Talk:Gun politics in the United States

Editor request

(section header renamed per WP:TALKNEW, should not put editor names in headers 172.162.6.235 (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

Lightbreather please Stop

Out of the last 100 edits, you have made all but 12 of them. For Pete's sakes get a hold of your ownership issues and stop dominating the article. These tsunamis of edits are what got you into trouble before. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. Wait for consensus. Please. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just (re) read Examples of ownership behavior. I wish that you would quit accusing me of that, and maybe (re?) read them yourself, and also maybe WP:STEWARDSHIP.

Also, I thought we had an agreement to talk with each other on our talk pages. Is that over now? Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the opening paragraph of WP:STEWARDSHIP and I'm having a hard time seeing how many of your edits fall under this. Stewardship involves constructive edits and additions to an article and typically includes being thankful for the assistance of others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter, or the editor could actually be an expert in the subject matter and provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, its best to assume good faith on their part.

It's a good paragraph, and it describes me. I have a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in causes and organizations related to the subject, and overall, my knowledge and insight are no worse than anyone else I see contributing here. (I do learn new things from time to time, as do others.) I do not exhibit behaviors associated with ownership - certainly, again, no more than anyone else here. (And, IMO, actually a lot less than some.) I try to collaborate, and I am thankful for others' help. However, my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here, so I think my edits are often unwelcome. That's where I'll say what I've said before: Don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Light breather, I wouldn't call it ownership or stewardship, I would call it simply an overwhelming level of activity. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC) `

First off, thank you and I'm glad to hear that you feel it applies to you. But your perception that you are "the only "pro-control" editor here, so I think my edits are often unwelcome" is totally unwelcome. Humans are "ignorant" and thus inherently biased in various ways. WP Editors ideally are not afforded this, we are all supposed to edit in a Neutral way and without an agenda other than the constructive expansion of the site. Please tell me (and the rest reading this) that you did not just admit to editing this article with an agenda that violates WP:NPOV. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy groups and political action committees section

Basically I've deleted the opening fluff, if someone needs an explanation of what a PAC is or what it does, they can click the link. This is what Wikilinks are for. If the rest of the content is not as clearly pertinent, then it simply needs to be written better. I'm willing to help (including finding sources), but its not the purpose of the article to educate the reader on every aspect of its content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fluff? It's brief and important to understanding politics in the U.S. - including gun politics. Money, and how it's spent, is political speech. If we're going to apply an "if someone needs an explanation of what [insert thing] is, they can click the link" rule to this article... let's go to town. Plus, you wrote (partial) in your edit summary, "the cited source is editorial, so suspect as well. Other sources would be better." Are you talking about OpenSecrets.org? And what did you mean? Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Its an entire paragraph that belongs in the PAC article. Rather than OpenSecrets.org, why didn't you start with this list of sources? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OpenSecrets.org was already being used in the article. Also, it's among the sources in the list you gave. I can change the sources, if that will make you happier, but I think a brief description is relevant. Otherwise, as I said, there are other areas in this article where we can start purging descriptive info - though I'm sure that's likely to anger some. So instead, let's work together to address this concern. If not Open Secrets, how about the Sunlight Foundation, or FactCheck.org? Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with being unhappy if it makes the article better... The link I cited, is the reference list for the PAC article. Basically I was trying to help you out, why reinvent the wheel? There seem to be some good sources there. What do you think?

Yes, added a month ago to an article started in 2003... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"The link I cited, is the reference list for the PAC article." Yes, I understood that - and it includes OpenSecrets.org references.

"Yes, added a month ago to an article started in 2003." Since the oldest edits in this article's history are from Feb. 2004, I assume you mean the Political action committee article. There are four references to Open Secrets (Center for Responsible Politics) as a source in that article, including two from early in 2012. It makes sense that more sources - Open Secrets or not - would be added regularly, as Wikipedia is always changing, and as the article has information on high-profile PACs in recent elections. If Open Secrets is WP:RS for the PAC article, it's - reliable. I'm going to restore a brief primer to the section, as 2 or 3 sentences will improve the article. Lightbreather (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'm in favor of clarity, brevity is crucial as well. At 142K, this article is "morbidly obese" by Wikipedia standards. The complexity of the issue is not lost on me, but this article could benefit from significant streamlining. There is still a lot of un-encyclopedic content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod I have asked you at least twice to explain your beef with Open Secrets (Center for Responsive Politics) as a source, but you have yet to explain, and you keep removing it. Please, explain. What makes your preferred wording, layout, and sources an improvement to the article? Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple, I've changed to sources that cite the original material from the articles you're trying to overlap, this includes actual books. Why are you so determined to use the Open Secrets web site? What makes it better than the original material that been in place for several years? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've explained this at least twice above: The source was already in use in this article/section before I started working on it. I only expanded on it.

You've removed a very brief explanation of what outside spending and super PACs are - which most Americans have probably heard about or seen in the news, but may need a brief description of to understand here (and, yes, a WL if they want to know more).

You've replaced "NRA's Political Victory Fund PAC" with "NRA's Political Victory Fund (part of its NRA-ILA Section 527 PAC)." Perhaps one editor's improvement is another editor's bloat - or WP:JARGON, or WP:OVERLINK? When you changed this sentence: Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a Life Endowment (a notch above a regular Life) NRA member and I've done extensive editing on its article, so I just might know a thing or two about the organization. The PVF is just marketing and can't function unless its doing so as part of the 527 PAC. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, I'm only saying what's one the various NRA websites, and the way the corporate structure is presented in other reliable sources, does't jibe with the Wikipedia article. So it seems the article ought to be edited to jibe with the WP:RS, or the NRA ought to be notified that its websites need to be updated. (FWIW: I am an NRA member, too, and I used to be president of a non-profit (though not related to gun control), so I know a little about this stuff, too.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Then we're "2 for 2", I sit on the Board of several 501c3 non-profits and have been a president of one as well. I've even been an associate editor for several publications, gun related and otherwise. The NRA is a complex organization and because of this, most sources get it wrong (or not correct at least). The Finance and Structure section in the main article is about as accurate as it gets based on actual filings with the government. I don't doubt the group keeps things complicated to throw off its opponents, but its up to us to dig through sources and get to the facts, not just what "most say" or "claim". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. I think it's important that we editors understand the organizational structure, including which entity is a subset of what entity and what their tax statuses are. I mean which is a 501(c)(3) and which is a 501(c)(4) and which is a 527. However, when we write that up for the readers, we do not have to inundate them with the jargon, but work it in with as little distraction as possible (and links to learn more about those details, for those who are interested.) I hesitated using "501(c)(4)" in the article, but went with it because A) that's what the source uses (in addition to explaining that they're also called "social welfare" groups), and B) because I figured most readers have probably encountered the terms "501(c)(3)" and "501(c)(4)" in their personal business (when joining or giving to nonprofits).

Since this discussion is getting kind of long, if sorting this out further is important to you, why don't you start a new discussion about the NRA corporate structure, so we all understand it, including this (c)(3), (c)(4), and 527 stuff. Then we could look at your sources AND the stuff we're already using and decide how we want to edit that part of the article. (I suppose it could be useful on the NRA article, too). Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The era was famous for criminal use of sub-machine guns like Tommy guns. Under the NFA, fully automatic weapons fall under the regulation and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

to this:

The era was famous for criminal use of firearms like the Tommy gun and sawed-off shotguns. Under the NFA, certain firearms fall under the regulation and jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) as described by Title II of the U.S. Code.

...I didn't remove it and call it bloat, or jargon, overlink. I thought those things, but I was trying to work with you, not just wipe out what obviously seemed like an improvement to you. So, please stop removing the brief paragraph I wrote - and have re-written for you at least three time now - and am going to rewrite again, once more, in an effort to compromise. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit amounted to an WP:UNDUE focus on automatic weapons, and not the entire class of criminal weapons that he NFA was intended to control. The NFA was anti-crime (anti-gangster, anti-mafia, etc.) legislation, not just gun control. If you consider it in the context of the era, the NFA was passed after Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion. The government had discovered a new way fight crime (monetarily) and was using it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OpenSecrets should be used with caution, because they are effectively just providing access to WP:PRIMARY sources, and all the restrictions of primary sources apply. For their explanatory text etc, they are not an organization with an editorial board etc reviewing the content in the same way as newspapers, magazines, academic journals etc do. I don't object to their use, but if there are more reliable sources available for the same information, we should defer to those. For the disputed content above, it seems clear that there are sources that are unquestionably WP:RS for expository text, so switching to them is a good idea. LB, you seem reluctant to accept such a swap, what is your reasoning? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what you say compared to what the site and others say[1] don't quite match up. It's used regularly by numerous, reliable sources. Also, the textbook that's the first source on the PAC page pre-dates Citizens United and SpeechNow, and the second source for that article doesn't even work anymore. That article, and its sources, are in need of updating. Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A WP:PRIMARY source is often used by reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. That doesn't promote the primary to be secondary itself. Its still a primary. Its an indicator that its probably a solid primary, but a primary none-the-less. There have been numerous discussions at WP:RSN about open secrets and almost all of them put it into the WP:PRIMARY bucket. You still have not addressed why you think we should use the site for something other than the raw numbers - surely information about what a PAC is is widely available elsewhere? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Heller material

I recently had a discussion with Gaijin42 on his talk page about how to cut down on some of the bloat in this article. I have a suggestion that I think can help a lot re the repetition of Heller facts and arguments. It can actually help with other repeated subtopics, but Heller is how the idea started. I propose taking all of the FEDERAL subtopics under the Courts and the law section and work them into the History subsections where appropriate, with sub-subsection titles. For instance, the current District of Columbia v. Heller, subsection way at the end of the article under Courts and the law, would be moved - along with its subsection title - to the 21st century section. A working copy is on Gaijin's talk page.[2] He and I have talked about a few things, but the ONE thing I want to propose HERE is replacing the beginning of this article's 21st century section with the working copy, which is SIMPLY a merge of the beginning of this article's 21st century section with the whole "District of Columbia v. Heller" subsection under Courts and the law. After merging/moving the FEDERAL laws/rulings now at the bottom of the article into the History subsection, the bottom will just be a State constitutions/laws section, which can segue and Wikilink nicely to related state laws articles. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Gallup and Rasmussen

This Wikipedia article says (in the subsection about tyranny): "a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that only 5 percent of American gun owners own them for Second Amendment reasons". Here is the cited source. I intend to remove this bit about Gallup for a couple reasons. First, it says nothing about "tyranny". Second, it showed that 60% of people favor gun ownership for "Personal safety/Protection"; this appears to mean either "Protection" or "Personal safety" (notice the capital "P" in "Protection"), and such protection could encompass protection from tyranny. Anyway, tyranny is not explicitly mentioned in the cited reference, so I think it's original research for us to suggest that only 5% think guns deter tyranny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed a sentence from this:

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny, but a Gallup poll in October 2013 showed that only 5 percent of American gun owners own them for Second Amendment reasons.

To this:

A January 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 65 percent of Americans believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure protection from tyranny.

We can't include only the poll that supports your claim and ignore the one that might shed some light on the subject in context. I'm putting it back. I'll add the Personal safety/Protection result, too, and the reader can draw their OWN conclusions about what these might mean. Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The 5% figure is about the Second Amendment and therefore belongs in the subsection on the Second Amendment, if at all. It is WP:Original Research to use that information to dispute or detract from the Rasmussen result, as the Gallup result does not mention tyranny. If you want to present a poll result that says a tiny number of people believe guns inhibit tyranny, then please find a poll result that says a tiny number of people believe guns inhibit tyranny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, the Rasmussen poll is about the Second Amendment, which means "security from tyranny" should be a subtopic Second Amendment rights. You can't cherrypick your sources, man. Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I did not write (nor did Gallup for that matter) that a tiny number of people believe gun rights inhibit tyranny. I wrote what the poll says, that a tiny number of people who own guns own them for 2A reasons. Let the reader draw their own conclusions, if any. (I have drawn my own, personal conclusions about the relationship between what the two polls say - but I did not share them here or in the article.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rasmussen poll specifically mentions "tyranny", man. The Gallup poll says nothing about it. I have brought this to a Noticeboard.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I plan to change your "but" to either "and" or a semicolon. We should not push the POV that the Gallup poll (which does not mention "tyranny") contradicts the Rasmussen poll (which does mention "tyranny"). You say you want to let readers decide, but the word "but" pushes them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "and" gives it a POV, too. How about just a separate sentence? I'm going to go do that, and we can discuss further if it doesn't suit you. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments (RFC) about whether tyranny argument is confined to USA

Brief, neutral statement of the issue

The issue here involves the section of this Wikipedia article titled "Security against tyranny". Would it be okay to say briefly in that section whether or not the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights is unique to the United States? That could be done in the following way, or in some other way:

“ In modern times, the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has not been entirely confined to the United States, but that is not to say the argument has gotten much traction elsewhere.[1][2][3][4] ”

[1]Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007).

[2]Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013).

[3]Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012).

[4]Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement is not factual, firearms in the hands of citizens inside the United States has nothing to do about being any kind of "check against tyranny." The phrase fails WP:NPOV and the statement fails test-ability, fallibility, and is demonstrably wrong. Suggest removing the phrase entirely. Damotclese (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. As the original poster of this RFC, I think the draft above is adequate. The four sources seem reliable, and the draft above carefully indicates that these sources do not suggest the check-against-tyranny argument has gotten much traction outside the U.S. At the same time, the draft does not extrapolate from the sources to make any generalizations that could constitute original research. The draft sentence is brief, and so would not have undue weight in this section. These sources are picked because they each indicate whether the check-against-tyranny argument is confined to the U.S. or not, and I am not aware of further sources that do so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mildly Oppose, in terms of context. Though I strongly support that the statement is accurate, assuming the sources are reliable, and impressively NPOV one, I am not sure what point this statement makes, or what point the author is trying to make with this statement in the specified section. This might be due to my lacking of in-depth knowledge of the topic, but most readers are also not familiar to the topic so every statement should bring non-expert readers to more advance stage of understanding, which I failed to see in that statement. My view is that if there are very few arguments of this outside U.S., then this is not very relevant because far greater numbers of Americans are already involved in the argument, and U.S. is one of the most independent country in the world so those minuscule arguments outside U.S. should have no impact to the U.S. at all. However, if the argument is supported or opposed widely outside U.S., it may be appropriate to assert as a notable POV. (Preceding by Biglobster (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC))
• Oppose As making a point in Wikipedia's voice. A closer formulation would be:

The United States gun rights movement has used references to a check against tyranny.(cite needed to support this single claim) While the same argument has been used elsewhere, it does not generally have the same weight in other countries. (specific cite needed for this separate and distinct claim) Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm only coming into this from an invite, but what is the purpose of highlighting other countries in an article specifically about the US debate? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The term "tyranny" in the U.S. had connotations that do not extend to other countries. The Founding Fathers called George III a tyrant and claimed that people in colonies that remained with in the British empire were living under tyranny. None of the sources make this comment. Furthermore, it is not enough to find a source mentioning that in one debate in one country one person said something. One needs a source that actually says what is proposed, which is general statement about other countries. TFD (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Nazi gun control argument itself doesn't even belong here, but in a fringe or historical revisionism article of its own, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support idea oppose the exact wording. I would like to see it reworded more in the manner that talk and talk have expressed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I's a very modest statement regarding that, almost sky-is-blue. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In reply to User:Collect, your formulation would be fine with me, except that we have no sources that speak to how this tyranny argument is "generally" used outside the US; we only have sources regarding four specific countries: Brazil, Australia, the UK, and Canada. All four sources clearly show the argument is not confined to the US, but none of the four sources show it has gained much traction outside the US. I suspect what you really mean is that you support the statement that it would "be okay to say briefly in that section whether or not the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights is unique to the United States?" You're just doing it a different way. Is that correct Collect?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The material appears to be in print in foreign languages (i.e. German in one case, printed in Germany) meaning that we can not, on our own, assert that it is exclusively a US concern at all. Unless, of course, reliable sources state that it is not found outside the US. As for "traction" - if we find sources making assertions about "traction" then we can use those sources, but we can not assert anything about "traction" not directly stated or supported in a reliable source. Collect (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your meaning is unclear to me. What material appears to be in print in foreign languages? I agree that we cannot assert that it is exclusively a US concern, and the language I suggested does exactly the opposite ("has not been entirely confined to the United States"), right? As for traction, I wanted to be 100% clear that we are not saying anything about traction, and so it is specifically disclaimed ("which is not to say"). How can we make sure that people don't infer anything about traction, unless we say that we're not saying anything about it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a "disclaimer" is actually a claim per se, and if we have no information on something, we say nothing at all about it. We can not "make sure people do not infer" anything at all - we rely on WP:NPOV and the requirements that only reliable sources be used to provide balance in an article. We do not assert things we "know" to be "true" nor do we use the editorial sledgehammer on "evil stuff." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, are you saying that you would be fine if the suggested sentence is shortened: "In modern times, the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights has not been entirely confined to the United States"??? I'm fine with that. The problem is that some other editors at another article pointed out that all four of these sources show that the argument did not get much traction in those four respective countries, so do you think we need to somehow take account of that fact too, without undue verbosity?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What some other editors pointed out at the Gun control talk page and here is that these sources do not support any notion that there is any international discussion re Nazi gun control. It would be WP:UNDUE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In reply to User:Thargor Orlando, the purpose is to include a slight amount of context. For example. in an article about Abraham Lincoln, we don't have to mention only Abraham Lincoln; we can also say that he had 15 predecessors as president, he wasn't the first one. In an article about California, we can mention that it is south of Oregon, even though the article is not about Oregon. If I had to guess, I would say that the main reason why including this simple information in the present article has become controversial is the fear that it might lead to mentioning the check-against- tyranny argument in the main gun control article, but IMHO that factor should be irrelevant here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

But why is that context important in this specific article. I guess I'm trying to figure out why it should matter that the "against tyranny" argument hasn't caught on overseas when it's not a worldwide article. I'm just confused as to what clarification this provides other than a "look how unique these Americans are" point-and-laugh thing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if something is uniquely American, then it seems worth saying so very briefly, and if it's not then that seems worth mentioning briefly too. If a reader is perusing this article and (by some miracle) they get down to this section, they might say to themself: "Gee, I had never heard of that rationale, I wonder if it's unique to the USA?" Just like they might wonder if Lincoln was the first president, or wonder what's on California's northern border.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, a little background on this discussion is in order. There was an RfC on the Gun control talk page to include this argument in the general/global Gun control article. That ended up turning into an ArbCom issue (as yet unresolved). A few editors in that RfC suggested that maybe if it wasn't something for the main Gun control article, it might be something for this article. Many who opposed including Nazi gun control arguments in that article also oppose including it here for the same reason. It's a fringe, or at best historical revisionism, argument not supported by scholars or mainstream media. Gun-rights extremists want to give the argument weight, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be reworded and/or some sources removed or replaced

This is the opening sentence of the Security against tyranny section:

Some gun rights supporters say that private gun ownership makes tyranny less likely.

It is not supported by ALL the sources given. Of course, there needs to be a good, brief intro to the section, perhaps supported by all of these sources, but the current sentence misrepresents what the sources say. It's WP:SYNTH. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1. (Cook-Goss) says: A core tenet of gun rights ideology is that "the people" must deny government a monopoly on the use of force.... A corollary to this tenet is that banning private ownership of guns, or even simply regulating them, makes tyranny--even genocide--more likely.

Reversed, that supports the sentence. (Also, there may be something there for the "genocide" camp, though I don't know what else the author says on the subject.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand your objection. Perhaps if you would propose a re- phrase then your objection might become more clear. The sentence in question does not distinguish between core tenets versus corollaries of core tenets; either way it's something that gun right supporters say. I would strongly prefer a simple and accurate lead sentence for this section, like we have now. I can provide dozens more sources, if necessary, but it should not be necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I was in the middle of presenting my arguments when I got caught up in some other discussions. I will continue, and then maybe we can put our heads together. The gist of what I'm saying is, the four sources you've listed do not all support what you wrote. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you dispute that the lead sentence is true according to reliable sources? It not, then feel free to add as many more refs as you like. Each single ref does not have to (by itself) support the whole sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm participating in several conversations at once right now, but as you see, I have not reverted what you wrote, I'm only saying not all the sources you gave support what you wrote. I will be presenting the rest of my arguments as time permits; I don't feel any pressure to act on this immediately - just putting it in the GPUS queue. Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

2. (Wilson) says: The primary arguments in favor of an individual right to bear arms include... the need to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government....

That can't be accurately paraphrased as Some gun rights supporters say that private gun ownership makes tyranny less likely.Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

3. (Luna) says: Regardless of whether the alarm is sounded by the mainstream or the margin, however, it seems clear that state tyranny and firearm seizures are of utmost concern to all members of the pro-gun culture.

That can't be accurately paraphrased as Some gun rights supporters say that private gun ownership makes tyranny less likely. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

4. (Levan-Mackey) says: ??? Not sure what Levan says that supports the sentence. (She ascribes her Pro-Gun Culture section's "tyranny" paragraph to Luna.) This is the weakest of the four sources and not used elsewhere in the article. I think it should be removed, and figure out how to use one or more of the other three for the opening sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we can avoid endless loops in this discussion if you would please reply to the very brief question above: "Do you dispute that the lead sentence is true according to reliable sources?" If you would please also answer this one, it might help too: "Are you saying that a sentence in a Wikipedia article must be fully supported by each of the footnotes at the end?" Let's please not miss the forest for the trees. The lead sentence of this section is very obviously correct, right? We don't have to track sources so precisely that we use the exact same words or even synonyms for those words.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

To your first question, yes I dispute it - based on the sources that you gave. On the second question, yes - especially on a controversial topic. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, your answer to the second question may provide us a way out of this latest debacle. My understanding is that a sentence in a Wikipedia article is fine even if it is not supported by each one of the footnotes at the end, as long as it is supported by the combination of footnotes at the end. Maybe if we get that straightened out, we can move on. I don't think we need to spend much time on a sentence of the article that is so extremely obviously correct. So, I will see if I can find some guidance for you regarding use of footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is not a requirement for all sources to support all bits, but at least one source must support the entire thing by itself or it is synthesis. However, juxtaposition is not synthesis so individual sentences may be used as long as no or is introduced. If those individual sourced items lead the reader to do the or themselves, that is not am issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there's a noticeboard discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Essay tag

Per WP:DETAG, I have removed the “Essay-like” tag because I do not see the purported problem with the section and do not see any detailed complaint on the talk page. According to the directions for this particular tag:

“ Use this tag to identify personal essays. Personal essays describe the author's own feelings about a topic. Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to publish users' personal opinions. This template should be used when the article contains the editor's own personal comments on the subject. Use it when the article does not necessarily represent a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgmental in tone. Do not use this template to tag fact-oriented pages that sound like they might have been written as research papers for school (called "essays" in some parts of the world). Instead, if those pages need a different writing style or tone, use general templates …. ”

This section of the Wikipedia article is obviously not a vehicle for the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. The goal here is to describe a POV that exists in the outside world, a POV that is documented in reliable sources. The section currently includes 29 footnotes in the main text, plus another ten in a note. It does not present any information as the opinion of the Wikipedia editors, nor is the Wikipedia article judgmental. It quotes people who support the POV, and those who oppose it, and gives readers lots of external links to learn more if they want.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is much improved - I'm so glad all those quotes are gone, especially the pre-18th century stuff - but it's still got some problems. Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research

A couple of "OR" tags have been inserted with this edit summary: "improper synthesis. neither source discusses the topic of the article." Here are the two sources:

• Pound, Roscoe.: The Development of Constitutional Guarantees of Liberty, page 91. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 1957
• Amar, Akhil and Hirsch, Alan. For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights, pp. 7, 171–176 (Simon and Schuster 1999)

Both sources discuss the topic of the present article. Consider Pound. He wrote:

“ [A] legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted.... In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which would defeat the whole Bill of Rights. ”

Nevertheless, I have inserted a further footnote next to the Pound footnote:

• Spitzer, Robert. Right to Bear Arms: Rights and Liberties Under the Law, p. 61 (ABC-CLIO, 2001)

This Spitzer source quotes Pound just as we do. As for the Amar source, I don't understand the problem. Have you looked at pages 171-176? They seem very clearly to discuss the subject of the present article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
• RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun control talk page which may be of interest to editors of this page:

• RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Should this brief paragraph with eight references:

In the United States, some gun owners say private gun ownership is a check against tyranny. Such a position has a long history in gun politics in the U.S. Supporters of gun rights such as Stephen Halbrook and Wayne LaPierre believe that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past tyranny and genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship, though it is an element of a "security against tyranny" argument in U.S. politics.

References

Replace these two (one in the article, another in the "notes") with 15 references:

Modern proponents of the security-against-tyranny argument often claim that the Nazis could have been inhibited by a more well-armed population (that claim is controversial), and they often discuss a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and other suppressed populations. Historians have tended to not address gun regulation under the Nazis, and its significance is disputed. According to Robert Cottrol, wider gun ownership might have also helped protect Cambodians from slaughter in the 1970s.

Notes

References

In the "Security against tyranny" section? Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey2

• Support. (author) See threaded discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Chris Troutman (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The material proposed for deletion has been in this article for several months, and it is perfectly adequate. I don't see why it should not remain. Moving it to an article that will soon be deleted is unwise, IMHO. This RFC would not change the length of the pertinent material in the main text of this article (i.e. people would only see the Note if they specifically go to the Note, and the Note ought not to be censored out of Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Far superior prose and references that makes the content relevant and reliable without pushing a fringe opinion outside the mainstream.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like the appropriate weight for this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposed text is preferable to the earlier material, but it still presents as fact the assertion that the Nazi's practised 'gun control' - a loaded term. The actual history is more complex, and as has repeatedly been pointed out, the relevant firearms law actually relaxed gun ownership requirements for German citizenry in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ouch, Andy, good point: can't believe I missed it. Thank you. And this should apply also to the other RfC, of course, on Talk:Gun politics. To make matters clear: Andy is completely correct, and Gun_legislation_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act bears this out. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmmmmm. There is a point I had not considered. Let me simmer on this. --(Mark Miller) Maleko Mela (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• We could put it in quotes - "Nazi gun control" - or say Nazi gun laws instead. Lightbreather (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I think I know the answer, but just to be sure. Do you oppose this material being anywhere on Wikipedia, or is there a particular place that you think it belongs? Lightbreather (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Define 'this material'. I have already made clear why I think neither the existing material nor the new proposal is valid. As to whether the argumentum ad Hitlerum belongs in this article at all, it depends not only on whether it is properly presented (as a fringe pseudohistorical argument promoted by a section of the pro-gun lobby, entirely lacking academic support), but on whether it is put in proper context - as a minority view even amongst U.S. gun rights supporters as a whole. As it stands, this article gives the distinct impression that the only views held are those on the extremes of the argument. That is just as much a violation of NPOV as presenting one side of the argument alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the historical argument about which there is little controversy should also be included here -- eliding the more mainstream argument is not exactly following WP:NPOV alas. Collect (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as implying that the "Nazi argument" is of primary importance in the discussion while it is clearly an argument made by some it is not the argument made by all. I would also note the use of "counterfactual history" is ill-used here, as the people making the argument do not postulate a "counterfactual history" as such -- the issue is whether had the Germans not removed guns from "undesirables", would there have been any sort of uprising. The Nazi argument exists, and is found in enough places to warrant it being in gun control discussion articles, but we can not toss out the baby with the bathwater - the argument dating back to the Constitutional Convention where the very existence of any standing army had opposition. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Appending: The term might be better stated as "Nazi removal of guns from the Jewish population" if "control" is the problem. Collect (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Note The "counterfactual" in the cited footnote does not make a claim of "counterfactual history" which is far too broad here -- it only says "Jews were not well-armed" which is a substantial difference in implication, and is likely a matter of opinion absent any statistics as to what "well-armed" means. Thus we should stick to what the source says directly - Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That source discusses "reimagining a past", and that's what you have to do in order to postulate that an armed Jewish population could have inhibited the Nazi onslaught. The need for imagination is a big reason why historians do not opine much about whether Nazi gun laws had a big effect or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The text is an improvement over the previous wording. The complex issue about Nazi gun control can be reworded. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support much improved version. Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose wording, Support change - Better and less confrontational wording should be used and the inline citations should back up everything (even mid sentence) especially a quote like the one used. I also have a problem with editorial from a UK newspaper being used in an article specifically about a U.S. subject. We have enough derision and dissension in our own country, there's no need to borrow opinions from others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Scalhotrod, just to be sure you understand the proposal. The briefer paragraph given first above is to replace the existing two paragraphs given after. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, strike my comment about the UK cite, but in a broader sense there are Constitutional scholars that contend that 2A's significance (and even placement/order/position in the Bill of Rights) is an indication of its purpose against tyranny that have nothing to do with the Nazis. I actually have one book that says as much and I'm trying to find it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• If I'm following you, that part of argument (security against tyranny minus the Nazi gun control argument) is in the first paragraph (that begins "Another aspect of...") of the Security against tyranny section. The proposal is not to replace that, but to replace the third paragraph, about Nazi gun control, that begins "Modern proponents..." Do you support replacing that with the brief paragraph given up-top of this RfC? (I just want to be sure I understand.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• All things considered, I'm not a big proponent of putting this predominantly on Halbrook and LaPierre, but that's their burden to bear. Get it past Andy and I'm game. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support It seems like a decided improvement over the previous text. Further it addresses the Nazi gun control argument (which is so widely cited it can't be ignored) while noting that it is not widely accepted. I would have used slightly stronger language, but this works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• OpposeM=. Sorry, but the first version seems more reflective of the actual sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin, just to be sure you understand the proposal. The briefer paragraph given first above is to replace the existing two paragraphs given after. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake – change to Support. I would expect anyone closing this RfC to check actually what the !voters are "supporting" or "opposing". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Shorter and better phrasing. --GRuban (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Sławomir Biały, he is a better mathematician than I. (sorry terrible inside joke, but factual none the less). Seriously though, the paragraph is much improved. Thenub314 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the change, because the reference to a counterfactual history merely confuses the issues. I don't like the existing statement, but the replacement is confusing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert, but to be clear, the proposal is that the first paragraph given in the RfC (that starts "Supporters of gun rights such as Stephen Halbrook...") is to replace what follows (that starts "Modern proponents....") Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose like this, pretty much per Andy the grump. Side question, do we believe the climate on this page to be sufficiently de-toxified since the end of the ArbCom case to do this through normal bold editing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion2

• The second (existing) paragraph, notes, and references are WP:UNDUE; the 15 references for this one paragraph and its paragraph of "notes" accounts for 6 percent of the whole 142Kb article's references. Better to put this material into the Nazi gun control article... which the new paragraph links to. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• It should probably be noted here that there has been a discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control which suggested that there was considerable support for the deletion of the article - from contributors who have taken very different positions regarding the merits or otherwise of the 'Nazi' material here and in the main Gun control article. As a proposed deletion has been declined, I have made it clear that I intend to start an AfD on the Nazi gun control article. [4] I intend to do this once the ArbCom business is out of the way, and the dust has settled a bit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I intend to support deletion of the Nazi gun control article for many of the same reasons that AndyTheGrump has expressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• AndyTheGrump, well, I suppose that could still happen. But that material sure shouldn't be here in this article, IMO. What I'm proposing cuts what's here by half. The amount here, in this article, is WP:UNDUE... again, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The length of the material in the main text is about the same. People will never see the Note unless they specifically want to go to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anythingyouwant, to say "The material proposed for deletion has been in this article for several months," leaves out a lot of history about when and how that material got here, which I really don't want to go over here, except to say that. Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, it leaves out a lot, for the exact same reason that you just did too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The wording conflates two overlapping positions. The first, which is a mainstream view, is that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect against "tyranny." The second is that all attempts to regulate gun ownership and use may lead to tyranny. The first position has been argued by serious American legal experts, while the second view exists only in fringe writing. TFD (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces, I agree that the first two sentences of the proposed replacement paragraph could go. It could just start with the "Supporters of gun rights..." sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• I agree -- the "bold edit" seem to totally dismiss the historic "tyranny argument" in favour of setting up the Godwin "Nazi" argument as a straw man, which is then hit with a volley of cannon. Disagreement over strengths of arguments does not mean conflation of them. Collect (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Premature closure

• Note The person starting an RfC should never close the RfC and much less make a bold edit when no uninvolved person has closed the RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Then you can just tell me that, and not revert numerous edits because one was against policy. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Try explaining each edit which amounted to over seven thousand added characters in toto in a difficult area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As is my custom, each has a detailed edit summary. Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Further The use of masses of edits on this sensitive topic is unwise and, per unclosed RfC, unwarranted. It looks far too much like "ownership" and far too little like "consensus and compromise". Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Another editor made a series of nine edits that made massive changes (minus 30,000 characters) before mine. I talked with him about those on his talk page. And I didn't mass revert them. I made a series of careful and carefully documented edits in response. Your mass revert of all of my edits was uncalled for. Please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, your "tiny series of minuscule edits" (so to speak) amounted to well over seven thousand characters. When I make a tiny edit, it is generally under twenty characters max. Please do not assert that you did not make massive and contiguous edits, and that you closed your own RfC inyour ownfavour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say that I made a "tiny series of miniscule edits"? Also, the mostly additions I made were in response to Scal's about 30,000 characters removed. Still, I didn't feel the need to revert all his work or attack him. I left a collegial message on his talk page telling him how I felt and what I was going to do. Leave me alone! If you still feel the need to lecture me, take it to my talk page and I'll hear you out there. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of premature closure, an editor should not revert edits they do not have reason to revert. If someone reverted edits "on accident" because they got caught up with controversial edits, they should revert themselves and restore the text, or plainly identify which of the material they disagreed with. Otherwise, an editor can wait for a long enough string of edits and "accidentally" revert all of them they disagree with, yet cannot properly revert, when there is only a few that should be reverted. It would be a bad faith edit disguised as a good faith revert. "There's too many edits" is not an excuse; if you don't have the time to properly edit, don't edit. Int21h (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And this may be obvious, but if an editor reverts good edits for no good reason ("too many" is not a good reason) and refuses to mend their ways, they should be taken to arbitration and sanctioned. Int21h (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall we close this up?

Earlier today, Scalhotrod made a series of nine edits, one of which boldly removed the old Nazi gun control material (amongst a number of other edits). [5] In response, I made a series of nine edits, the last of which boldly added the proposed, new material [6] (The others were unrelated to NGC.) I also closed this RfC, which Collect said is a no-no. Collect also reverted all of my edits, because, if I'm understanding him right, my closing of this RfC was such a terrible thing to do as to negate the edits I'd done before closing it. That seems overboard to me, but brings up a good point.

I went and read WP:RFC, and it looks like participants can agree to end an RfC. The vote is at 11 Support, 4 Oppose. Shall we agree to close this RfC in favor of the proposal, or ask to have it formally closed, or what? If we're not going to close it, should we restore the Nazi gun control material that Scal removed? Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are not a vote, nor do I agree with your "count" nor do I agree that you, who started the RfC, and !voted in the RfC can also then close the same RfC. And your post here is not aimed at the proper course ... to determine WP:CONSENSUS and proffer compromises for that end. So no -- I do not "'vote in favour of this proposal" and I suggest you try offering minor changes and seek compromises thereon and not appear in any way to "own" the article at all. Let's deal with one bite at a time, and not seven thousand characters of edits all at once, and seek seemly discussion per WP:CONSENSUS instead of "counting votes" which is a futile exercise, and one where your count appears not to be congruent with how others would count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: my "addition" of 7,000 characters: most of it was restoring some of the 30,000+ characters removed by Scal. Is he getting this lecture, too? (Assuming he, like I, is editing in good faith, neither of us deserve it. And again, please, if you have anything further to say to ME, take it to my talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case your "bold edits" were reverts - right? Sorry -- I strongly urge you to discuss each one separately and gain consensus for them, else you likely are more "culprit" than "victim." Collect (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

NRA Poll

I removed the verbiage that the NRA poll was 1,000 of 5,000,000 as misleading. It gives the impression that the poll is not representative of the NRA. Polling methodology requires an amazingly small sample size to obtain a poll of significance. National presidential polls, for example, typically have sample sizes of approximately 1,000 to 1,500. Since the poll was contracted out and performed by a polling organization outside the NRA it's methodology must be assumed correct unless some evidence can be provided to show that it is not. If this was a non-scientific poll where only 1,000 of the NRA members responded than the 5,000,000 would be appropriate to note. Arzel (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Interesting that the poll shows that over 90% of NRA members support some form of gun control, in this case wanting to further restrict access to weapons by mentally ill people. Are there any secondary sources that mention this poll? TFD (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I found this source here. Arzel (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You should use The Washington Post article as a source, instead of the actual poll. It establishes the significance of the poll and what is important in its findings. It also would determine whether there were any problems with the methodology, because a reliable secondary source would mention it. TFD (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the (of 5 million members) text to give context to the poll. There was no other intention other than to show that a fairly small group was sampled from a known quantity of people. Any inference made from that is purely on the part of the reader. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

sample size v total population

Statistically, the error rates for a random sample of 1,000 out of 5,000,000 is about the same as for 1,000 out of 100,000,000,000. This is a statistical issue and not a political one, and Wikipedia should not in any way imply otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would you not consider providing the number of NRA members to be useful information for our readers? Having hard data does not imply anything but the data itself. Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When used within a poll it implies that the poll is not representative of the population. It implies a non-statistical poll. You may think it is useful, but in this context it is misleading. Please do not add again unless you can illustrate why this information within the poll is needed. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, the final response you included. "Some (Other) people say regardless of President Obama’s recent comments of pursuing a balanced approach his real goal is to pass sweeping gun control regulation that will take away our 2nd Amendment rights." is part of a categorical response, like the place of residence or part of the country. You cannot report only the responses to one category because there is no context to the response. It is really annoying to see pollster's use these types of questions because they offer almost no value. These types of questions are best left to demographic responses where you can occasionally report one categorical response (like gender) without running into too many problems, but to properly include this question you have to include the whole question and then all of the responses. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose from a poll what you like, and not include other aspects of the poll just because you believe the question offer no value to you. Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested using the Washington Post report on the poll as a source, instead of the poll itelf, which is a primary source. TFD (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD I agree. Also, I think Cwobeel is misunderstanding my issue. It is not the question that is the problem, it is the nature of this question is presented and the result that they are presenting. That response is not actually a poll question. It is a poll answer. The question was which of these most represents your view. It is a misuse of polling responses to list it as a response in the manner of the other questions. The only way to properly use that question is to include all of the responses, but considering the amount of information it appeared to be not that valuable. I am going to remove that response again as a misuse of a poll response. If it is to be added again it must include the question and all of the responses. FYI, below is the question and responses.

In the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut, President Obama said that no one reform can solve this problem. He says we should pursue a balanced approach which includes some new gun laws, reforms to our mental health care system and addressing cultural issues like violence in movies and video games. With that in mind please tell me which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion?

79.3% Some (Other) people say regardless of President Obama’s recent comments of pursuing a balanced approach his real goal is to pass sweeping gun control regulation that will take awayour 2nd Amendment rights.

9.9% Other (Some) people say they believe President Obama will pursue a balanced approach that includes reforms to our mental health care system, some new gun regulations and finding ways to keep violence in our entertainment industry away from children.

2.5% Both (DO NOT READ)

4.7% Neither (DO NOT READ)

3.6% DK/Refused (DO NOT READ)Arzel (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

After reading the comments above, the wise thing to do, per The Four Deuces, is to use a secondary source instead of quoting directly from the poll results. Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: just note your third revert. It would be wise not to breach 3RR. Cwobeel (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: we are having a pretty reasonable discussion here, why are you trying to inflame the situation? Arzel (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not inflaming, just a friendly reminder. Last week I did not pay attention and without intention I breached 3RR myself, earning me a 24 hr block :( Cwobeel (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted, but I rarely file a 3rr when there is civil discussion occurring. I can't remember the last time I have, or if I ever have under this kind of situation. In other words, I haven't even been counting yours or mine. Arzel (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Please restore uncalled for reverts

Earlier today, Scalhotrod made a series of nine edits that removed over 30,000 characters from this article. Buried among those edits was one that boldly removed [7] Nazi gun control material that is the subject of an open RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs? In response, I left him a friendly message on his talk page [8] and made a series of nine edits that restored about 7,500 characters - or about one-fourth - of what he'd removed. Each edit was accompanied by a lot of thought and detailed edit summaries. My last edit added Nazi gun control material as proposed in the RfC (since Scal had removed the old material). What happened next was absolutely uncalled for. Collect reverted all of my edits, complaining about the 7,500-character change, but especially about the Nazi gun control edit. I restored my edits and asked him to remove only the Nazi part. He reverted all the edits again, and now Capitalismojo has reverted them - all of them. Again, the NGC part of these edits was only a fraction of all the edits. I would appreciate it if someone - Scal? - would restore my edits, except for the Nazi stuff. Again, to revert all that work was uncalled for.

Then, can we please wrap-up the Nazi gun control RfC? Frankly, if the consensus is to not have any mention of it at all, that's fine with me. But if we're going to have it, let's finish up the RfC. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with removal of Nazi gun control theories. But this did seem like a lot of work that was needlessly being reverted. If there are specific issues with some or all of Lightbreather's edits let's discuss them. Personally I felt Scalhotrod's edit summaries were a bit too brief at times, some sourced remarks disappeared from some sections, but I didn't have time to sort out if things were mentioned elsewhere or if these sections can or should go for POV reasons etc. I would like to thank both editors for their work, let's discuss specific issues. Thenub314 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now seek WP:CONSENSUS for such maneuvers, please. Collect (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In the context of the article and how it was written, it became clear that it was no longer on topic. It has its own article now, lets move on. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If the Nazi gun control material doesn't belong here, and was boldly removed from this article even though there was an open RfC on it, then it surely doesn't belong in the Gun control article and can be boldly removed from it, too. I will go and do that now. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Speculative nature"

Unfortunately, I seemed to have reached and impasse with Scalhotrod regarding statments about the rise of the militia movement in the United States. While I added both references that were both primary research articles as well as secondary survey articles, Scalhotrod feels these statements are speculative. Unfortunately the vast majority of social analysis is speculative by this metric. The survey article reviewed books with both pro and anti militia themes and concluded that all four books agreed as to the root cause of the rise of the movement. How is this not up to WP standards? Thenub314 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have done a bit more research and found a less speculative source "Militias in the New Millennium: A Test of Smelser's Theory of Collective Behavior" by Weeber and Gilbert, which provides polling data, and references to approximately 14 distinct articles supporting its claims. I will add this sentence back, bringing it in line with what this reference states. Thenub314 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the material in a slightly modified form, attributing the "specualtion" to Chermak, Crothers, Freilich, and Gallher. If we were to remove everything from this article that some consider speculative, we would likely end up with no article as Thenub points out: we're talking about politics here. Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the these people are WP:NOTABLE. Having a source that says "They say this..." is meaningless without establishing what's important about them saying it. WP policy is frustrating, isn't it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Chermak and Freilich are criminologists. Crothers is a political scientist. Gallaher is a political geographer. They're as notable as any other academic/scholar cited in this article. Instead of just deleting things, it would be more WP:CIVIL to tag them, or discuss them. Why do you go to deletion first? Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagging, IMO, just mucks up the article. Its seen by everyone, Readers or otherwise, and it just makes the article seem (regardless of how controversial WE make it) less credible. I'm far from being alone in this opinion. We're not editing for ourselves. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Scalhotrod. Quote from WP:NOTABLE: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." We are not testing to see if any of these people can have their own article. Articles on WP regularly reference otherwise not notable academics, because the vast majority of academics are not notable.Thenub314 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to quote someone's opinion, yes you do have to establish their expertise on the subject and one of those ways is through Notability. Otherwise we'd have idiots running around the site, citing any number of random people "who said this or that" and then quoting them like they are the perfect source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "one of the ways", what are some other ways? Being a university professor publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't cut it? Thenub314 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See also "Assault weapons ban"

The ONLY assault weapons ban mentioned in this article is the federal ban that expired in 2004. This article is about gun politics in the U.S., and it's clear from the existing content that it's not only about laws/politics on the federal level. So, on 30 April 2014, I added a "See also" link to the Assault weapons ban article, which has info about the state bans.[9] It was removed the following day with the edit summary, "Already mentioned directly in article body."[10] So I restored it, saying, "article only mentions awb 1994; u.s. has active state level bans too."[11] I figured surely that would be the end of that.

On 4 May 2014, the same editor deleted the See also again, giving no reason.[12] However, he was reverting another edit, so maybe he didn't catch that he was also reverting this? For this reason, I restored it again, saying (again): "only the specific, defunct AWB is mentioned in this article, nothing about state bans that are included in the broader Assault weapons ban article."[13] ... It has been deleted - again - by the same editor, with the edit summary, "redundant, already in body of article."[14]

No comment about why the editor keeps deleting this, but I am going to restore it, and I'd truly appreciate it if, rather than deleting it, anyone who thinks a link to it doesn't belong in the See also section of this article about gun politics in the U.S. would discuss it here first. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been resolved now. Part of the problem was a confusing choice of article title. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which the participation of editors/watchers of this article would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC: Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Public policy theory needs a better, NPOV lead, and a much better, NPOV source

This is the lead to the Public policy theory section of the article:

A second category of political theory is founded on the premise that if the government has the authority to regulate guns, to do so may or may not be sound public policy.

It is NOT NPOV and the source is - and here's a word I don't use often in the workplace - crap. We're leading this section with a source from the "Arms Rights Information" website rkba.org?! I'm open to suggestions, but this must be replaced - and soon. Lightbreather (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia has no requirements that sources, per se, be "neutral", and many sources used in many areas are not actually neutral. Your only question here then is whether the source is reliable for opinions stated and ascribed as opinion (which many minor and highly opinionated sources meet) or whether the source is WP:RS for statements of fact qua fact. That you personally dislike a source, unfortunately, is not in any Wikipedia criteria list. I do tend to think "may or may not" covers the full range of results, and is not intrinsically a POV claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably meets rs - it was first published by the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, March 1, 1994.[15] Mind you it is not the most obvious place I would look for information about gun control and public policy. My objection to its use is based on weight. How does an opinion, which Suter acknowledges is not accepted by the mainstream, deserve to referred to as a "second category of political theory", or even deserve inclusion? TFD (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I added an NPOV lead using a much higher quality source today. [16] Lightbreather (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are treading heavily into POV territory here -- I urge you strongly to consider the ramifications of the arbcomcase and WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, this is at least my third request re: comments such as the one above. Please, if you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page. If you have a problem with a specific edit, please provide a DIFF and your specific concern about it so that I may address that. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're admitting to POV editing like you alluded to here and here? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)