Talk:Gun show loophole

Concerning the GA review

The GA nominator has been banned by arbcom, are there any other active editors willing to take on the review? Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Issues have been raised about the article's content and title. Can the nomination simply be delisted, if no one volunteers to take on the review, and no one objects within the next few days? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: My plan is if no one volunteers to help the article to GA, to quick fail the article in a week or so, else I'll give it a review. Though judging from the section below, it seems that there are plenty of active editors on this article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Zwerg Nase is on the case. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Pinging in case you didn't notice this section, before you spend much time on this. No one has volunteered to take on the review (the nominator is blocked), and the article might be eligible for quick failing per WP:GA?. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Thanks for the ping, I'll look into it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Why so eager to fail the article? Doesn't seem very AGF to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be happy to help if someone would refer me to how to do the review. Darknipples (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note the timing of Winner42's new section regarding the GA review was only 24 hours prior to @QuilaBird:'s & @Godsy:'s NPOV tag on the article. I'm trying to AGF, but I have to say, it seems a bit too coincidental. Darknipples (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I don't understand, what would anyone have to gain by placing the NPOV after I started considering a GA review? Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything, and it is not meant as a personal attack, but I think it's important to take note of actions that continually hinder this article's progress. Obviously, this is a politically contentious article, and there have been editors in the past (and likely in the present) that do not agree with it's existence on WP. I can also tell you that certain editors have even been banned for issues related to the editing of this article. (edit) We've waited for months to get a GA review, now it seems to be at risk of quick-failing because of this tag regarding an issue that has already been resolved more than once, if I remember correctly. Darknipples (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about quick failing, User:Zwerg Nase and myself are in the GA cup which disallows quick failing or quick passing of articles. Surely both pro and anti gun editors here would appreciate an impartial review of the article's neutrality as required by the 4th GA criteria, but perhaps I am just naive. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Title not consistent with Wikipedia, NPOV

I researched back and saw that this popped up, but didn't receive much discussion. The title refers to a loophole, which according to Wikipedia itself is "used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy of the government of the US. Attempts have been made to enact universal background checks ("close the loophole"), but they have been rejected, continuing the intended policy of no private-sale background checks.

Simply: It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended. Some people objecting to the state of the law does not make it a loophole. Wikipedia is left with contradictory content.

The term "loophole" is also generally considered pejorative, implying that the action is bad, and that something in the law needs to be fixed to close the loophole. This is the point of view of the gun control side of the debate in the US, while the gun rights side does no believe anything needs to be changed. Thus, the title violates NPOV by supporting one point of view over the other.

I suggest the title change as previously discussed. It should be mentioned that the gun control side of the debate calls the intended lack of private sale background checks the "gun show loophole," but a non-descriptive, NPOV-violating term shouldn't be the title. QuilaBird (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though the guideline we seem to be following is WP:NPOVNAME. I don't think point #1 applies (as this has been the common name for a while), but #2 might. If you can come up with a superior encyclopedic name that isn't POV, then by all means feel free to propose it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How about "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States"? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME Lets just use the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

The view has been expressed above that the title may have problems. If a more neutral title can be shown to have common use, it should be used instead.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu... We've debated all of this before (see the TP archives), and even though I didn't like the answer I got then, there did seem to be a consensus not to consolidate / rename the pages involved. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

...This "issue" has been taken up so many times I've lost count. You think there isn't a WP article on the N-word for example? This is like beating a dead horse, and as FE said, check the archives if you don't believe me. There are plenty of WP articles with titles that offend and or confuse SOME people, but that alone isn't grounds for changing it. Darknipples (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say being objectively incorrect and contrary to the term's definition page is plenty of grounds even if nobody is offended. As above, NPOV was only my secondary concern. QuilaBird (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@QuilaBird: Feel free to take it to dispute resolution, because the arguments you're using here have all been tried before (see archives), and have all failed to stand up to WP scrutiny with regard to this article. Right now, out of respect, I won't waste our time trying to argue that "the sky is or isn't blue" etc... Please post a link here if you decide to take such action. Darknipples (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

re: "It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended." and "No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy". -- absence of policy is not a policy. The intent of the policy was to prevent firearms from reaching bad hands, and not making life of firearms businesses harder. Therefore it is called "loophole": something that is not covered by a policy of background checking. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the Brady Bill, Congress has entertained proposals to establish background checks for private sales, and it has rejected all such proposals. The lack of such background checks is thus the conscious policy and intent of the government, and as such it cannot by Wikipedia's own definition be a loophole. If we leave this, we leave an inconsistency between Wikipedia pages, unless you want to change the loophole entry to say "any policy I don't like." QuilaBird (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@QuilaBird:"The lack of such background checks is thus the conscious policy and intent of the government" -- Your statement here is purely WP:OR...I suggest you find some citations for this. Darknipples (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Manchin Toomey did not pass the Senate. This is an explicit refusal by the government to enact universal background checks. "Closing the loophole" has been considered and rejected. QuilaBird (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@QuilaBird: As @Altenmann: said, absence of policy is not a policy. The failure of a proposed bill for a form of universal background checks is not in any way explicit evidence of "policy". Not only that, you are ignoring the evidence to the contrary, A.K.A the bill itself. You still haven't presented any new citations, and you are still using Original Research. I suggest we all decide which form of dispute resolution/mediation to use in this matter right away, as it's already been over a week and the GA review has been started. Tags such as the NPOV are not meant as a permanent solution for editors that take issue. This article needs to move past this....AGAIN. (Pinging other editors as a reminder.) @Capitalismojo: @Godsy: @Faceless Enemy: @Mudwater: Darknipples (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "loophole" as defined in Wikipedia centers on the fact that the result is unintended by those who create the system. If the status quo was not the intent of the government, meaning this is a loophole, then the bill would have been passed. But it was rejected, defining the status quo as the intent of the government, thus the status quo cannot be a loophole by Wikipedia's own definition. It's as simple as that. QuilaBird (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the question of the name of this article keeps coming up. That's because the article title is inherently biased and violates the Neutral Point Of View policy. The phrase "gun show loophole" is used exclusively by those advocating a pro-gun-control agenda. Gun rights advocates don't use the term at all, and in fact sometimes argue against the use of the term, as in this Washington Times article from 2013: "The Gun Show Loophole is a Myth". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gun rights advocates don't make the rules here, and neither do gun control advocates. This topic may as well go into dispute resolution instead of wasting everyone's time, AGAIN... Darknipples (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: as you've previously pointed out to me on this talk page, private sales were explicitly addressed and exempted from the normal FFL licensing and recordkeeping requirements in FOPA '86 ("...but such term [firearms dealer] shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, of purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.") Background checks for gun sales didn't exist in 1986, of course, but none of the various background check laws passed since then have changed that provision of the law. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FE, without referring me to the specific text in the archives, I'm afraid I can't confirm or deny what I said or meant. I can tell you that the citations speak for themselves, and that we should all be focusing on sorting and prioritizing them, instead of trying to interpret them to mean anything outside of the context they are already presented in. More to the point, what does this have to do with the NPOV tag that has again been placed after the multitude of discussions that have previously resolved this topic? Perhaps it would be more appropriate on my talk page? Darknipples (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: @Capitalismojo: @Godsy: @QuilaBird: @Faceless Enemy: @Mudwater: Which type of mediation would you prefer in order to resolve this topic [1]? I can start it and post the link here, but we need to get this resolved, once and for all. Darknipples (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I think if you add more people to an existing post without changing the signature timestamp, like this, the new people won't receive a notification. As it says at Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events, "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To add to what Mudwater said: You can simply use one template as opposed to multiple, {{re|user1|user2|user3|user4}} in this manner, with a limit of 7 users. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My bad, and thanks for the heads up. So, any thoughts on the type of mediation yet? Darknipples (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been a week and still no suggestions from anyone, including those responsible for the tag, on resolving this issue. Here's something for everyone involved to examine in the meantime [2]. Darknipples (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gun show loophole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples, Mudwater: It is hard for me to review this while it undergoes heavy changes. Any end in sight? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: As I've explained on the talk page -- see my posts there, and in the talk page archives, for a full explanation -- having an article called "Gun show loophole" violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. A better title would be "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". There's been a lot of discussion about this issue, but as far as I can tell there's not going to be a consensus about it. At the current time I'm not planning to say much more about this. As far as the article itself, I have made some edits to it, but not that many. So for my part, I'd say go ahead with the GA review. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm pretty much done with making updates. As far as the NPOV tag, I feel it will be resolved as soon as we get some more impartial opinions. Mudwater's opinions on the title, and subject, are nothing new. I find it a bit strange that someone decided to tag the article as soon as the GA review started, but, it will work itself out soon enough.Darknipples (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: The POV tag issue seems resolved. If not, I'm not sure where it could possibly go. I will continue sorting things until I know for sure, so I'm going to work probably until tonight. I've never gone through a GA review, and I'd appreciate any guidance that disambiguates the process and what you need from us. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC) OK, I can't see anything else I'd like to tweak, barring some unforeseen important news regarding GSL I'm done for a while. What now? Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be able to go through it again hopefully today or tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads up @Zwerg Nase:, this has gone to Administration [3] -- Darknipples (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Will this affect the review in any way? Any details you can provide are appreciated, even if some of us are more concerned with the title than the actual article status. Darknipples (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: As long as there is a consensus reached and no edit-warring, it will not affect the review. I am very sorry that I wasn't able to give you a review yet, the past week has been more stressful than I thought and I never found the time to work in Wikipedia longer than a couple of minutes. I hope to be able to do it this weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Zwerg, take your time, I just know that constant changes can fail the article, but not specifically what kind of changes counts against receiving GA status. Darknipples (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Finally on it. These are the things I believe should be adressed:

• Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME.
• However, I think the article itself should be more careful with the term in the prose. The worst example is in the Overview section, where it reads The loophole generally refers. You cannot write that. Better say The term refers to a perceived....
• Having said that, I feel that the Overview section should be removed alltogether. The lead is the place to give an overview over the topic. If information is vital enough to go into an overview, put it in the lead. If not, leave it in the rest of the prose. Several pieces of information from Overview should be moved into Background.
• Many abbreviations are used, some of them without introducing what they stand for. One example of this is FFL, where only later I find out what it is.
• Background: You should give the full name of the "Brady Law" and give the shorter version in paratheses.
• Early efforts: The title of the study should be in italics.
• Early efforts: Before, names of bills and law where not in quotation marks, but Firearms Owners' Protection Act is. Any particular reason?
• Early efforts: There is no source for the US Attorney proposals.
• Notable events: I find that did not survive the House is a little colloquial.
• Response: Maybe Responses would be a better title? The singular implies that there is one reaction to one action, which is not the case.
• Response: but eventually killed by legislators - far too colloquial!
• Response: Give a short explanation of what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes.
• Recent developments: Any news on the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015"? Also, since the act is already referred to in the next section, where it belongs, you should move this information there.
• Ref #28 ("About the VPC") is dead.

Optional: Any chance to get more images into the article? Maybe a photo of one of the prominent persons mentioned?

I am putting this on hold for the moment. The nominators have seven days to adress the issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Review Work

• Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME.
• However, I think the article itself should be more careful with the term in the prose. The worst example is in the Overview section, where it reads The loophole generally refers. You cannot write that. Better say The term refers to a perceived....  Done
• Having said that, I feel that the Overview section should be removed alltogether.  Done The lead is the place to give an overview over the topic. If information is vital enough to go into an overview, put it in the lead. If not, leave it in the rest of the prose. Several pieces of information from Overview should be moved into Background.
• Many abbreviations are used, some of them without introducing what they stand for. One example of this is FFL, where only later I find out what it is. Done
• Background: You should give the full name of the "Brady Law" and give the shorter version in parathenses.  Done
• Early efforts: The title of the study should be in italics. Done
• Early efforts: Before, names of bills and law where not in quotation marks, but Firearms Owners' Protection Act is. Any particular reason? (not as far as I'm aware, removed)  Done
• Early efforts: There is no source for the US Attorney proposals. Done
• Notable events: I find that did not survive the House is a little colloquial. Done
• Response: Maybe Responses would be a better title? The singular implies that there is one reaction to one action, which is not the case. Done
• Response: but eventually killed by legislators - far too colloquial! Done
• Response: Give a short explanation of what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes.  Done
• Recent developments: Any news on the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015"? Also, since the act is already referred to in the next section, where it belongs, you should move this information there. Done
• Ref #28 ("About the VPC") is dead. Done

Optional: Any chance to get more images into the article? Maybe a photo of one of the prominent persons mentioned?  DoneDarknipples (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: There is only one point outstanding. Will you adress this as well? I also believe that it is better with less President portraits. I would rather recommend using a photo of Dave Kopel. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)  Done

@Zwerg Nase, Mudwater, Capitalismojo, Faceless Enemy, QuilaBird, Dennis Brown, Godsy, Callanecc, Winner 42, NE ENT, Cullen328, and DESiegel: (Anyone that can help) The recent ANI discussion over the Gun show loophole article title has been "archived with no resolution". Shall we continue with the GA review, or no? [4] Does there need to be a POV tag placed over title concerns per Mudwater's request's and "Opposing editor's" concern's? Also, the outstanding issue of whether "Background checks on firearms sales in the United States" is the proper title, or not? -- Darknipples (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Since this is the first time I am faced with a situation like that, I will ask the GA project about how this situation should be handled. I have made my opinion clear, but I will not act against consensus. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, Godsy has tagged the last paragraph for tone. We can omit it all together or make changes to it. Your call. Darknipples (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Hmm, I wouldn't say that the tone is a big issue. The prose could be better, sure, maybe using words that sounds a bit less generalizing. But all in all, in my opinion, the tone is OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg, I'm all for improving the article in nearly any way, especially in terms of prose. Let us know what you think will improve the article, no holds barred, we've waited months for this type of feedback, at least I know some of us have. Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no reply to my question on how to go ahead with the unresolved matter. I will therefore not hold it against you, if anyone has a problem with it, they can feel free to reasses the article at any time. A problem I have left now are two ref-errors that occur, the errors I get are:

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "DOJ1999January" defined multiple times with different content

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "History-C" defined multiple times with different content

Can you take care of that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Mudwater. Darknipples (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Zwerg Nase: I don't think this article currently meets good article criteria number five (stability) or is up to par with good article criteria number one letter b (complies with certain Manual of Style guidelines); I also believe concerns with respect to good article criteria number 4 (neutrality) have been suppressed. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the stability will improve; at the least perhaps a hold is due for the time being. I did some work regarding the WP:MoS issues, though the article could still use work, especially the lead. I also pointed out some other things that need to be fixed.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We've addressed the issues Zwerg brought up, and they've been very clear regarding the article's neutrality. Godsy has tagged the article yet again [5]. Who is conducting the GA review, here, Godsy or Zwerg? Darknipples (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Lead extra info}} tag, because I've fixed the issues related to it. Several still remain: 5, 3 in the last paragraph of the lead, and 2 in the legislation section. The latter of the tags should be relatively easy to fix.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples, no need to get angry, everyone can feel free to chip in. As for the tags left:

• The ones in the lead: The neutrality one is debatable, since one should be able to see that the article states the opinion of a third party. Nevertheless, I agree that a better tone for those sentences could be found. For instance: Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation and have urged the government to extend background check requirements to private sellers. On the other hand, gun rights advocates take a contrary standpoint, claiming that no loophole exists. To them, required background checks for the sales of firearms from one private citizen to another endanger Second Amendment rights and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of whether such sales are made at gun show. I'm not sure if this is entirely better, what do you think, Godsy?
• As for the too many citations bit, I have to agree with Godsy, those could be cut down, especially the first instance in which only two sources are used.

Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the neutrality tag simply because that information used to be attributed to guns rights advocates, but after a copyedit that attempted to address the sentence length issue [6], it's stated like a fact. The first part of the sentence is reasonable to an extent, that it would "exceed the government’s authority" is debatable; who holds this opinion needs to be clarified. I think your suggested alternative is good, though I'd maybe tweak it slightly: Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated the laws function as intended, and no loophole exists. They have contended that required background checks for private sales of firearms endanger Second Amendment rights, and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of the venue. A second sentence after the first might be due as well, summarizing reasons gun control advocates argue for expanded background checks, as this has been done for the latter group.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[7] The last paragraph in the lead section was removed by a random IP editor. As I've stated before, I'm actually fine with this, as it only seemed to reflect POVs on the subject, and was added purely by demand of other editors. Darknipples (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Then it's just the tags in the last section left standing in the way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Zwerg Nase, it seems Godsy has now decided to do a major overhaul of the entire article. I feel it is fairly unnecessary and possibly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Since they are entitled to improve the article, I will refer to your guidance and community consensus before reverting. I'm not trying to be the "bad-guy", but the GA review takes precedence. Darknipples (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Right now, the GA review would need to fail because the stability of the article is not guaranteed. This is a shame really. @Godsy: While many of the edits you made were constructive, it would have been preferable to discuss the matters here first, ensuring that no edit-warring starts over the article. You're making my life very hard here. I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead. I will give both of you three more days to sort these things out. If the article is stable then and meets the criteria already mentioned here in length, I will pass, otherwise, I'll be forced to fail. Please communicate with each other, that's what talk pages are for! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zwerg Nase, I've reached out to Godsy on their talk page to try and resolve this issue. I cannot speak for them, but my only concern is passing the GA review. As for today, I am refraining from any more article edits. It seems a pity that this review hinges on whether or not Godsy responds. Please clarify if we will need to revert back to any specific previous edit in order to pass, along with any other requests you may have. I realize we are under a deadline. Thanks for all your help. Darknipples (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the revert I'm suggesting [8] would put us back in shape to pass with only a minor adjustment needed, as Zwerg Nase and I previously discussed [9]. Darknipples (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is in a much better state overall, and Zwerg Nase has pointed out that "many of the edits [I] made were constructive". I'm concerned with improving the article for our readership, not obtaining a particular status for the article. "My only concern is passing the GA review": Reverting to a previous version of the article purely to get a better quality rating would be the pinnacle of bureaucracy and detrimental to the encyclopedia. A version on the order of this would be much better regardless of whether it met a certain quality rating. I refrained from making changes of that nature because I knew it would be met with considerable resistance, and reverted (even the little bit of content I did remove was challenged). Articles about controversial subjects, ought to be simply described (stealing some words there from a Wikipedian I respect); instead they're often filled with unneeded content which leads to more unneeded content being added for balance and so on and so forth.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is concerned, here are a few quotes from it..."Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." & "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures..." Darknipples (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, despite your attempts, it's quite clear through your words and actions that you simply do not care about seeking consensus, let alone the GA review. I do not take issue with most of your changes (other than ones I've already mentioned), so much as the disregard you have shown Zwerg Nase, for their time and effort thus far. Contrary to your beliefs, I know the GA process is an important part of Wikipedia and it's content. However, you are treating this review more so as if it were for WP:FARC, rather than a simple WP:GA. Darknipples (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

It should be noted that I take specific issue with regard to these edits [10], and [11]. Replacing reports by the ATF with, albeit neutrally worded POVs, seems counter-intuitive in my view. Darknipples (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So far, Godsy has not deleted my revert on this issue. Hopefully, moving forward, they will discuss it first, before reverting. Darknipples (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits made to the lead. I condensed it back down to 3 paragraphs and removed some minor details already mentioned in the body. [12] -- Darknipples (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a better wording for the ATF sentence within the lead (not going into too much detail covered later), and it fixes the issue about reasons backing up the positions of the first group being absent which I've pointed out. Nice work. I think dropping the last sentence of the third paragraph would make it flow a bit better, and not again go into too much detail, but I'm alright with it as is.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributing events Section

Godsy, did you quote this from the article [13]? If so, please share the exact quote, and or, location within the cite. If not, it may considered WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE. Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to make a sentence that lacked context and sense, into a proper one that actually stated something, by expanding it from the source. Weeks after the Columbine shooting, Frank Lautenberg introduced a proposal to close the gun show loophole in federal law. It was passed in the Senate, but did not pass in the House. Gun control advocates wanted to extend the background check requirement to nonlicensed firearms sellers at gun shows, too. Frank Lautenberg's proposal would have done this according to the wording, so what does that sentence add without my addition (simply stating they supported it, if that's even necessary, it could be done in a better manner)? What part of the source is that sentence corresponding to before my expansion?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "proper" appears to be WP:SYNTH, in this case. Here's the actual paragraph you referred to [14] in your edit summary "(expand sentence from source: last sentence in first paragraph)"...

• "The House last night approved a plan to weaken some of the existing rules for background checks at gun shows, in a vote that revealed the enduring power of pro-gun forces in Congress."

Your added "reference" from this site...

• "which passed because of bipartisanship in one half of congress, but failed as well in the other."

You asked..."so what does that sentence add without my addition"....The sentence is reliably sourced, and WP:DUE regarding FACTS in context to the subject of the section. Your decision to overhaul the entire article seems to have a lot to do with your excluding and including materials without consensus. Darknipples (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"last sentence in first paragraph" of the section I was editing in the article.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That still does not explain your addition of what seems like WP:UNDUE WP:Synth. Darknipples (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'll restore it to the previous wording. [15] —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"excluding and including materials without consensus": Naturally when something is reorganized, bits and pieces my be altered, added, or removed. Most of what I "excluded" was put back in. You haven't had consensus when adding things to the article in the past (e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]), and you (quite hypocritically) removed something today in the same manner I did. You seem to want to hold me to a higher standard.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Darknipples (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, instead of turning this [22] into an edit war, let's discuss it's WP:Weight. As far as prose, i.e. WP:MOS, I don't see where it applies to the extent of exclusion. Darknipples (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, that sentence doesn't fit in the sequence of that section, and there isn't another good place in the article for it to reside that I can find. The first three paragraphs are about an individual event, the last one references three in regard to protesting (whether or not the latter is appropriate).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You're reasoning is fairly vague and simply doesn't give an explanation other than what seems to be your own personal preference. Again, due almost entirely to the way you've reformatted the article...Without consensus.

• [23] "Between Columbine and Virginia Tech, the gun show loophole issue had largely faded from the legislative agenda." -- Darknipples (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm conceding this issue for reasons previously stated here [24]. Darknipples (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Provenence Section

Godsy, please address the "contradiction tag" that you have placed as a result of your overhaul. Please explain what you think needs to happen here. The issue of "too many citations" seems easily addressed, as most of them seem to be some duplication. Darknipples (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The contradiction existed before the rearrangement of the information in the article, it simply wasn't in the same section.

As of September 2015, 18 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., require background checks at gun shows. ≠ According to a 2013 report, seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina. The remaining 33 states do not place additional restrictions on the private sales of firearms.

I already "addressed" the contradiction tag on the articles talk page [25], though I've expanded on the issue above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, despite all of this, the overlying issue here is whether or not Zwerg Nase is willing to accept your "overhaul". If they ask us to simply revert your changes to the format, you should respect their decision, since they've already put in the necessary work for the review. Zwerg has already stated issues regarding your "overhaul" [26] - "I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead."

On a more relative note, if a revert is not suggested by Zwerg, I suggest removing the old references (According to a 2013 report... The remaining 33 states...) and simply using the information under "Summary of State Law" from the (most current) cite [27], which reads...

• Eighteen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales. Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms, including purchases from unlicensed sellers; Maryland and Pennsylvania laws do the same, but are limited to handguns. Four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey) require any firearm purchaser, including a purchaser from an unlicensed seller, to obtain a permit issued after a background check, and four more states (Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina) do the same only for handguns. Illinois also requires a background check whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show. Nevada law allows but does not require unlicensed sellers to request a background check on a firearm purchaser. Most of these jurisdictions also require unlicensed sellers to keep records of firearm sales or report such sales to law enforcement.

We can use state abbreviations to help shorten it up, or whatever way you'd like to "wikify" it, as not to plagiarize...I will begin editing again tomorrow. Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead.": I attempted to address this by changing the "Background" section to the "History" section. The "Provenance" section explains the topic and legislation, while the history section explains what led up to it. Perhaps better heading titles are due, but I think the information is broke up in a reasonable manner, better than how it was before.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You've failed to speak to my suggested resolution, unsurprisingly, but I will go ahead and update the section with it and remove the tag, on the off chance you'll allow it. Darknipples (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation in its current form, simply changing the state names to abbreviations (disallowed per MOS:POSTABBR), doesn't do it. I don't spend all my time on this article, and unlike yourself, at least 70% of my total edits are not on or in regard to this specific Wikipedia article. I apologize if my response wasn't good enough or in a time frame, that suited you. I think I've responded amply well, all things considered.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your response included a reference to policy, making it much easier to see your point. I will address this issue and remove the tags when I am done. If you still find it unacceptable, please make the changes you feel are required so that we can finish by the deadline. Darknipples (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable opinions

This reference seems WP:UNDUE in terms of being "notable".

• "In 2012, the head of a Minnesota gun owners group said a state legislator's effort to close the gun show loophole that doing so would only "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost" on the state's "legitimate gun owners."

I've removed it, pending any objections Darknipples (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove some other information that suffers from the same problem:

• On September 17, 2013, the day after the Washington Navy Yard Shooting, gun control activists and relatives of victims of mass shootings that occurred at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the Oak Creek, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, came to Washington to protest for stricter gun control. The activists said they hoped that the Navy Yard attack's proximity to Capitol Hill would motivate lawmakers to close the gun show loophole. Specifically about Colorado gun activists looking at the source.

• Gun control advocates wanted to extend the background check requirement to non-licensed firearms sellers at gun shows, too. A generalization, which have mostly been attributed within the article, along with other concerns I've expressed about it on this talk page.

If any one is restored, all three should be.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How does this improve the article? If you feel my deletion of the previous reference is unwarranted, why not just restore it with a short explanation in the edit summary, and or here, as to why you feel it merits inclusion (SEE "pending any objections")? Why (for lack of a better term) "ransom" what are arguably mutually exclusive and reliably sourced references? Wikipedia is not a WP:GAME, but in the interest of consensus, I will not object to these edits moving forward, as they are only of minor importance, and so that the GA review may continue. Darknipples (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional overhaul suggestion

In order to speed things up and hopefully save some of Zwerg's time, I'd like to address [28] Godsy's currently suggested version [29]. They have stated, it..."would be much better regardless of whether it met a certain quality rating." And that..."Articles about controversial subjects, ought to be simply described (stealing some words there from a Wikipedian I respect); instead they're often filled with unneeded content which leads to more unneeded content being added for balance and so on and so forth." While I might agree this is a profound insight, I am compelled by WP:POLICY, and the importance of discussion and consensus, to state my objection to these edits on the basis of previously mentioned policies, here. I will link this discussion to the article TP, for any other involved editors. Darknipples (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in response to the statement regarding "Articles about controversial subjects", I would point out that Wikipedia is not censored, and that "it is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy" as per WP:CONTROVERSY...This may seem overly bureaucratic to some, but it's been the only constant guide most editors, like myself, have been able to rely on in order to navigate Wikipedia in many ways. Darknipples (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize my views as being dis-aligned with policy.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear...

...what have I gotten into here? To make it short: I went over the most current version and found several things I feel need fixing:

• Provenance: I do see a certain sense in this section now, even though it might have been included otherwise, but certainly not a reason to fail. What definitely would be a reason to fail though is the fact that almost the entire last section is a direct copy violation from this source. You will need to put this section into your own words asap!
• Government studies and positions: The first paragraph reads weird, especially with the colon in the middle.
• Same section: You use the term "FFL" here for persons regularly. That is very confusing considering the abbreviation actually describes the licence. You should change those instances to "FFL holders" or something similar.

In my opinion, the article could pass pending these changes, but only if all edit conflicts are resolved! If I don't see this article being stable over the next 24 hours, I will fail this review. You would then be welcome to resolve your issues and nominate it again when the article has reached a safisfactory level of stability. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisions

• Provenance: I do see a certain sense in this section now, even though it might have been included otherwise, but certainly not a reason to fail. What definitely would be a reason to fail though is the fact that almost the entire last section is a direct copy violation from this source.  Done Darknipples (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Government studies and positions: The first paragraph reads weird, especially with the colon in the middle.  Done Darknipples (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Same section: You use the term "FFL" here for persons regularly. That is very confusing considering the abbreviation actually describes the licence. You should change those instances to "FFL holders" or something similar.  Done Darknipples (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I am going to pass this now, since it meets GA criteria in my opinion, seeing that edits the past few days have been constructive. I will however keep an eye on this. Thank you for all your work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

H.R.2380 Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015

Any reason why we shouldn't add this to the list in the legislation section? [30] [31] [32] (more...) [33] Darknipples (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Recentism tag

@Godsy:, please discuss your reasons for adding this tag instead of discussing it on the talk page first. Seeing as though this term is almost twenty years old and still sees quite a bit of publication, I feel this is unwarranted in this case according to the ten-year test [34]. It's notability [35] has continually been proven by reports and publications over decades leading up to current events, including legislation, of which, you are quite obviously aware [36]. Please share your solution as to how we should balance the article chronologically, and why you feel this tag is necessary. Perhaps we should use this...

Darknipples (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Scott McClellan quote

@Godsy: I respectfully ask you to reconsider your deletion of material from my previous edit [37]. Do note that this author is not the only reliable source regarding this particular view by Bush (4th paragraph from the bottom) [38] (quote) But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole. "Federal legislation created it," McClellan said. "Federal legislation should close it." If you like you can take it to RSN, but at least respond here. Furthermore, the "manner" in which it is attributed (to Scott McClellan) is not WP:OR, so what is the issue here exactly? Darknipples (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The passage from the source:

Bush justifies those positions as narrow disagreements over jurisdiction. Background checks are a good idea, he says, but because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it. That's why he didn't back Danburg's bill, says his spokesman Scott McClellan.

Baum is summarizing his characterization of what Bush said in the first part, then he summarizes what Scott McClellan says. It's Dan Baum's characterization of what Scott McClellan said. To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question [39] (i.e.: but according to his spokesman, Scott McClellan, "he felt because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it") isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous. The next paragraph in the source shows a direct quote, which is preferable, though it deviates from the topic at hand in this article unfortunately. Same sort of issue with the second source.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This diff is also relevant, as it is when the quotation marks were added. Adding them to my comment above as well, as they are a large part of the issue.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: In that case, instead removing the text, you should have just removed the quotes, or at least tried to compromise in some way. Darknipples (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I wholly disagree, but I'm trying to pick my battles and avoid edit wars. Let's see what RSN says. Darknipples (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Link to RSN [40] Darknipples (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Here's a suggested compromise from RSN..."In a 2000 Rolling Stone / Washington Post Article, Bush's spokesman, Scott McClelan, said Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation." Is that acceptable enough for you? Darknipples (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)