proportion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WOW. Can you read, Andy? Try reading the quote you just linked. It's talking about due weight with regards to theories. That's what it says. There is no theory being put forth in the Nazi Germany section as it currently stands in the article. It's all facts, and no theory is mentioned in the section at all. You're back to attacking your little strawman. ROG5728 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't do that because the "marginal idea" has not been addressed in mainstream expert sources on the history of the holocaust. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Many mainstream sources (political scientists, sociologists, et cetera) address the issue of what might have happened if Hitler hadn't disarmed Jews and other people he wanted to subjugate or kill. It's a rather speculative question, and therefore not exactly a historical question. Historians primarily deal with what did happen, rather than with what didn't but could have happened. The modern history of gun control arguments is very clear though...google books is full of it...and I am rather dumbstruck that all of it could be deemed unsuitable for a neutral article about gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Then please provide a reference to a reputable historian who considers the holocaust to be an instance of gun control. Should be a very simple matter. — goethean 03:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a reputable historian on the face of the earth who denies that the holocaust involved a law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms. Are you looking for an English- language historian who uses the precise term "gun control"? Would the term "gun regulation" be adequate? How about "firearm regulation"? I would like to know your requirements before providing what you have requested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite a historian who says that such laws had a significant role in the Holocaust. Or that they were enacted as a means to assist in the Holocaust. Without such citations, what 'you think' is utterly irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with your last sentence, Grump. Our biography of Marie Antoinette says: "The phrase 'Let them eat cake' is often attributed to Marie Antoinette, but there is no evidence she ever uttered it...." Must we delete that information from Wikipedia, since historians agree she never said it, and agree that people who say otherwise are spouting false history? If President Obama makes a speech tomorrow saying that Napoleon had a secret husband, it would be well worth including that fact in Wikipedia regardless of whether historians agree with Obama or not. The Nazi argument is a prominent argument of the international gun lobby, while mainstream authors mostly dispute it. Historians have largely not taken sides about it, except to say what the Nazis actually did (rather than saying what would have happened if they hadn't done what they did), but whether historians agree with the NRA is about as relevant as whether they agree that Marie Antoinette said to "eat cake". Why is this Wikipedia article unsuitable for material describing the modern gun-control debate? It's not relevant whether you like parts of that debate or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If mainstream historians 'mostly disputed' it, there might be something to write about. The fact is though, that they mostly ignore it, for the same reason that most astronomers ignore the 'moon is made of green cheese' theory. Because it is bollocks, and historians have better things to do with their time than respond to tendentious cherry-picked decontextualised horseshit. Their job is to write serious history. And Wikipedias job, when it comes to history, is to report the writings of serious historians. Not to dress up pseudohistorical piffle concocted by partisan non-historians for another debate entirely as some sort of historical 'argument'. Wikipedia's content on the Holocaust must be sourced to historians of the Holocaust. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a prominent argument of the gun lobby, but its a fringe argument. You could make an article about it, but it doesn't belong in an article on the general topic of gun control. 05:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How prominent does a bogus argument have to be before we can mention its bogusness in this article? See also Horned helmet: "However, there is no evidence that horned helmets were ever worn in battle at any point during the Viking Age. Nevertheless, popular culture came to associate horned helmets strongly with Viking warriors."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You must be getting desperate if you are citing that dog's breakfast of an article in an argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No desperation here. Try Napoleon Bonaparte if you like. Napoleon was actually taller than the average Frenchman, but it's 100% fine for Wikipedia's article about him to mention and dispel the misconception about his shortness. There are numerous myths about the holocaust. Here are several, according to a Northwestern University historian:[62]

• Anti-Semitism played a key role in bringing Adolf Hitler to power.

• Killing Jews was on Hitler's agenda from the beginning of his political career.

• The Allies could have saved more Jews

• Jewish resistance could have reduced the death toll.

• Greater popular solidarity with or sympathy for Jews in German-occupied countries could have saved large numbers of the victims.

• Killing the Jews diverted large German resources from the war effort.

• The persecution and slave labor system were driven primarily by greed

It's fine for Wikipedia to mention such misconceptions as long as we give the actual mainstream version too, as a corrective. Your description of Wikipedia's policy about history articles is as accurate as the NRA's description of Hitler's gun control policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. WP:FRINGE does not allow us to include fringe views in articles that are not directly bout the fringe view. We can talk all about 9/11 conspiracies in the article for that subject, but would need a good reason to even mention their existence in the article on the 9/11 attack itself. If you want to make an article for far-right historical revisionism about gun control, it would be great to fill it up with this nonsense, but that nonsense does not belong here. MilesMoney (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this article, the international gun lobby denies that the holocaust would have been as awful if the German Jews had not been disarmed. Regarding the article about 9/11, it says: "Osama bin Laden initially denied any involvement...." All historians explicitly reject bin Laden's claim (which even he subsequently rejected). In contrast, historians don't comment much about the gun lobby's claim because it's speculative, but mainstream sociologists, political scientists, and other scholars mostly reject the gun lobby's claim. I don't think the international gun lobby, and the massive amount of sympathetic scholarly literature (and opposing literature which seriously addresses the claims) is comparable to a few stray 9/11 "truthers".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #1

FiachraByrne, the statements in the article are straightforward history. Why do you call those a "marginal idea"......do you doubt the veracity of any of the statements in the article? If so, which ones? And the presence in the article is because (merely) it is an instance of gun control, which dictionaries describe as "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms." (dictionary.com) or similar. Are you saying that it is a fringe theory that it is "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms."? People keep trying to say that there is a "fringe theory" but they avoid any specific conversations as to what in the article they say is a "fringe theory". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because, if you had read this section, you would know that that is just what has been proposed [63]. As to the addition of these facts without the attendant fringe theory that would make them coherent in the context of the article, they are either redundant and superfluous to the article - just random facts from global instances of firearm regulation with no rationale underpinning their selection - or are intended to make a meaningful and implicit association between gun control and Nazism (and to pretend otherwise is to engage in a kind willful obtuseness as to the significance of this whole debate). FiachraByrne (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, so you are saying that what's there is not per se a fringe theory, but that a fringe theory would be required to make it coherent in the context of the article? So you are in essence saying that there is a lack of a linking theory, but if there were one, it would be fringe? North8000 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What is there contains the selective, decontextualised facts used in the thesis posited by Halbrook and others without the explicit statement of that thesis. As it currently stands, the reader is clearly being invited to see an association between Nazism and gun control. Because this narrative is so decontextualised, uncomplicated by other facts, the thesis survives even in the absence of an explicit statement of the thesis. If that were not the case there would be no significant argument here. If Halbrook were not fringe, if his work was seen as a valid - even if heavily disputed - thesis in the historiography of the holocaust we could cite these facts along with the attendant thesis and any rebuttal or contextualising factors. If we dispense with an explicit statement of the thesis - assuming it is judged as fringe (as I clearly believe it should be and as I think consensus indicates) - and if we pretend that these are just neutrally presented "facts" about gun control, there's no underlying rationale for their inclusion barring as a covert means of retaining the fringe thesis within the article. There's no other rationale for their inclusion because there is nothing to distinguish them from the myriad other facts drawn from national histories of gun control, all of which could be sourced, but whose addition would collectively destroy any semblance of a coherent article. What we should do, in my opinion, is find sources that attempt to discuss firearm regulation from as international a perspective as possible and summarise them. Radical though it may seem, we should also try and step beyond the confines of the US national debate on this issue. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this not step beyond those confines?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does and, in my opinion, it represents the best rationale for a presentation of such material in an article of this type (although that would require a significantly different portrayal than currently). At the moment we've found sources discussing the Hitlerian trope in Brazil, where the author doubted it was significant or a coherent historical analogy to the populace during the referendum there, and we have another attempt in UK where it was widely derided as a very extremist view. In neither case could we argue it was significant. Frankly, I don't know yet its significance to the Australian debate - the source doesn't provide any basis for any kind of evaluation. I'm not yet aware of any other countries where the NRA have tried to exert similar influence and used the Hitlerian argument. As things stand, I don't think we could conclude that it's a tremendously significant argument to the international picture. You may not feel it coincides well with your own viewpoint but I'd encourage you to have a look at the publications of the Small Arms Survey to get a better feel for these. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I read your last two posts. Which of these would you say is contained in your argument for removal?

1. Some arguments that article quality (and not policy) calls for removal or changes
2. Some arguments that policy (or core guidelines) calls for removal or changes
3. That you have both #1 and #2 type arguments.

Also, I think that a core thing in some or most of your arguments is that there is no "statement of context / relevance" (that is just my title, I realize that it does not summarize your point in that area) for that content in the article. What is your opinion on whether or not such a reason/rationale actually exists, sufficient for inclusion? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To which of my arguments do you think there is no applicable WP policy? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

North8000, don't be absurd. The presence of this material in the article is due entirely to the efforts of pro-gun POV-pushers (on and off Wikipedia) who are promoting the 'theory' that restriction of access to firearms enabled the Holocaust. If one were discussing firearms regulation in Germany, rather than this nonsense, one would start by pointing out that it was the Weimar Republic that first restricted (entirely) access to firearms, that the Nazis relaxed firearms control, and that post-war, the occupying powers again completely banned firearms (under possible penalty of death), and that since then firearms control in Germany had been loosened - and then tightened again after the tragic events at Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm trying to have a civil on-task discussion. You are in the wrong section; you belong in the "ad hominem arguments and villianizing & insulting editors" section. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

ROG5728, if there is "no theory being put forth in the Nazi Germany section", then there is no reason to include it. When not have an equally long section on the laws on gun control in the Criminal Code of Canada as it stood in 1938? Or France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Brazil, Uruguay, and I could name a hundred other countries. Why not add the laws as they stood in 1928, 1898, 2008 or any of the several hundreds or perhaps thousands of years of gun laws. TFD (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How did you arrive at that twisted conclusion? In order for something to be included in the article it needs to be a theory? Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. The information is factual and pertinent. And yes, it would be fine to include information on gun control in other countries, so long as there is actual coverage by reliable sources, and due weight is given accordingly. ROG5728 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are being convoluted. You hold the fringe theory that connects gun control and nazi Germany and accept that conspiracy theories do not meet neutrality. So instead you argue that it is sourced. But you need to show why this specific law is significant as opposed to for example, gun control laws in England in the late 17th century. You are playing whack a mole. Someone says the nazi theory is fringe, you say you are not presenting the theory, only facts. When someone asks you why these facts are significant, you say because of the nazi theory. How do you expect to convert reasonable people to your belief system if you cannot even provide rational arguments for it? TFD (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What? I said the facts are significant because of a theory? No I didn't say that. You said that. What I said is that the facts are significant because they have significant coverage by reliable sources. Your examples of other instances of gun control are irrelevant because they do not have significant coverage by reliable sources. If they did have significant coverage by reliable sources, then yes, of course they could be mentioned too. ROG5728 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000 is being tendentious. The "straightforward history" rhetoric and "facts" gambits are complete non-starters, as North8000 has been told many times. North8000 does not have a reputable historian to back up his claim that the Holocaust was a significant event of the topic of gun control. He simply refuses to listen, and keeps repeating the same debunked nonsense, because his Nazi Nonsense is already in the article, and so he is happy as a clam. He can just scream "straightforward history" until the neutral editors go away. That's his plan. Since no administrator is willing to enforce Wikipedia policy against North8000's clearly tendentious editing, I think that the only way that this gets fixed is ARBCOM. — goethean 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you came up with that bogus criteria to try to keep the material out of the article. You won't find that criteria anywhere in Wikipedia policy. The bottom line is that the section material is factual and is covered by numerous reliable sources, therefore it is noteworthy. That's all that's necessary for including a brief paragraph such as the one currently in the article. Now, if the article devoted a massive amount of time to discussing the subject of Nazi Germany then you might have a point, but it does not currently do that, so you do not have a point. ROG5728 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. Why would this article include material that no reputable historian connects with gun control? — goethean 01:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably because that's just a bogus set of criteria that you made up to try to keep the material out of the article? ROG5728 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your refusal to answer my simple, direct, relevant question. — goethean 02:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, probably because your question has a fundamental false premise which is put forth as a premise rather than as the question, and an answer would tend to indicate acceptance of the false premise. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

False. The question is simple, direct, and relevant. The refusal to answer is due to an unwillingness on the part of User:ROG5728 and User:North8000 to admit that no reputable historian considers the Nazi Nonsense to be a significant part of the topic of gun control. To admit such would mean the removal of the nonsense propaganda. So North8000 and ROG5728 refuse to answer the simple direct and relevant question: Why would this article include material that no reputable historian connects with gun control?. Their refusal to answer this question is a violation of WP:TE. — goethean 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer. You can keep linking WP:TE all day long, but you're the only one that's being tendentious (ok, Andy is too). ROG5728 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally I've removed reference to the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law, sourced to Halbrook, from the article on the Holocaust [64]. There were some 400+ anti-Jewish German laws, yet this one was highlighted. There were similar attempts to add this material into the article Kristallnacht about 3 years ago. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

ROG5728, you are now arguing the gun laws of nazi Germany are "significant because they have significant coverage by reliable sources. Your examples of other instances of gun control are irrelevant because they do not have significant coverage by reliable sources." That is not true. Gun control became and issue in Canada with the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre and continued with the Canadian Firearms Registry, which is still in the news. It was an issue in the UK with the Dunblaine and Hungerford massacres. The only place the 1938 German Weapons Act receives attention is in an extreme gun rights community in the U.S. TFD (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The Nazi regime's confiscation of Jewish weapons receives attention by reliable sources, therefore it's included. If the other examples you mention do have significant coverage by reliable sources, then yes, of course they could be mentioned too. ROG5728 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Content transfer

At the start of this talk page section, I pointed to Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Arguments and asked whether anyone has a problem if I move it into this article where it more properly belongs. As far as I can tell, no one has yet objected. If there are no objections in the next hour or two, I plan to do an edit request. This would be a simple move of content, without any content change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please wait. Minimally, I'd like to investigate why it has a tag in regard to worldview/systematic bias. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and edit it as much as you like. But it really should then come here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Following this conversation on my talk page [65], is Anythingyouwant correct that consensus has been reached on the proposed transfer of material to this article? Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached, because you indicated that the material should first be edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When I look at it I see a huge section which probably has some problems with it where it would be far more appropriate to have it in this article than that one. I'd be in favor of a move where we clearly recognize that it is merely that, not considered a specific decision/review on each piece in it. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it could (and should) be edited like any other part of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's separate this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are some folks on both sides of the issue who are trying to have a polite specific discussion /debate of the issues at hand. Then there are the insertions which are disrupting that process, and that's describing those very charitably. Let's separate those into different sections:

• Posts which are trying to have polite specific discussion /debate of the issues at hand.
• Posts that are trying to "gain ground" by insulting or villianizing editors, or which are repetitions of chants, trying to gain ground by disparaging editors by putting in nasty mis-statements or mis-characterizations of what the other person said, ad hominem arguments, attempts to gain ground by vague insults and villianizations against content and potential content.North8000 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post by somebody to wants to keep some degree of sanity: this piece of grandstanding is merely provocative and has zero chance of contributing to a reasonable discussion. It should be terminated with extreme prejudice. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How is that so? North8000 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You know very well that nobody posts on this page, or on any talk page, only to insult or be nasty. Neither do they post (as Goethean, not AndyTheGrump, added) in order to refuse to discuss the topic at hand. Therefore, nobody is going to post in either of the second or third sections. Neither will anybody post in the first section, since they will view the very existence of the second section as a generalised ad hominem attack on all participants – which is exactly what it is. Therefore this section cannot and will not contribute anything to a reasonable discussion, and will only serve to enrage participants on every side. Only you can delete this entire section. I urge you to do so before your reputation suffers irreperable damage. Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot post in this section of the talk page other than to endorse Scolaire's sentiments above. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I hatted this entirely inappropriate attempt by a single individual to dictate talk page content, clearly itself a personal attack on contributors. If North8000 pulls a similar disruptive stunt again, I will report the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that he be sanctioned. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Actually, there are a number of posts, on this and other talk pages, for which the sole purpose is "only to insult or be nasty." However, this section serves no purpose, as no one will admit making a post in any of the negative categories. Furthermore, some of North8000's posts have been accused of being in one of the negative categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(only) the first negative category was by me. The goal was to start a positive discussion which avoided the items in the negative category which have been all too common on this page. Editors should not be subjected to such abuse, and also I see thread after thread of attempted civil to-the-point discussion forcibly derailed or taken over by such abuses. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Posts which are polite specific discussions /debate of the issues at hand

(Heading by North)

I would like to start this by continuing my thread above with FiachraByrne. FiachraByrne, did my post reflect accurately understanding your statement / point? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Posts which are insulting or villianizing editors, or which are repetitions of chants, nasty mis-statements or mis-characterizations of what the other person said, ad hominem arguments, vague insults and villianizations against content and potential content.

(Heading by North)

Content not self identified as either

Posts which refuse to discuss the topic at hand or refuse to engage in meaningful discussion in order to preserve partisan garbage in the article because it agrees with the editor's ideology (Heading by AndyTheGrump) I did not post this heading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (Correction: Heading by Goethean, was actually a comment about content, headings are headings, not such. Put heading into a neutral section)North8000 (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit Warring, Talk Page Use, Article Block and an Olive Branch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Edit warring has resulted in the article being protected which benefits absolutely nobody. If the behavior that we are seeing here on this talk page and on the article itself continues, I have no doubt that individual editors will be blocked or topic banned or both. Getting yourself blocked will only benefit the other party as it removes your voice from the debate. We should not take the article protection lightly. It's a wakeup call that we have to change our ways:

1. We need to stop edit warring on the article -- It's a very contentious article so chances are that you removing a bunch of material or adding a bunch of material without substantial and productive discussion on the talk page will result in an edit war. Let's just not do that. We have to acknowledge that and come to grips with that fact and no matter how frustrated we are with the lack of progress on the talk, we can't just go edit war on the article because if we do, the article will be protected and some editors can get sanctions. We have to use the talk.
2. We need to get the talk page to work-- Edit warring is happening because we are not using the talk page correctly. We're just yelling at each other and at some point someone just "gets fed up" and takes matters into their own hands on the article page and they are reverted and the war starts. Beyond that, we can't come and have a brass knuckles duke it out cantina fight on the talk page because that's very disruptive to the editors who are trying to use the talk page as it was intended -- a place to rationally discuss edits. We need to make logical arguments backed by facts and if someone disagrees, they can propose a counter argument, refute the argument presented with facts or refute the central thesis, again with facts and explain where the error is. Most of us are fairly experienced editors here so we know how this works. The policies are there to help us collaborate.

The talk page guidelines are very clear and if we keep Graham's hierarchy in mind before we post anything on the talk page, it might help us move forward. I understand that it's frustrating and that some editors think that the other party is being very irrational but that is not sufficient reason to devolve our arguments to name-calling, ad hominems, etc regardless of how irrational we think the other party is.

If somebody makes a statement and you can refute it with facts, please do so: put the facts on the page with a link or a quote. Refutation makes you look stronger. Ad hominems or one liners saying the editor or a particular author us wrong or a hack or an idiot makes you look weaker. If you agree with someone, say it and leave it at that. If you can't refute or offer a rational counterargument, refrain from posting an ad-hominem --- for all you know another editor will come and refute your opponent's statement decidely. Don't debase yourself and don't disrupt the editors who are honestly trying to make progress. Yes, we're all going to lose arguments. If you can't live with compromise or with being refuted, don't edit Wikipedia -- it's just going to frustrate you. Nobody is right all of the time.

We don't always agree but in the last week or so there have been some elements of collaboration between a few but it's been hard because we're all being drowned out by edit warring and very clear violations of the community policies to include 3RR violations on the article and almost a complete disregard for our other policies here on the talk....every other post is an ad hominim, tone attack, contradiction etc. I'm not saying my hands a perfectly clean here. I acknowledge my shortcomings and it's a good time to cool down and reflect....especially with this cool down period being imposed by management. The question is are we going for Round 3, editor blocks and topic bans or can we rise above?

No, I'm not a judge, I'm not a jury, I'm not even an admin. I believe this post is relevant because it is honestly attempting to find a way to improve the article through collaboration of parties who very obviously disagree at a profoundly philosophical level. I will personally go reflect and work very hard to be a good editor on here. I promise to try to reach compromise with you if you present your arguments logically, within the confines of the policies and back them up with reliable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and for allowing me a bit of discretion.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be clearly understood that there is no room for 'compromise' concerning the portrayal of pseudohistorical 'theories' concerning the Holocaust as a serious historical argument. That isn't going to happen. They have zero academic credibility, and they simply don't belong in this article. If this article is going to cover the history of firearms regulation in Germany at all, it must do so from serious academic sources - and it must put any mention of the Nazi laws in the broader historical context of more restrictive laws under the Weimar Republic, and under postwar occupation - and must make absolutely clear that no academic credence whatsoever is attached to any suggestion that such laws had any significance regarding the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Andy. The fundamental problem is that there are a few editors who violate WP:FRINGE by pushing for the retention of material that belongs in its own article, not here. Move it out, remove it from here. MilesMoney (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Very respectfully esteemed editors, there are multiple editors on here that disagree with your thesis. All we have to do is look at the edit log that led to the article protection. If you want that content gone as you believe that's the best way to improve the article then you're going to have to come up with more than just your opinions (respected and experienced as you are). Can you provide several well cited references on why this is fringe or why it does not belong here? From my vantage and in doing a cursory search, I found Congressmen talking about this in the halls of congress since as far back as 1968 and back then there was disagreement over the role that gun control played in the holocaust. This is what Congressman Dingel was saying back in 1968 on the floor of the US Congress:

“Sportsmen fear firearms registration. We have here the same situation we saw in small degree in Nazi Germany. There they did not prohibit citizens from having guns. All they said was first of all we want to register them, and we are going to stop crime by it.”

So at a minimum this appears to be an argument that continues to this day forty years later. Now, that's just one quote from a long time ago and the topic might indeed be fringe today if that thesis has been refuted. Just provide the links to the refutations or the books where the topic has been settled. I'll do some more searches. I can't speak for my other editors but multiple other editors disagree with you and you represent one side of this, so I think you're going to have to convince at a very minimum the more senior silent eyes that are likely reading this. To be clear, I will side with whomever presents the strongest argument and I am willing to swallow my pride if I'm wrong or if I haven't dug deep enough. I will make a good faith effort to go look things up myself as well. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. congressmen are not a reliable source regarding the Holocaust. Particularly congressmen who clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. Provide evidence from serious academic sources, or stop this tendentious and repetitive stonewalling - if you wish content to be included it is your responsibility to provide the appropriate sources - which regarding the Holocaust, means the work of recognised historians. This has always been Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear AndyTheGrump, in response to my assertion and a quote from a US Congressman, you're offering back what we call in Wikipedia an "ad hominem" attack against the person's credibility without any support to back that up. My original thesis stands and your statement is a far cry from refutation. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that your counter is weak when stacked against Graham's hierarchy which is taken from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Are you willing to go get some sources and refute what I found? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong. I might even refute myself after my more in depth research but for now, your statement is an ad homimem and not strong at all.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You want the content, you provide the appropriate sources - and stop wasting our time with irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Now you levy an ad hominem against me? I haven't asked for anything unreasonable, You levied an ad hominem against a distinguished Congressman and WWII veteran who lived during those times and then against me as your attempt at refutation? The burden is on you sir per the Wikipedia policies. I made an assertion and you do not refuse it. I take your refusal as a withdrawl from the field. Thank you. My thesis stands that at a minimum this is a topic that has been debated since 1968 at a minimum and likely since before. Since professor Halbrook in 2012 released the book, "Gun Control in the Third Reich- Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, that tells me that the debate is still vibrant today. If I'm missing something, please by all means bring it up but ad hominems are very weak and we should just not offer them. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a leading promoter of the fringe theory, (non-historian) Halbrook's book isn't evidence for anything. See WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As an outside party, I would like to ask what you think the point of this section is and why you think an old quote from a US Congressman is relevant to a request for academic sources? Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear AndyTheGrump, in response to my assertion and a quote from a US Congressman, you're offering back what we call in Wikipedia an "ad hominem" attack against the person's credibility without any support to back that up.

False. Andy did not attack you personally or make an ad ad hominem argument. He asked you to provide evidence for the material that you want to be placed in the article. In response, you accuse him of making an ad hominem argument and attacking you, which he did not do. This is the same pattern of tendentious editing that we've seen again and again from the people who want this poorly sourced material in the article. When asked for evidence, they claim that they have been attacked. If Wikipedia had the ability to enforce its own rules, these editors would have been sanctioned already. — goethean 23:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to get the talk page into shape by throwing ad hominems at each other. The hope is that we can go back to basics and to the guidelines of our policies in an attempt to get the talk page to work. One thesis of the argument is that gun control and the third reich is a fringe topic. I did a quick search and found that a Congressman was talking about it in the halls of congress back in 1968 - hardly fringe. I also find scholars writing books about it today - and yes some don't like Halbrook but the gentleman is a scholar who has argued before the supreme court....hardly a hack. That tells me at a minimum that the subject is not fringe and is relevant today in society. There is strong disagreement here between the parties. If the subject is indeed fringe or if the subject does not merit inclusion, it should have been refuted a long time ago and we should have proof of that that the other parties can bring. AndyTheGrump can go bring the refutation and that would sway a bunch of editors to his court. But if we can't be bothered with irrelevancies or with providing our proof then it's just a battle of wills and a bunch of ad homimens....the talk page can't work that way. I can claim that "President Roosevelt was born in Kenya " but if I refuse to back up that statement and I just scream at the top of my lungs everytime somebody provides his New York Birth Certificate, then the talk page doesn't work. It's just disruption. We need to go back to the policies. If I make a ludicrous statement and I'm refuted, then I quiet down. That's the way the model is supposed to work. If Congressman Dingell is not a good source.....make your case why. It's not good enough to just say....I don't like him.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No valid source, no content. Per Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

what is your basis for that statement AndyTheGrump. What policy?-Justanonymous (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS. Obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor you were discussing this directly address this issue when he wrote "U.S. congressmen are not a reliable source regarding the Holocaust". You write "I also find scholars writing books about it today". Why are you not bringing that up instead of a quote from a speech by someone who is not a scholar? Again, what is the point of this discussion, please? Gamaliel (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

the argument being expressed here is one that has been going on for decades. That's one point. The other is that we need to provide more than ad hominems. Andythegrump was not addressing anything, he was expressing an ad homenim, "U.S. congressmen are not a reliable source regarding the Holocaust"....that's an entirely unbacked statement....he doesn't know....the congressman was giving testimony in congress....why would he be allowed to do that if he knows nothing about the subject? Andy's refutation is a one liner yep that's unbacked? But the rest of us have to provide sources? No.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No I'm afraid that does directly address the policy issue. Congressmen in general are not scholars of history that can be used as reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy, nor is their any Congressional policy or apparatus that prevents Congressmen from expounding on subjects they have no knowledge of. (FiachraByrne's comments below do a good job on this subject.) Andythegrump does not have to back this statement up, you are the one who has to back up the claim that this congressmen is a reliable scholar of history that Wikipedia editors must take notice of. Gamaliel (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is the same point as all the previous ones - to stonewall any attempt to ensure that this article conforms with Wikipedia policies on sourcing, neutrality etc, and to instead to use it as a platform for the promotion of fringe pseudohistorical propaganda originating with sections of the U.S. gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there are plenty of reliable sources already provided in the article. The information in the section is factual and neutral. And don't bother linking to WP:RS, because the content already satisfies that policy easily. On the other hand, your criteria that the info must be stated "by a historian" (as opposed to other valid reliable sources) is a bogus set of criteria that you made up to try to keep the content out of the article, and that criteria you invented has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, and if anybody wants to refute those, they need to do so with facts, vs with weak arguments or petty attacks. Justanonymous (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, nobody is obliged to 'refute' anything. If you want the article to include history, you have to cite recognised historians. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

no you don't, but if you don't refute thoroughly you lose the argument. As homenims don't count. And no, you must only cite WP:RS. There is no requirement that anybody has to have a history degree to be notable. That is nowhere in Wikipedia policies.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who wish to include content. And what exactly is it I'm supposed to be 'refuting'? That a congressman isn't a reliable source on the Holocaust? If you seriously want to include him in the article, take it to WP:RSN. Citing your source, and indicating the text you wish to cite him for. Or drop it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

it is a refutation that the topic is fringe. If congressmen were talking about it in congress 40 years ago and we're still talking about it today, it's obviously not fringe. I don't need the quote in the article. Could care less. If you think the material is fringe, you just have to prove it and I'll back you. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

my point is that I just can't back you because you say it's so even though you're an experienced editor. We need to provide proof. That's all I'm saying. And if we can't do that, we should avoid ad homenims and other weaker attacks. I respect you Andy, and you might be right. I just need more and I'm not getting that from you.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's a refutation, then it's a terrible one. Your congresscritters have spoken openly in favor of fringe and anti-scientific ideas, such as Creationism and Climate Change Denialism. They're politicians, not experts in these fields. MilesMoney (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What is it you think I'm obliged to prove, Justanonymous? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Justanonymous this is a poor argument. Congressmen, and politicians generally, may believe and espouse theories which are fringe (e.g.Paul Broun). That a theory is fringe is not decided by either its popular standing or by its espousal by persons of authority without expertise in the relevant area. A theory may be deemed fringe only in relation to the scholarly output of experts in a given area. Where a theory, as in this case, has not even been cited in the literature of those who are experts on the holocaust, one can only include that it is very fringe. So fringe, in fact, that it would be highly problematic without violating the policies governing original research and synthesis to include it in WP as we don't have a source that can really relate the fringe view to the mainstream (which is what we're supposed to do in such instances). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This matter seems to fall squarely into the realm of alternate history. What if....the Nazis had won? What if ....Oswald had not killed Kennedy? And, here, what would have happened if guns had not been confiscated from the German Jews? That is a matter of substantial conjecture and alternate history. Mainstream sources address it, but regular historians understandably stay away from it. It is a very large part of modern gun control debates internationally, which is plenty of reason for this article to briefly mention it, with emphasis on why most mainstream sources REJECT the theory. Wikipedia articles often acknowledge famous myths and falsehoods ---- and correct them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Which might be why E.P. Thompson purportedly referred to counterfactual history as 'Geschichtenscheissenschlopff' or unhistorical shit (my source for this is not very good for a such topic, The Guardian, but it certainly meets WP's reliable source criteria, so what of it). That it forms part of popular debate still doesn't make it any less fringe. A significant problem is that mainstream historical sources don't address the theory at all. However, I think you could make an argument for its inclusion in an article devoted to, say, Gun politics in the United States, where, interestingly, it doesn't appear. But reference to the use of the Hitlerian trope in the Australian debate is not itself sufficient to establish its international significance (and it obviously doesn't change its fringe status either way). As I've remarked above the Hitlerian trope did appear in the Brazil debate and, once, in the UK debate but it was without significant impact in either case. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, for a bit of information to go into this Wikipedia article, how many continents must it relate to? A German counterfactual promoted in both the U.S. and Australia sounds international to me. I cannot resist asking: must we also have Antarctica?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys are doing a great job killing that strawman! Who cares about the politician or his statement? There are plenty of reliable sources for the info already in the article, so the WP:RS requirements have been met. Sorry, the article does not have to cite "historians." You made up that bogus criteria and it won't get you anywhere. The article only has to cite reliable sources, and it does that already. ROG5728 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong. This Nazi gun control talking point is a historical claim, so the only way to show that it's not fringe is to show that it is at least a minor view within the mainstream of the field of history. You need historians saying it's true, or at least worth discussing at length.

Which of your sources qualifies? If none, then this matter is concluded. MilesMoney (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I like where FiachraByrne, Anythingyouwant and ROG5728 are going. My arguments might be poor and I might very well be wrong but that's the minor point here. The main point is that we have to boil it down here with rational argument. Not by simply saying that you're wrong and I'm right but by arguing with facts, examples, etc. the talk page is about us discussing the merits and about us being grown up enough to acknowledge when we've been refuted. Otherwise when the protection is lifted, we're just going to have a other edit war. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Facts would be great. Start by providing facts to show that historians view the Nazi gun control talking point as something other than fringe. We're all waiting. MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing currently in that section of the article is a "talking point" or a theory. It's all fact, and it's all supported by reliable sources. Try reading the section and tell me which part of it is "theory" and not fact. Good luck. All of the sources in the text have been accepted as reliable sources, so yes, this matter is concluded. The article does not have to cite "historians." You made up that bogus criteria and it won't get you anywhere. The article only has to cite reliable sources, and it does that already. ROG5728 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a historical claim, so it's within the field of history. Historians get to decide if the claim is accepted by the mainstream, a significant minority view, or just fringe. No amount of boldfacing can change this. MilesMoney (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Not all reliable sources are treated equally by Wikipedia, instead it relies on the best ones. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Miles. Are you making this stuff up as you go along? All the info needs is to be reliably sourced. You need to stop commenting and take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It is necessary that material be reliably sourced (or at least sourceable), but that in itself isn't a sufficient reason for inclusion. Elementary Wikipedia policy. If you want it included, cite sources (other than fringe pro-gun lobbyists) who think it relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. If the material is covered and deemed relevant by reliable sources who have taken the time to discuss it, then it should be included with due weight. It's currently only given a short paragraph, so it's not undue. ROG5728 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevance is determined by the amount of coverage from reliable sources. Are there a significant number of reliable sources discussing the info on gun control in Nazi Germany? Yes there are, so it's relevant information and should be included. ROG5728 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I still have no idea what the point of this section is. It just seems like an excuse for the involved parties to rehash prior arguments. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's about right. Mostly, it's so that we can keep asking for a reliable source that shows this historical claim is non-FRINGE, while they can deny the need to do any such thing (since they're not able to). MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, sorry, the hope was that we might work through our disagreements using sources and logic and with respect for our policies so that we might avoid another edit war. It's partially working. Some are talking civilly. If we don't work through this, you or someone like you is going to block the whole lot of us if the brawl breaks out again. Give us some time, most of these people truly want to make a better article. We just disagree over the details.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of this effort and you deserve kudos for it. But if you are to resolve those details, you have to have discussions focused on those details. I don't see any new or specific details here other than the Dingle quote, and I think that lack of focus is one reason this section has degenerated into general, non-specific carping. Gamaliel (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This isn't a disagreement over 'details' - it is a fundamental disagreement over the purpose of Wikipedia, and whether articles should be based on scholarship, or on material concocted for propaganda purposes. Specifically, it is a disagreement over whether Wikipedia should be presenting pseudohistorical theories regarding the Holocaust, concocted by non-historians for another debate in another time and place, as some sort of historical 'argument' concerning Nazi Germany. Wikipedia is registered as a charitable organisation, with the remit of providing encyclopaedic content on a broad range of topics. It is not a platform for a particular faction in a particular debate in a single country to present their tendentious, cherry-picked and decontextualised (see "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control". In Carter, G. L. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Volume 1) version on 'history'. They can do that elsewhere - I'm sure they can afford it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(inserted)

• Gregg Lee Carter (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–415. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.
  

As that is previewable in Google Books, I'm providing the convenience cite above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

[Responding to Grump] So, it's fine for this article to discuss reasons for gun control (e,g. "High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies...."), but no arguments on the other side can be mentioned, even to discredit them. Typical Wikipedia agenda. After all, gun control opponents are all filthy rich, so they can start their own encyclopedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think other material isn't properly sourced, or represents some sort of fringe viewpoint, please make clear what you are objecting to. And as for 'sides', my only comment will be to point out that in world terms (the scope of this article), the position adopted by the U.S. gun lobby is clearly in the minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies. That's entirely correct and well-sourced, regardless of whether gun control can in fact reduce high rates of gun mortality and injury. A primary argument doesn't have to be correct or sane or supported by experts for us to characterize it as a primary argument for or against gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

agree Andy and well said but your fellow editors arguments are not without merit. almost all communication is rhetorical in nature to some extent. It's the inherent nature of the logos, particularly these contentious articles. I mean....gun And control. Already, we're forming a mental picture from those two words alone. there is a long history of gun control of oppressed people. As others have noted, the southern US and it's black codes. The Nazi regime and not just the Jews but anybody that they though opposed them and all the conquered countries. Plato talked about it....in the context of arms. It's there. It's nasty history. Gun control hasn't always led to totalitarianism and it seems to have worked in some places. So, to me at bias is almost everywhere save for a very few articles. All I'm saying is that saying you're wrong without backing it up is not reasonable and goes against the policy and we can't be unbalanced to Anythingyouwants point. We have to make logical arguments and we have to back them up. If somebody brings reliable and reputable and relevant material, it goes in even if some of us don't personally like it. And yes, bia will be inherent to an extent. We can work to make it as NPOV as possible. But bias always creeps in. Weasel words etc. On the other hand, Anythingyouwant makes a great example just now.....we can't just put the good examples of gun control or how bad guns are without showing some of the examples of how gun control has been used to oppress...there are bad examples...all deserve admission of they meet the policy.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read a little history before posting ill-informed commentary on what the Nazis did in 'conquered countries'. They did not practice 'gun control', they practiced systematic violence, and murder on an industrialised scale, and did so without 'legislation', and in spite of it. That you are still trying to argue for this gross distortion of history suggests to me that your calls for 'compromise' are worthless. If you want to peddle this horseshit, do so elsewhere. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch your tongue there fella. Moreover, according to the lead of this Wikipedia article, "legislation" is not required for gun control to exist. What is required is a "law, policy, practice, or proposal".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, you patronising little troll, I'm not interested in debating the finer points of genocide with you. Even the craziest of crazies pushing the Nazi gun laws 'theory' have more sense than to describe industrialised murder as 'gun control'. It is utterly repugnant to basic human dignity to misrepresent the slaughter of millions in such a manner, and if you had an ounce of human decency, you would bow your head in shame for even suggesting such a thing. Peddle your filth elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's coming for you.

Andy, Goethean, milesmoney, work with me here. There are a lot of editors here and we are not of the same minds. We can't just have arguments for gun control in the article if there are valid examples of bad examples of gun control gone bad. We owe the article balance. We all need to check ourselves to make sure we're not misrepresenting reality but there are too many editors on the other camp who think this subject matter deserves a place at the table. That's why the article is protected. We can either refute thoroughly the content you don't want and get consensus on that or we have to find a middle ground.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you willing to follow WP:FRINGE? MilesMoney (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is not even a policy. And it has nothing to do with the content we're discussing, since all of it is factual and not theory. Do you even read those pages before you link them? ROG5728 (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dial it back, please. WP:FRINGE is a content guideline and as the banner at the top of that page says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". You may disagree with it but it certainly doesn't merit that response. And you are certainly by no means the only offender who has offered a disproportionate and inappropriate response to another editor's comment. I've only been following what passes for debate here for a single evening, but I'm already disgusted and I want to trout the lot of you, on both sides of this. Unless someone has something new and factual to add, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't hat this entire section. Gamaliel (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a guideline, WP:NPOV is a policy. The key issue here is whether there is any place at all for a historical theory that, as far as anyone here can tell, no historian takes seriously. Coincidentally, this theory is touted by right-wing advocacy groups. The combination of political slant and lack of academic rigor make this a WP:NPOV violation. So, contrary to what ROG said, FRINGE has everything to do with this content discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a theory. Everything currently stated in the section is fact. If anything in the section is theory and not fact, quote it here. I'm waiting. ROG5728 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was trying. Probably wrong idea sorry.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"No good deed goes unpunished." Virtual cranberry cheesecake bar for you? htom (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't apologize for trying. Not every attempt is a success. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many problems here

The recent history of this article and talk page would probably make an excellent subject of study in the future, regarding misuse of the project. I certainly don't want to subject myself to it anymore as we move into the new year. It 's over the top. And no longer on my Watchlist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree to have some main threads that stick to the top three levels of the pyramid? North8000 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should have fewer threads. I can't really spot the difference in subject of the last 6 or so.I think I can summarize all of them with "no, your argument is stupid".struck. Not constructive. I'll try something more constructive Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not neutral in this dispute myself, so attempts to help streamline it may be colored. I still want to give this a go. Without going in to the arguments being right or wrong, are the following statements correct?

• There is a dispute about the inclusion of a section that deals with the disarmament of certain parts of the population by the Nazis.
• Arguments brought forward for inclusion are
  • It is a well-known instance of gun control
  • It is verifiable that it happened
• Arguments brought against inclusion are
  • It is an insignificant with regards to the history of gun control
  • It gives undue weight to the espisode in that it makes it seem that gun-control "is what the Nazis did" which is an inaccurate representation of history

Is this roughly right? Are these the positions and the most important arguments?

Looks pretty close. There are two facets here to consider -- is the disarmament of certain groups in Germany sourced as a "fact" to reliable sources (WP:RS) - to which the answer is yes. Is the argument that this then means all such acts are sought for the same purpose properly in any article? I suggest that the article can not ascribe the same motives to any other place or legislation, as such a claim would clearly be opinion, and, if used in an article, must be ascribed as opinion to those holding it. Is there a lot of "history of gun control" which would be sourceable as fact related to other nations? Likely so (though for reasonableness I think that 1900 would be a good place to start - "arms control in ancient Rome" would be silly, and there was no widespread availability of "good arms" until the Industrial Revolution at the earliest). Elision of fact is not a solution for NPOV - it is the inclusion of other relevant facts which makes an entire article - which is the goal (WP:PIECE). Is the material too long at this point? 6 lines is not considered in general to be a huge subsection which is supposed to be a précis of the article linked thereto. If the section ballooned to 20 lines or so, then weight issues definitely kick in. I trust this is about as neutral as possible a view here. Collect (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

is the disarmament of certain groups in Germany sourced as a "fact" to reliable sources (WP:RS) - to which the answer is yes.

You can't just stick any reliably sourced fact into an article. I can't put random reliably-sourced "facts" about ravioli into this article. Thus the question is not whether your "facts" are reliably sourced, but whether they belong in this article. The proponents of the Nazi material have refused to provide evidence that this material is regularly considered part of the topic of gun control. Many of the sources provided for these random "facts" don't mention gun control at all --- anywhere in the source.

Is the argument that this then means all such acts are sought for the same purpose properly in any article?

I don't know what this means.

Is there a lot of "history of gun control" which would be sourceable as fact related to other nations?

Oh, sure, you could write a giant article on the history of gun control --- and you still wouldn't need to mention Nazis. And in fact this subject is already treated at Gun politics in Germany. Which begs the question --- why does it need to be recapitulated, in a less balanced, less neutral, highly partisan, highly controversial, more poorly sourced manner, here? I can think of an answer, but I dare not speak it.

Likely so (though for reasonableness I think that 1900 would be a good place to start - "arms control in ancient Rome" would be silly, and there was no widespread availability of "good arms" until the Industrial Revolution at the earliest).

There is no reason to have this arbitrary break. The Britannica article on gun control starts with ancient Rome. Perhaps that's where you got that idea. The reason why our article focuses laser-like on the Nazis is because in April 2013, User:ROG5728 moved the Nazi material (then titled "Associations with authoritarianism" from "Arguments" to "History", an illegitimate move which flew in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and which was achieved by edit warring and immediately after the block of another editor.

Elision of fact is not a solution for NPOV - it is the inclusion of other relevant facts which makes an entire article - which is the goal (WP:PIECE).'

You are eliding some facts here yourself, namely that there is no reputable historian who covers Nazi Germany as a part of the history of gun control, which means that removing this information of the article is not "eliding" any facts at all, any more than it is "eliding" other random facts about ravioli. You want this article to break new historiographical ground, and not in a good way. The Nazi material makes this article more partisan, less neutral, less balanced than any published account currently is. And you refuse to provide any evidence for why it should do that. — goethean 15:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Goethean. I was hoping to postpone the discussion of the dispute a little, and first agree on the locus and the arguments presented. If you defer rebuttal of arguments, and just look at dispute itself, can you find yourself in the above description of the dispute, or are there things that are very wrong or missing. Specifically, completely ignoring the in favour arguments, can your find yourself in the against arguments, or am I misrepresenting your point of view? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your summation appears to be accurate from my side. It is difficult to let stand someone's highly contentious meanderings about what constitutes a "fact" and what doesn't. — goethean 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your post seems less about anything than about an attempt to misrepresent my post. I suggest this talk page is not the place to score rhetorical points against an "enemy" of some sort. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your contentions. If I have attacked you, misrepresented you, or violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, there are people watching this page who can sanction me. — goethean 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking to resolve this conflict, this is a good moment to disengage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Martijn, your work looks like a good start, not saying that it is all inclusive. Regarding the arguments against inclusion, you seem to have selected the more reasonable, more arguable ones; such is not representative of the most prevalent "arguments to exclude" in the talk page which keep getting stated but where in depth conversation defending them as been avoided. E.G. "Unsourced" , "not sufficiently sourced", "Fringe" etc. Also you may need to eventually split it into "arguments for policy-based exclusion" vs. some higher bar which should not get unequally applied to negative instances of gun control. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll chalk you up for 'agree'. For getting things 'down to earth', let's not focus on the arguments of the side you aren't on for now. If we agree these are the central arguments, we can ignore the others. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Material purporting to represent 'history', while not only unsupported by mainstream historiography, but explicitly rejected as 'cherry-picked', 'tendentious' and 'decontextualised' by reliable sources is fringe by any reasonable definition. And as for 'higher bars', I have seen no comments whatsoever in any of the recent discussions which have suggested that there is any specific issue with sourcing etc material supporting the regulation of firearms in this article. Contributors need to remember that 'neutrality' in Wikipedia terms does not mean giving 'equal weight' to all arguments. Instead, it 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." Since no evidence has been offered that the 'Nazi gun control' issue is anything but a fringe viewpoint propagated almost entirely by non-RS, non-historian partisan lobbyists in a single country, and since this article is supposed to be presenting an international perspective, rather than from the narrow perspective of the U.S. gun debate, to give any weight to such material - or to represent it as some sort of legitimate historical argument with any credibility - is a violation of core Wikipedia principles. It seems to me that the refusal of those promoting the 'Nazi' material here to adhere to such core principles is unlikely to be resolved on this talk page, however, and accordingly, I am in the process of considering the best way to bring such refusal to adhere to policy before ArbCom and/or the WMF, with a view to ensuring that Wikipedia no longer promotes partisan pseudohistorical propaganda relating to the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Do the above points I listed at against inclusion cover that for you, or is it missing something or saying you don't agree with? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. The material concerned is not merely 'undue', but explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship. It isn't serious historiography, and as partisan propaganda has no place whatsoever in any material purporting to describe events surrounding the Holocaust - any material in any Wikipedia article. That Wikipedia should be giving any credence to such fringe partisanship in connection to such significant historical events is entirely at odds with everything that Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, your reference to "the populations of conquered countries" seems based on a misunderstanding - the only firearms regulations discussed in the article are the laws of 1938, which (obviously) applied to German nationals. No source cited says anything about conquered populations, and no specific argument has been put forward even by the gun lobby regarding firearms regulation in such a context.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you may want to request Andy to be specific about what material that is in the article that they feel is "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" etc.. The pattern has been to either not answer that question, or to refer to material that is not in the article. (broader claims etc.) And then to repeat the accusation later. Which has been the pattern...ad infinitum. This is why I mentioned those above. In this context it was only for completeness. At the other end of the spectrum, above there are discussions of possible additions (analysis etc.). Probably too much to deal with here except to acknowledge it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The above example of repetitive tendentious stonewalling is entirely typical of what as gone on here - and what is undoubtedly going to result in this issue being raised at arbcom. North8000 is fully aware of what the material in question is, why it has been added to this article by pro-gun lobbyists (of which North8000 has been a leading proponent), and why it has been objected to. The material in question was added by proponents of the discredited, rejected and pseudohistorical 'theory' with the explicit objective of promoting the said fringe theory, and to suggest that it has been added for any other purpose than a partisan promotion of a particular POV is an insult to everyone's intelligence. That North8000 for one has argued for months on these very talk pages that material in support of the 'theory' should be included is a matter of record, available for all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have to strongly agree with Andy's sentiments above. I would also argue that the inclusion of the material in question in its present form represents a pernicious attempt to circumvent WP policies relating to neutral point of view and the proper representation of fringe theories. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, well, you proved me right. Once again, you refused to answer, and instead we got another round of insults and false accusations. Why don't you tell us tell us what material that is in the article' is a "rejected pseudohistorical 'theory" "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" , a "fringe theory". The entire section is very short (shorter than your last post), why not just paste in the claimed-offending material here? This refusal to provide even the most basic specifics of what material you say your repeated claims apply to (that certain material in the article which you say is all of those bad things), while endlessly repeating the general claims and insults to editors is getting disruptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something in this exchange. He seems to be pretty clearly objecting to the Nazi material. Is this not a specific enough objection? Could you spell out exactly what you feel is missing from his response? I feel that would be more productive than each of you getting on soapboxes and yelling at each other. Gamaliel (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. this is on the specific claims that there is material in there which is "rejected pseudohistorical 'theory" "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" , a "fringe theory" and I want him to be specific on which material he claims is those more severe things. And besides the content question, he is accusing editors of putting or keeping in "rejected pseudohistorical 'theory" "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" , a "fringe theory", and so asking for those specifics is asking them to provide the specific content which he is calling such is asking for specifics that justify extreme accusations he is making against other editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I'm hearing from you two: Andy: I object to the entire section. You: Tell me what you object to. Andy: The entire section. You: What do you object to? One of the three of us is misinterpreting this, so I suggest if you want this to be a productive discussion you rephrase your demands for specifics in a more specific manner. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, is it fair to summorise your position that any inclusion of any reference to Nazi laws or actions gives undue weight to them in this context? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't edited this article, but was involved in the ANI report above. This seems to me to be simply a case of those with a pro-gun POV attempting to make the long-discredited link between gun control and the actions of the Nazis, something that has consistently been pointed out by parties on all sides to be misleading and offensive (here's the latest one I can find, for example). Furthermore, this article is oddly incomplete; we have sections on Japan, the US and Australia, but nothing on the Western country with the most restrictive gun control laws, the UK. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

'Oddly incomplete' isn't the half of it. Even the coverage of Germany actually fails to discuss the most significant elements of 'gun control' in its history: the complete ban on firearms under the early Weimar Republic, and again the total ban of firearms under the post-war occupying powers (with the possibility of capital punishment for offenders). Such discussion would of course show the argumentum ad Hitlerum for the cherry-picked nonsense it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I think the summary at the top of this section is fairly close. I would say that in addition to being " a well known instance of gun control", it is an instance discussed and used as an argument by notable figures in the gun control debate. In addition to the prolific writings of Halbrook, it has been brought up by congressmen, by federal judges in rulings on gun control, and other sources. It certainly may be that consensus determines this content should not be in the article, but arguments against inclusion need to be based on actual policy, and not the made up policy that people are using. you can't redefine the words gun control to fit your pov, or redefine what an RS is, or redefine notability, or fringe to fit purpose. WP:NPOV is very explicit. all points of view should be presented. WP:RS is also very explicit " reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The globalization arguments are based on a wikiproject and are not grounded in any policy - and in any case nobody says "globalization means don't include US information" - beyond that, the argument is made in Canada and Australia as well as other places as shown by sources linked above. Fringe is laughable. the historical facts are indisputable, and there is not a single element of the fringe guideline that indicates any relevance to political arguments or opinions regarding notability of facts. the opposers disagree with the point of view. Thats fine. they might even be right. but that in no way shows that that pov is not notable and presented in many reliable sources (in addition to the core facts of the matter being indisputably true). On argument made above I do agree with - the actual argument made by halbrook et al should be included to indicate why the facts are relevant. The counter arguments from harcourt etc should also be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, NPOV does not say "all points of view should be presented". It mandates "that each article...fairly represents all significant viewpoints" (italics added). I have no idea what the arguments or sources are, but WP:FRINGE certainly may be relevant if some of those arguments or sources represent fringe, non-significant viewpoints. I am not familiar with these globalization arguments or guidelines you are referring to (could somebody link me?), but WP:UNDUE comes into play if the article does actually, if I am understanding correctly the arguments of some editors here, elevates a fringe view held only by a minority in a single country when the article is global in scope. This issue has come up before many times, such as at the waterboarding article. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

first off, I would like to thank you for making a coherent and respectful response and argument. the globalization arguments are above (you may have just made one yourself) - there are no guidelines or policies, which is somewhat one of my points. However, There are at least two sources above showing that it is NOT an argument made in one country, so the point is moot (and in any case global point of view would mean making sure the other povs are represented, not excluding a view). regarding all, the opening sentence of NPOV reads "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Now, certainly one can debate about the word "significant", but that is a matter of personal opinion. The POV has been published repeatedly in reliable sources. As stated above, it has been used by congressmen in gun control debates, by federal judges in gun control rulings, etc? What level of significance is required? Proportion could certainly be an issue, but if a single paragraph neutrally describing the pov and those who object to it is undue, no minority viewpoint on any topic could ever be presented. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed above, the fact that a congressman or men mentioned an argument does not make it a mainstream argument. If it did, then we would be forced to represent Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as mainstream arguments in the Barack Obama article. It would be more productive to focus on arguments and issues that are relevant and have a basis in Wikipedia policy. The questions at hand are "is this a mainstream viewpoint that it would be appropriate to represent?" and "if so, how do we represent it?" I asked much the same question to Justanonymous above: If reliable sources are available why are we not discussing those here instead of the talking points of congressmen? I feel like when the discussion veers off topic or into vague generalities, that's when it degenerates into generalized attacking from each side, so I think it's important that we stick to the details as much as possible. Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparing barack obama conspiracy theories (or JFK, or UFOs as others have done) to established historical facts is a major issue. There are MANY reliable sources discussing this. The RFC I posted that started this whole mess links to a giant list of them, but here are just a few. Certainly one does not have to agree with the pov presented in these sources (or the MANY MANY others linked), but to say that it is a POV that is not influential, notable, or significant is ludicrous.

• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Facts out of context are useless at best. It is a POV only held by a small group of pro-gun litigators and activist lawyers. It is factually incorrect intentional twisting of history supported by no one qualified to speak on the topic. Inclusion in this article is a violation of WP:NPOV WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. The idea the genocide and gun control are connected in some way is indeed ludicrous and not supported by any, as in none, zero, zip, nada, etc, reliable sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at, sources. Why instead bring up the irrelevant talking points of congressmen? Why (and this last question is directed at everyone) are you all discussing generalities and policies instead of discussing these sources? Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current text in the article is the worst possible presentation of this argument as, through the presentation of decontextualised facts in a leading narrative, we have the theory without an explicit statement of the theory (and hence it constitutes in my opinion an insidious circumvention of WP policy). As historical argument the theory is fringe and can only be regarded as such as Halbrook's thesis has never been rebutted, cited or mentioned by any scholarly historian of the holocaust (at least that I can locate). That it has been moved out of the history section is a significant improvement (I would also eliminate all individual national histories from this section as unworkable in the context of such an article). To establish its significance for inclusion in this article - which should be from an international perspective - one could argue that it's an argument that has been influential internationally and therefore should receive some treatment. This, in my opinion, is the best argument for the inclusion of this material but I think the Nazi thesis itself, in that case, would feature as a subset of a section or sections treating of the attempt by the NRA to lobby against firearm regulations internationally (which can be sourced to some degree). In that context, what we'd really be describing in the article is a set of arguments propounded by the NRA - that firearms are a symbol of freedom, Hitlerian tropes relating gun control to tyranny, associating Mandela with gun rights, etc - and their effects and significance (or otherwise) for differing national populations rather than any detailed treatment of the arguments as such. The treatment of the Hitlerian trope, along with other pro-gun lobbying, would thus be relatively descriptive and brief, would not features details such as the 1938 law, and would be separate from sections dealing with empirical studies on firearms and homicide, accidents, suicides, domestic violence etc and not treated with equal parity with such subjects. The treatment of the US itself in the article should be in proportion to its international influence as represented in the sources or in terms of distinctiveness relative to the rest of the world as adjudged by comparative treatments of the subject. There are other articles where it is more apt to treat in detail of the particularilities of the US domestic situation in regard to gun control. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, compare the relatively restrained and parsimonious treatment of this thesis here by Anythingyouwant. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: since Gun politics in the United States now mentions "German oppression during World War II",[70] do proponents of the Nazi material believe that it also needs to stay at this article, or will the content at Gun politics in the United States suffice? — goethean 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is very weak, and needs the pov argument to be presented (and argued against) for the section to make sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a strange statement, since you have been in control of the article throughout this debate. — goethean 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. What I am suggesting is that in the context of attempts by the NRA to influence legislative and referenda outcomes in other countries the use of the Hitlerian trope could be mentioned. This could then wikilink back to the text in the Gun politics in the United States#Political arguments which could provide additional context for the use of this motif by gun rights activists in the US. I do not envision treating it as a credible thesis in this article as it is fringe to the history of the holocaust. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fringe" refers to the statements / theory / claims themselves. If there were a claim in the article e.g. that gun control was a significant tool in implementing the holocaust, then there would be a statement involving the two to base an opinion on. Currently there are no such statements or claims in the in the article. What is in the article is (per se) undisputed, sourced, straightforward historical statements. (of course their presence is disputed, but nobody has challenged the veracity of the statements themselves) And the additional "statement" by it's mere presence in a Wikipedia article is merely that it is an instance of gun control, with enough significance or coverage to merit a few sentences in a Wikipedia article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitic laws, decrees, or regulations created between 1933 and 1939 (12 of 400)

1933

• The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service removes Jews from government service.
• The Law on the Admission to the Legal Profession forbids the admission of Jews to the bar.
• The Law against Overcrowding in Schools and Universities limits the number of Jewish students in public schools.
• The Law on Editors bans Jews from editorial posts.

1935

• The Army Law expels Jewish officers from the army.
• The Nuremberg Race Laws exclude German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibit them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or German-related blood."

1936

• The Reich Ministry of Education bans Jewish teachers from public schools.

1937

• The Mayor of Berlin orders public schools not to admit Jewish children until further notice.

1938

• The Gun Law bans Jewish gun merchants (March 18).
• The Order for the Disclosure of Jewish Assets requires Jews to report all property in excess of 5,000 reichsmarks.
• The Decree on the Confiscation of Jewish Property regulates the transfer of assets from Jews to non-Jews in Germany.
• The Decree on the Exclusion of Jews from German Economic Life closes all Jewish-owned businesses (November 12).

No editor, as far as I know, is questioning the basic historical facts. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the following,

• 1920-1928: German firearm possession is completely banned.
• Apr, 1928: Gun laws are relaxed and gun permits are made available to those deemed "reliable" by officials.
• Mar, 1938: Gun laws are liberalized for all Germans, including Jews (the March law only bans Jewish gun merchants, not Jewish possession).
• Nov, 1938: Jews are prohibited from owning or possessing weapons of any type and are subsequently "disarmed".

These items are obviously part of the historical record and not in doubt. They are also the facts used by Halbrook, Polsby, Kates, etc., to support the basic argument "that regulation of gun ownership will lead society down an infernal path toward genocide, much as it did in Nazi Germany."[71] However, it is only by "decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odds with their thesis", "exaggerating similarities and ignoring differences in their comparisons", and generally cherry-picking historical data that Halbrook, et al. able to give their argument a patina of credibility. In other words, much like statistics, material facts must be cited in the context of their creation and without omission. For example, the list above is missing two very important bullet points:

• 1920: The Nazi party publicly declares its intention to segregate Jews from Aryan society and revoke their civil and political rights.
• 1933-1939: The Jewish population of Germany is subjected to over 400 antisemitic laws, decrees, and regulations (see box right).

The gun laws of March and November 1938 are but footnotes to the Nazi process of Jewish segregation, the obliteration of Jewish civil rights, and the forthcoming Holocaust. We have no mainstream sources that support the assertions of Halbrook, Polsby, Kates, LaPierre, or their confederates. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Those assertions are not currently in this article. And even with a stretch, the most the the mere presence of the historical material in a Wikipedia article would imply that that it is an instance of gun control, with enough significance or coverage to merit a few sentences in a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two mutually exclusive possibilities: (a) the presence of such material isn't intended to indicate that this is an instance of 'gun control' - in which case it has no business being in the article at all, or (b) its presence is intended to indicate that this is an instance of 'gun control' - in which case it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to be inserting material specifically selected (as can be amply demonstrated by the talk page comments of contributors, including North8000 above) to promote a pseudohistorical fringe 'theory' promoted by partisan non-historians, rejected by mainstream historiography. Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. The ridiculous implication made by some pro-gun lobbyists here that the material is somehow unconnected to the fringe theory is entirely untenable, given the ample evidence to the contrary, and the total failure of any of the POV-pushers to provide any other justification for the inclusion of such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, please stick to discussing the material instead of mis-representing what particular editors have said and attacking them. Addressing a few things regarding your post:

• What I meant, is what mere presence implies and that it that it is a (sourced) instance of gun control, significant or covered enough to merit a few sentences in the article. And there are are already other instances of gun control in the article and I think that most who say that this one should be in have inserted or would welcome insertion of others.
• Nobody has claimed that straightforward historical coverage is unconnected to any observations, analysis or or theories. That would be like claiming that coverage of an Idaho national forest is an assertion of the hundreds of theories that are "related" to it (e.g. about it's geology or that Bigfoot lives there), or that all of those theories must be either proven to be unrelated or pass Wikipedia's test for inclusion before straightforward coverage of the forest can be put in. Everything should be based on what IS in the article (or specific proposed additions), not straw men of things that AREN'T in the article.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As you are fully aware, no evidence has ever been presented that anyone but the partisan promoters of the pseudohistorical fringe theory consider the German firearms regulations of 1938 to be a 'significant instance of gun control'. And I have misrepresented precisely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be like claiming that coverage of an Idaho national forest is an assertion of the hundreds of theories that are "related" to it (e.g. about it's geology or that Bigfoot lives there

A very good example. Try adding material about Bigfoot to an article on an Idaho national forest. The first question is whether your bigfoot material specifically mentions the Idaho national forest under whose article you are adding the content. If not, why would you add the material to that article, rather than to the article on a more relevant topic? Or maybe there is a reputable academic who discusses Bigfoot in connection with this Idaho national forest. Okay, then, cite that reputable academic. But you have neither of these things. What you do have is an academic who has been identified as so ideologically anti-gun control that his writings are "not trusted" by other historians. And you want to add this material not as attributed to that partisan academic -- you want the article to assert the material as bare facts of history. And that is what the article currently does. This is completely, completely unacceptable. — goethean 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comment missed the structure of my post. What is analogous to what is currently in the article is coverage of the national forest, (not the geology or bigfooot theories) and that Andy's comment is akin to arguing about some of the hundreds of theories, analyses,opinions etc. that have some connection to the forest but are NOT in the article. More specifically, in his last post, he is claiming that "failure to disprove" any connection to those hundreds of theories/analysis/opinions is somehow a misdeed by the individuals, or reason why that basic coverage of the national forest should be removed. In short, IMO basic info on the forest should be covered....addition of anything else is a different question. North8000 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am 'claiming' nothing. I am stating as a fact that no evidence has been presented that anyone but the proponents of this fringe theory consider the Nazi firearms laws of 1938 to be a significant instance of 'gun control'. Since (as per usual) no valid evidence to support the addition of the material has been provided, and since it is self-evidently being added to promote a fringe theory, contrary to Wikipedia policy, it must be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andy, on your first sentence, I think that those claims were embedded in your post and it was dependent on them,. Since your new post is logically completely different form your last post, we can just consider that to be "undecided" and I'm mentioning it here just to say that my post was sincere and has some basis, even if arguable. The second sentence has two false premises in it (1. again saying that there is a fringe theory which is supposedly in the article or being promoted while still refusing to say what that purported "fringe theory", 2. that are "proponents" here of the unspecified theory) and the third sentences has many more, but they have a silver lining. :-). . .

But the last part of your second sentence "the Nazi firearms laws of 1938 to be a significant instance of gun control" and a phrase early in the following sentence "no valid evidence to support the addition of the material has been provided" are specifically referring to a core question, because it directly challenges an actual basis given for inclusion of what is actually in the article. If you don't consider my last sentence to be an unacceptable extraction, then that's a step forward. It is a challenge to (e.g. my version of the rationale) "that it is an instance of gun control, with enough significance or coverage to merit a few sentences in a Wikipedia article." Perhaps we can move forward by discussing this core question. Or more to the point, discuss what the rules and metrics are for the answer because they will determine the result. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made my position entirely clear. I have no intention of getting dragged into yet another tendentious and circular argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you have made your position clear that you do not want the material in, and made comments that disparage it, other viewpoints and the people who presented them, and then ended each thread when someone tried to get specific on those. The last post looked like an opportunity to engage (with the person who has done that the most) on the specifics of (what both sides would identify as) a core element of the debate. Based on your last post, I guess not. Possibly someone else will? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I have made my position clear. The 'core element of this debate' is whether material explicitly added to the article in support of a fringe theory should be included. Wikipedia policy is clear - we do not promote fringe theories. Your repeated refusal to address the issue directly can only be understood as evidence that you have no legitimate argument for inclusion - and your endless attempts to sidetrack the issue can thus in turn only be understood as an attempt to divert attention from this self-evident fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you do not get to declare by fiat that something is fringe (indeed, it would be WP:OR for us to do so), nor is there any indication in the fringe guideline or any site wide consensus that I can find that it applies to the opinions of notable people about 100% true historical facts. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The appeal to historical "facts" is a worthless and well-worn piece of rhetoric that has been thoroughly debunked on this talk page again and again and again. The addition of "facts" which are cherry-picked to buttress a particular political ideology and whose sources don't refer to the topic of the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Don't add historical "facts" about ravioli to an article on gun control, and don't add "facts" about the Holocaust, either. — goethean 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Such circular logic! "The opinions of the people are fringe, and the facts those people are basing the opinion on is irrelevant because I don't like your sources because they are fringe!" WP:RS and WP:NPOV are very clear and explicit. Sources are NOT required to be neutral or objective. There are MANY sources discussing these opinions (both directly, and meta discussion about the theories and their proponents). to say that the opinions of the NRA, and Halbrook (two of the most influential entities in the gun control debate), or TWO separate federal court rulings on the subject of gun control, or congressional testinomy on the subject of gun control, are not notable or significant to the topic of gun control is absolutely ludicrous. You disagree with the peoples opinions - thats fine. But there is ZERO policy that would require us to exclude an accurate representation of these notable people's views in this article (and in fact explicit policy that says we do need to include all views to be NPOV). You have provided ZERO sources for your assertions, ZERO citations to policy that actually apply to this content. Yet you complain that others are doing the OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you are saying something completely different than you did in your last post. In your last post, you were talking about indisputable historical "facts". Now you are saying that the opinions of the NRA are notable. The content currently in the article doesn't discuss notable opinions; it simply asserts historical "facts" which are off the subject of the article. If you want to argue that there are notable opinions that should be described in the article, then write a proposal. Because the current content doesn't treat it as opinion, it treats it as "facts". — goethean 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, the notion is clearly a fringe theory, and no amount of rhetoric about "opinions of notable people about 100% true historical facts" will change that. Cherrypicking is bad; synthesis is bad; it should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

there is no synth. There is no OR. These assertions and facts are directly referenced by the sources. You don't like the sources. tough shit. Please identify the specific portion of WP:FRINGE that indicates it applies to opinions regarding the significance of 100% true historical facts. It is very clear from reading the guideline that all examples are things that are accepted as factually NOT true (UFOs, JFK conspiracy theories, quack medical theories, etc). Alternatively, please point out the wider consensus showing that the guideline should be applied to that type of content. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is in direct contravention of Wikipedia NPOV policy to include material cherry-picked to support fringe theories. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, tough shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• The content clearly violates policy. It should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Current state of the article

North8000, As a relative outsider I'd like to see if I can address your issues without geting tied up in knots as the four of you seem to be doing. You say that the discussion should hinge on what is in the article, not on what is not in the article, and that is fair enough. Now, what is in the article is a short, factual paragraph, with plenty of citations, concerning a number of measures implemented in Germany in the year 1938. Your position, as I understand it, is that content that is factual and sourced, which can be said to fall within the scope of the article, should not be removed under any circumstances. This is where I find myself disagreeing. Any content added to any article must serve a purpose, so the question that must be asked is, what purpose does this paragraph serve? If it is nothing more than a chunk of German gun control history, then it fails WP:UNDUE, because the history of gun control in Germany spans hundreds of years, as it does everywhere else, and the year 1938 is not important enough, in terms of the whole history of gun control in Germany, for it to eclipse everything else in that history. If that is not what it is, then the only purpose it can possibly be intended to serve is to link gun control, as a concept, to the Holocaust – the Reductio ad Hitlerum that others have talked about above – but without actually asserting that link in words. And in that case, it fails WP:NPOV, since of its very nature it allows only one point of view to be presented. Have I at least answered the point that you were making? Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

{u|Scolaire}} as a "supporter" of the content, I agree with you, the relevance of the facts needs to be made clear by the inclusion of the POV argument (and relevant counter-argument). The current state is quite bad, and due to the months long edit war, where the argument and the facts were originally together, then split into history vs argument sections, then the argument was removed, and now the facts are moved into the argument section. The argument was continually edited out as people have argued (and continue to argue above) that the proponents of the argument are non-notable, fringe people. The facts have been harder to remove since they are indisputable. Obviously the entire matter will revolve around the answer to the previous question. If these peoples opinions are notable (even if we disagree with them) then they should be included (along with the notable arguments against them). As WP:RS states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral or objective. WP:NPOV states that all significant viewpoints should be included. This viewpoint is shared by the NRA, Multiple researchers (Halbrook, Kates, Polsby, etc), and has been raised by two federal court judges in gun control rulings, by sitting congressmen in gun control debates etc. A neutral presentation of their argument, including a brief recitation of the historical fact for context, is clearly supported by policy (or course attributed to them as an argument, and not presented in wiki's voice as "the truth" . Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly a minor point, and unlikely to make any difference, but can you cite a source for the assertion that "This viewpoint is shared by the NRA"? As far as I'm aware, nobody has cited such a source - and I've certainly got the impression that the NRA as an organisation has tended to avoid getting directly involved in debates over such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I am tempted to argue Estoppel since one of the most persistent oppose rationales above has been that it is an NRA talking point, but yes, there are numerous NRA sources. Many of these are covered (and indeed this is how I know about some of them) by Harcourt's article which is an argument against Halbrook & NRA

• Charlton Heston often brought up this history/analogy during his NRA tenure. One particular quote is "Any of the monsters of modern history—such as Hitler and Stalin—confiscated privately held firearms as their first act." (From Harcourt, citing Canadian Press newswire.)(As well as many other Nazi analogies used as rhetorical devices and less based in historical fact)
• Wayne LaPierre's book "Guns, Crime, and Freedom," makes the argument "In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust [...]" and "In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolph Hitler..." (pp 86-87, 167-168)
• Neal Knox's (officer and board member of NRA, and universally acknowledged as one of the driving forces behind the Modern NRA) book "the Gun Rights War" covers the JPFO argument (p285-286)
• The NRA regularly links to articles making the argument (Halbrook most obviously) [72] [73] [74]
• They also host articles by those authors directly [75]
• Or articles under their own editorial voice [76]
• They often use Nazi analogies as a rhetorical device (See Beck's recent keynote at the NRA, which actually turned out to be bloomberg as stalin and not bloomberg as hitler as reported)
• Although not strictly the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (Highly influential in the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS cases, and often lumped in with the NRA by gun control proponents) "The experts have always agreed that gun control is the single best way to take freedom away from the people. It worked in Nazi Germany, and gun control works today in Cuba, Libya and the Soviet Union

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links - I'll look at them later. As for 'estoppel', I'm not sure what others have argued, but I think my position has been that from what I'd seen support for this argument has come from sections of the U.S. gun lobby, rather than the gun lobby as a whole - which is why I asked whether the NRA had ever officially supported it. Of course, if all you are saying is that the NRA has used the Nazis as a 'rhetorical device', rather than actually directly supporting the specific position adopted by Harcourt - that the firearms regulations of 1938 were instrumental in the Holocaust - then it is a moot point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

[[User:|AndyTheGrump]] The NRA has done both, used nazi allusions as a rhetorical device, and specifically made the argument that registration/confiscation was an enabling factor in the Holocaust. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit war started when User:ROG5728 moved the material from "Arguments" to "History".[77] I objected, and my complaints were ignored and rebuffed by editors known as User:ROG5728, User:Gaijin42, and User:North8000. Don't blame the disgraceful state of this article on others when it is you who are responsible. — goethean 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I found Gaijin's post to be very neutral, and also very useful to my understanding of the current state of the article. He said that "the argument was continually edited out as people have argued (and continue to argue above) that the proponents of the argument are non-notable, fringe people." That is a statement of fact, with which I'm sure you'd agree. He didn't name names. He also said that the article was in a bad state "due to the months long edit war", which suggests to me that both sides share the responsibility, since it takes two to edit-war. Prolonging the blame game does nothing to resolve the situation. Having said that, thank you for the diff from last April, because that was useful in showing the state of the article before the big row started. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring over this article has been going on for years, not months. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Before the most recent big row started, then. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, thank you for that summary. And for sticking to the top 3 levels of the "pyramid" and avoiding the bottom 4. There is one way that I see this differently than you/Gaijin (imagine that grouping!  :-) ) And that is that, given that articles are to provide information on their topic, putting in a significant instance of the topic of the article is for that purpose and IMHO that is sufficient purpose without requiring insertion of an argument or viewpoint about that material, and the common practice in And so while I agree with Gaijin42's narrative (that the related opinions/analysis would also be good material, and that somebody had removed them) IMHO that is a parallel / belt-and-suspenders rationale for inclusion of straightforward coverage of what happened.

I would also like to provide some observation on your point that presence is to "link" gun control to the holocaust. I'm not sure exactly what "link" would mean, but in questions about neutral coverage, the mere presence of material affects that without needing to make any linkages. And so folks who are in favor of gun control would like the mere presence of instances of "good" gun control and removal of coverage of instances of "bad" gun control. And folks who are against gun control would like the reverse. This observation does not weigh in towards either side, but I think it is useful to acknowledge it. The little operative guidance that Wikipedia provides in this area is in the weight section of WP:NPOV which (roughly) says that it should follow the amount of coverage in sources.

Finally, in order to possibly inch forward, I note that some arguments have been based on article quality, and other based on policy. I know folks will disagree with this, but I think that the inevitable end result of thorough policy based discussions would be that there is none supporting removal, and (not that such is required in wikipedia) one (wp:weight) supporting inclusion. And the result of an RFC would be long painful roll of the dice. But if we all realize the likely results of those two routes, put on our editor hats, stop and shun/deprecate the negative tactics, and focus on article quality, that might provide a good way to navigate out of this. If everybody redefines that as their objective, then there will be all "winners" and no "losers". Who's would be "in" on this idea? I would be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Specifically, this:

I would also like to provide some observation on your point that presence is to "link" gun control to the holocaust. I'm not sure exactly what "link" would mean, but in questions about neutral coverage, the mere presence of material affects that without needing to make any linkages.

So you're saying that there's no link to ravioli, but I can put material about ravioli into the article, because "the mere presence of material affects that without needing to make any linkages." As you can see, this makes no sense at all. And the Holocaust is related to gun control to the same extent as ravioli. The fact remains that you have failed to produce a source that links your preferred content to the topic of the article.

Additionally, and speaking of your adherence to the pyramid, this:

And so folks who are in favor of gun control would like the mere presence of instances of "good" gun control and removal of coverage of instances of "bad" gun control.

violates WP:AGF. Do it again and we will take this conversation elsewhere. — goethean 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(added later) Quit the crap. That is such a reach that it looks silly. To start with it is a symmetric statement (which you chopped the other half off of) which says the same about everybody that is either for or against. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Goethean, seriously, man, you need to chill. You are right in saying that North expressed himself badly in that first sentence; it made no sense to me either. But there was no need to follow up with the ad hominem. That does not strengthen your case, it only derails the discussion. Your second quote left out "And folks who are against gun control would like the reverse.". There's no failure to assume good faith there. It's just an observation on human nature. You may not agree with it, but it's not grounds for "taking it elsewhere". Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess something just personally irks me about filling Wikipedia articles with poorly sourced garbage. — goethean 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Goethean, Additionally, there are multiple sources that have made the linkage, and you are well aware of them since you have repeatedly edit warred to remove them. The fact that you do not like a a source does not mean that "there are no sources". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to the source that you are referring to right now. — goethean 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Halbrook's articles (And now book making the same argument with more details/primary sourcing), the NRA sources listed above, User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments#Modern_neutral_gun_control_secondary_sources_discussing_this_topic User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments#Modern_non-neutral_sources User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments#Modern_academic_research_into_guns_and_nazis_.28both_biased_and_unbiased.29

Citations usually involve page numbers, not entire books. How do you expect someone to find what you are referring to? It's like the time that you cited the entirety of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, with no page number. (Sounds like a joke, but this actually happened.) — goethean 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The NRA links above provide page numbers. The Halbrook articles and books are indeed the entire book and article. as well as other academic articles (listed in my userspace link above) being the entire article. many of the other sources listed in my userspace listing also include the page numbers. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

North, you say that there is no policy-based reason for removal, but I have given you two reasons why the current content fails policy, depending on how you view the content. If it is "providing information" for its own sake, it fails WP:UNDUE. If it is an attempt to suggest a link between gun control and genocide without saying it in words, it fails WP:NPOV. Gaijin agrees with me. I can't see how WP:WEIGHT can possibly support its inclusion since it points to the "undue weight" section of WP:NPOV. Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I hasten to add that this is not a demand for its removal, I'm just saying that there needs to be some action taken to remedy the defects. Scolaire (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(added later) Scolaire, thanks for your post, but I don't understand the arguments that you are making and so I am unable to respond. Most of Wikipedia is content that I would call "for it's own sake" / just to provide information rather than to derive a point from it so I don't understand your assertion that doing so violates wp:undue. I also don't understand the later part of your post; my point was that the main point (vague and hard to use as it is) of wp:undue/wp:weight is that amount of coverage in the article should be roughly proportionate to the amount of coverage in sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely WP:UNDUE does not mandate the removal of a single paragraph of self contained text which neutrally describes the arguments and counter arguments. The fact that Harcourt, Salon, Mother Jones etc have picked up the counter argument surely indicate that the argument itself is notable. (In addition to the plethora of soruces directly making the argument saying its notable). WP:DUE also should be taking into account the corpus of the topic as a whole, not the weight within the article as it currently stands. Otherwise no information could ever be added to any stub, because it would be undue compared to the current article text. Is a single paragraph mention of this argument undue within the hypothetical fully fleshed out article? Indeed, WP:NPOV specifically advocates this path "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process"Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh, yes, but I was explaining to North how the current content, which does not do those things, fails policy. And that's what I meant when I said that "there needs to be some action taken to remedy the defects." Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely WP:UNDUE does not mandate the removal of a single paragraph of self contained text which neutrally describes the arguments and counter arguments.

Where is this proposed text? Certainly not in the current article. — goethean 16:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, indeed the fully protected article does not contain the content which you and others have repeatedly edit warred to remove. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Second request. Can you point me to the proposed text you refer to in the comment Surely WP:UNDUE does not mandate the removal of a single paragraph of self contained text which neutrally describes the arguments and counter arguments.? Thanks. — goethean 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, please cut it out, both of you! We have established that Gaijin was not referring to any content that is currently in the article, and we are all adult enough to know that you can't remove what isn't there. But we should also be adult enough to just accept that what a user wrote was a non sequitur, and leave it at that. And to respond to a question without recycling the tired accusations of edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is an important point here; perhaps I failed to make it clear. The article does contain content about the Nazis, which North8000 and Gaijin42 were edit warring to keep in. Now it appears that Gaijin42 supports a different proposal. But the new proposal doesn't exist, so we need to see that proposed content before any more debate can take place. Otherwise, we are arguing over nothing. — goethean 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

reply to FiachraByrne

[comment copied from a user talk page to here by Gaijin42 to avoid splitting discussion] I do think the use of the Hitlerian trope, amongst others, in NRA international lobbying efforts can be mentioned but not treated in any depth as a valid theory. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

FiachraByrne There are multiple levels to the argument.

• Historical facts of registration and confiscation of jewish weapons
• Arguments to what degree the registration enabled and precipitated the confiscation (very strong arguments since there is copious documentation as to how the confiscation happened)
• Arguments regarding how important (or not) such actions were to the overall holocaust
• Arguments as to general associations/patterns/correlations between registration, confiscation, and tyranny/genocide
• Arguments as to how the historical cases inform modern debates on gun control in the US/UK/AU etc
• Rhetorical devices largely not based on the history that motivate the base (Raise your hand if you believe in gun control : Nazi salute) etc

The further down the line you go, the weaker the argument is, but the top two certainly are historical facts that are completely undisputed (and directly admitted to by the sources arguing against). The third is a matter of valid historical debate, and counter-factual alternate histories (If the Jews had had weapons they still would have been killed) are also very weak (See the Warsaw Uprising). The later elements are Certainly POV arguments, in which there is strong disagreement, but to say that one side is "settled" and the other is "fringe" is WP:OR wikipedia should not be taking sides in the argument. We should be neutrally describing the arguments (both pro and con). It is frankly irrefutable that the argument is notable and influential within the topic of gun control. To neutraully say that "The Nazis disarmed the jews. Gun rights advocates argue that this was one of the factors that enabled the Holocaust. Other people say this is bullshit (etc)" is perfectly accurate. WP:NPOV specifically mandates that all significant viewpoints be included in a neutral manner.To say that the NRA's viewpoint on gun control, or multiple federal judges, or sitting congressmen, or lawyers who have won multiple gun control cases from SCOTUS are not significant is an obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Then make a well-sourced proposal. I gather from the above discussion, in which you defensively avoid answering my request, that your proposal doesn't exist. — goethean 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Goethean I believe you put this reply in the wrong section (perhaps due to an edit conflict) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I asked you for your proposed content twice, and you changed the subject. Please write a proposal with sources (i.e., citations with page numbers) (fourth request) for us to discuss. Otherwise we're not actually talking about anything concrete. — goethean 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

propsed text

Within The Third Reich, the Nazi party instituted policies and passed laws that disarmed German Jews and other "untrustworthy" groups, while relaxing firearms restrictions for NDSAP party members and ethnic German groups. The Nazi's also confiscated arms in the countries they occupied. Gun rights advocates such as the NRA, Stephen Halbrook, and others in the international debate on gun control have argued that these laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, , and have used allusions to the Nazi's in the modern gun control debate context. In response, voices such as Bernard Harcourt and Robert Spitzer agree that gun control was used in the genocide of the Jews, but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance , and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. They further argue that the use of Nazi allusions is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.

References

Here is a stab at the text. I would also perhaps include the existing article "historical fact" text as a footnote to the first sentence, but the formatting/citing seemed too complicated for this stage of the proposal. I attempted to accurately describe the counter argument as well, but since I am personally more on the side of the argument, it may make sense for an advocate of the counter argument to provide that summary. There is better sourcing for Spitzer's counter-pov available (his book in particular) but I couldn't find the link to get exact quotes/pages. There are of course more sources available for both the POV and counter POV, but these people seem to be the most notable representatives, and I wanted to avoid overciting. However, if someone feels that a particular statement needs additionall buttressing, let me know.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There is probably a minor WP:SYNTH issue especially in the counter argument section, where I have strung together the argument into a compound section for readability. If needed, we can certainly break things apart into separate sentences to avoid that issue, but it won't be as smooth. I don't think the issue causes any misrepresentation of fact or misstatement of opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Not in a million years. Wikipedia does not promote pseudohistorical fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What is fiction? The laws? The disarmament? That the people stated above hold the opinions they are stated to have? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for exclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The fiction starts in your first sentence, and carries on from there. As you are fully aware, the only German laws regarding firearms discussed in the sources are those of 1938 - which only ever applied to Jews (or those designated as Jews by the Nazis) of German nationality. You however have falsely asserted that such laws applied to 'Jews' in general during the Third Reich. As for the rest, it is partisan POV-pushing hogwash, cherry-picking the opposition for material supposedly supporting the fiction, and if you are making this as a serious proposal, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The third reich refers specifically to germany, you can see so by viewing our own article on that topic.. Yes the 1938 laws did only affect German Jews, but there are numerous similar (or in fact wider ranging total disarmament) policies implemented by the Nazis in their occupied territories that aptly cover the rest of European Jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Third Reich - though given that you said 'during', you were clearly referring to a time period, not a geographical entity. And as for what the Nazis did in occupied territories (a) you cite no source, and (b) nobody but an imbecile would describe industrialised mass murder as 'gun control'. Or are you referring to the fact that the Nazis disarmed civilian populations in general in occupied territories? If so, I have news for you. So does practically every occupying army. As indeed did the occupying powers in post-war Germany - with a possible death penalty for infringement. Where is that little titbit of information in your history of firearms regulation in Germany? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The_Third_Reich "Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So your sentence starts, "During Nazi Germany..." Are you illiterate as well? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I welcome this proposal as a useful contribution to a possible consensus text, per my comments in the following section. I would like to see Andy write a paragraph of similar length, no matter how tendentious, and then we could get some idea of what needs to be done to represent the opposing views. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. As I have made entirely clear, without clear evidence from sources beyond the U.S. gun lobby that the Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 are seen as any particular significance, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to be including the material at all - we should not be giving any credence to pseudohistorical fringe theories entirely unsupported by mainstream historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

First off, there is an australian source already included in the text arguing AGAINST the meme that attributed the meme internationally. In any case, please cite the policy that indicates that a global perspective should exclude US views. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually capable of writing a single sentence without misrepresenting what someone has said:? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you capable of saying anything positive at all? Where does all this nay-saying get you? Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing positive to be said regarding Gaijin42's proposal. It grossly violates WP:NPOV, and isn't even based on the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

please identify something specific that isnt accurately based on the sources provided. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

All of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for moving on

Note: I am aware that while I was composing this, Gaijin made a different proposal. I apologise for the inevitable confusion. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your considered responses to my critique at #Current state of the article. I would draw three conclusions from the discussion. First, what is in the article at present is not satisfactory to anybody on either side, with the honourable exception of North8000. Second, there has to be some mention of the Nazi Germany argument, if only because the RfC has shown a significant number of editors in favour of it. Third, there is no question of reverting to the status of last April, because you can't turn the clock back. It seems to me, therefore, that the protection of the article is as good an opportunity as you'll ever get to collaborate on an alternative text. Collaboration does not mean leaving your POV at the door. On the contrary, if editors on each side suggested a draft based exclusively on their own POV, it might be easier to come up with a balanced version. Ideally, we would end up with a short, concise and neutral version, in which everybody concerned would have invested enough effort to keep it stable, and stop it growing into something else. My own view is that the section, subsection or paragraph should deal with the Nazi Germany argument as it appears in books, articles etc., rather than with the history of the 1938 laws or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and commentary or speculation on the significance of these. With regard to the argument, there are a number of questions that I think could be usefully addressed in the article:

1. What exactly is the argument? To say that Nazi gun control laws led to, or facilitated, the Holocaust, is no more than a statement. It is missing a "therefore": Nazi gun control laws facilitated the Holocaust, therefore gun control is inherently evil; Nazi gun control laws led to the Holocaust, therefore gun control will always lead to genocide; the Nazis introduced gun control legislation as part of their plan to exterminate the Jews, therefore anybody who advocates gun control is a Nazi. If (as I imagine) it is none of the above arguments, it should be possible to state it in the same number of words. If there is more than one single argument, they should each be given due weight. If there is in fact no coherent argument, this should be stated.
2. How prevalent is the argument? Not only is the prevalence important in determining the weight given to it in the article, but the prevalence should be explicitly stated in the paragraph itself. Thus, "a major argument against gun control is...", "a minority, albeit large, of gun rights advocates say..." or "a small minority of gun rights advocates say..."
3. How old is the argument? Did it begin with Halbrook, does it go back to the 1968 bill, or does it go all the way back to 1945? If either of the latter two, who was/were the major exponent(s) of the argument before Halbrook?

One further observation: despite the oft-repeated assertions that "gun control" is a global topic, I suspect that all the major contributors to the article are Americans. The article is far more Americocentric than probably any of you realise, notwithstanding references to ECOSOC resolutions and international surveys, and the talk page is overwhelmingly Americocentric. I think a frank acknowledgement of this fact would be more useful than well-intentioned but inept attempts to give it more of a "world view", such as the ridiculous "Japan of the Shogunate" section. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion that "all the major contributors to the article are Americans", (a) I am not an American (I'm British), and (b) I have been complaining from my first edits to this talk page about the ridiculous manner in which this article of supposedly global scope has been dominated by the discourse of the U.S. pro-gun lobby. Given the WP:OWNership of the article, I have of course been unable to do anything about it - and neither, come to that, have the multiple other contributors who have tried to ensure proper coverage of firearms regulation issues on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So would I be right in saying the great majority of contributors are American? If so, what I said still goes. There is and will remain a systemic bias, and grumbling about the fact doesn't achieve anything. I imagine you are in a minority because most non-American Wikipedians see gun control as an American "thing". Certainly I do. Scolaire (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly see strong evidence that firearms play a more significant cultural role in the U.S. than elsewhere - but that is beside the point. This is an international encyclopaedia, and this is an international topic. It deserves better than to be handed on a plate to one faction of the debate in one country. If it can't be written in a neutral encyclopaedic manner, we shouldn't be writing about it at all. We owe that at least to our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where I suggested it be written by "one faction", or that it should not be neutral. All I said was that raging about systemic bias as regards location will get you nowhere, and accepting that bias and working within it has the potential to improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Argument - Gun registration enables and often leads to confiscation (even if initial motives are benign). disarmament makes tyranny and genocide easier. the genocidal/tyrannical regimes have generally all implemented gun control (the reverse argument is often left implied but unstated (but certainly some groups do argue the reverse directly)
• Before Halbrook - Yes. JPFO, Wayne LaPierre, Charlton Heston John Dingell among others. Halbrook is used because he has done the research to find the primary sources that back up his opinions in a way that can be verified.
• Size of argument - The direct Nazi argument size is unknown, but certainly Harcourt and other contrary views attribute it widely. (Harcourt (remember, on the counter argument side!): "Say the words "gun registration" to many Americans-especially pro-gun Americans, including the 3.5 million-plus members of the National Rifle Association ("NRA")-and you are likely to hear about Adolf Hitler, Nazi gun laws, gun confiscation, and the Holocaust. " and "In fact the nazi-gun-registration argument has so far penetrated the American consciousness that, today, a majority of Americans (~57%) believe that handgun registration will lead to confiscation").
• US centric - mostly agree. However, the nazi argument has been used elsewhere in terms of this specific content. To some degree this bias is systemic due to the editors involved, but also because the US is the main place that there is an active gun control debate. Places that arent having active arguments obviously don't have arguments to cite.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So we have Charlton Heston from 1995, JPFO from 1986, John Dingell no date given, and Wayne LaPierre no article. How old does that make the argument then? Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dingell was 1968. That is the earliest I am aware of, but as that was the first major gun control law debate in the US, prior to that there would not be much cause to bring up the argument (though obviously it was at least well enough known to Dingell to bring it up ad hoc). Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

However, (at the time of wwII) secondary sources (now primary? due to age?) commented extensively on the gun confiscation, its effect on the Jews, and then later confiscations in France etc. (Available in my userspace listing of sources from the RFC above). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, my question was specifically about the application of the Nazi argument to the current gun control debate. So, before Halbrook we have Dingell from 1968, JFPO from 1986 and Heston from 1995. I think they're all worth a (brief) mention in the article.

Scolaire, even though I disagree with a few of things that you have said, I appreciate your substantive and friendly discussion, support your efforts, and am happy to compromise to help those efforts move forward. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe we can gather a cohort of people with a positive attitude towards finding a consensus text. It will need people to come outside their comfort zone, though. Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)