Talk:Gun control/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Lets untangle the questions

So many different questions and proposal are being bundled together or linked by various persons that we are creating gridlock / a Gordian knot. I think that these include:

  1. If (hypothetically) the two articles (Gun control and Gun politics) were to become one article, what would be it's name? An answer here does NOT imply an answer on whether or not they should become one article.
  2. One article or two? Should the articles Gun control and Gun politics become a single article?
  3. The possibility of creating special standards or processes (different than Wikipedia policies and guidelines) for inclusion or transfer of material into a new-title article or one which survives a merge.
  4. Eliminating certain coverage in (the) top level articles. Two emblematic examples are: A. Mere coverage of gun control in Nazi Germany B. Types of coverage or commentary regarding gun control in Nazi Germany
  5. If an article is deleted or eliminated, whether or not to salt it's title

(did I miss any big ones?)

I think that #1 & #2 are inevitably linked (or need to be in that sequence), as the name of any single article that results from the two is clearly a a strong determiner of support or lack of support for any combination into a single article. I think that #5 was just accidentally blended in. One or two other folks have explicitly established elimination of certain content (e.g. #4, or #4 via. #3) as a condition for any support of a merge. That is of course their prerogative but they should realize that such tends to logjam any conversation on #1/#2. But either way distinct questions should be handled separately.

May I suggest that in order to make some progress (even if slow) that we discuss #1 (as posed, i.e. NO answer on #2 is implied) separately? May I suggest starting with a general discussion and voicing your feelings on every choice' to see if something emerges? (Weighing in on every choice is very important to avoid preferred ones knocking each out by vote-splitting)

North8000 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Question #1

If (hypothetically) the two articles (Gun control and Gun politics) were to become one article, what would be it's name? An answer here does NOT imply an answer on whether or not they should become one article.

Possibilities (alphabetically)

  • Firearms regulation
  • Gun control
  • Gun politics
  • (other)

Opinions on quesiton #1

North's opinions:"Gun control" is most preferred, "Firearms regulation" is OK, and "Gun politics" is opposed. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't think that an additional proposal now isn't going to complicate things further?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The more you work with North8000, the more you see that he likes to spin his extreme right-wing behavior as high-minded and neutral. He often restarts the discussion with a new proposal when he senses that things aren't going his way or that he is losing control. As people become more familiar with North's modus operandi, they tend to ignore his flair for the dramatic. — goethean 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yup. Another attempt to avoid addressing the actual violation of WP:NPOV policy by dragging us all into further pointless debate. This is a non-starter anyway, we couldn't agree to "[create] special standards or processes (different than Wikipedia policies and guidelines) for inclusion or transfer of material into a new-title article" even if we wanted to. You can't overrule policy by consensus... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
@Amadscientist, I think that separating the questions is the ONLY way to move forward. I'm guessing that the results of #1 and #2 together will end up supporting the core of your proposal (combining the two articles, and the name that you proposed) But your proposal has other things bundled in, and when Andy started saying that he would not support yours unless something went his way on a different topic (#4), I then realized that this in the current form and situation it isn't going to go anywhere and if it did it did it would not be clear (and would descend into a debate on) what was decided. As a further example, Andy just clearly rejected a part of your proposal (#3) and (in a rare moment) I actually agree with him on that. So, quite simply I see this as simply separating the questions so that we can actually get at least a little bit done. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

I've full-protected the article for two weeks, to be going on with, because of the edit-warring. I'll be happy to restore the usual semiprotection as soon as current issues have been resolved. By resolved I don't mean I expect miracles; merely that people show some willingness to stop reverting. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

Good call.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Good call but bad timing. 6 minutes after the controversial new version was warred back in. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As opposed to the controversial old version? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
There are exactly two editors defending the crazy over-representation of Stephen Halbrook's theory. The fact that two editors, both well known for their antagonistic relationship with NPOV policy, object to an edit hardly makes it controversial. — goethean 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Heck, if that was all we were discussing, this mess would have been resolved already. BTW, I hope I'm not considered one of the two, I think I've demonstrated that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't all of it, but it is a clear example of what the problem is - the attempts of contributors to spin Wikipedia content to suit the aims of the more paranoid sections of the US gun lobby. Frankly, it never ceases to amaze me just how easy it is to convince sections of the US right wing populace that the sky is about to fall in (probably complete with black helicopters) if the 'liberals' are ever allowed to do anything beyond knitting mittens for kittens and making carrot soup for homeless caribou... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That the section currently (or just recently) only discussed halbrook's theory is non sequitor. The argument is made by congressmen, judges, and numerous reliable sources. However, any attempt to flesh out the section to balance it further was met with immediate reversion, so it sits where it was. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'm of the opinion that neither congressmen nor judges are to be relied on for anything but whatever opinion it suits them to claim to hold at the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
OMG!!!!! Andy and I completely agree on this point! Let the mending of fences and peace making begin... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Me too. For me that's twice I've agreed with Andy in one day. OMG.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but those opinions are eminently notable, and have a huge effect on what happens with the law. Its absolutely ok to disagree with the conclusions and opinions these guys have. But saying that their highly notable opinion can't be stated is where we really part ways.
Some background into the judge/legislator I mention - The judge in question gave a dissent in Silveria, where the majority opinion was resoundingly overturned by Heller, and had he had one more vote, prior to heller, Silveria would have been controlling for the entire circuit. During the GCA68 debate, the Nazi thing came up extensively regarding registration requirements, and those portions of the bill were dropped. (In addition to the Nazi-jew thing, one other argument was made that France had a completely benign registration program, with no intent to confiscate. Then The nazis came in and used those records to confiscate during the occupation - One of the arguments made by proponents of the Nazi-meme is that "Those advocating for registration today could be completely honest that they are merely trying to prevent crime, and have no confiscatory intent.. but once the records exist, they can be used later by someone who does". As you rightly state, legislators and judges change their mind quite freely when it suits them. eg the registrations such as in CA which have been irrefutably retroactively used for confiscation when the law changes)
Liberals would have a lot more leg to stand on regarding "paranoia" if every time they said "we don't want to take your guns" they didn't have someone like Feinstein propose taking people's guns. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
So your proposal to deal with the overemphasis in the article on US gun control issues is to add even more of it? Interesting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Certainly enough to correctly state what the POV is. However, if there is US centric systematic bias in the wiki, or this article (which I don't disagree with) the answer is to include the content to balance it, not censor it. But regarding the localized bias - The US is the only major country actively debating the topic (afaik) Therefore, any debate content is going to by definition be US centric. Other countries are mostly status quo either with full control, or no control. (Although, with the definition of gun control that some seem to want here, the UK and others are engaging in some debate, specifically regarding self defense and castle changes) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
'Castle changes'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Castle law/Stand your ground/other self defense changes proposed by Tories (some enacted), in the wake of a few self defense convictions (Tony_Martin_(farmer) in particular, and more recently a couple whos case caused several politicians to announce intended changes [1] [2] [3] [4] Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
However, if there is US centric systematic bias in the wiki, or this article (which I don't disagree with) the answer is to include the content to balance it, not censor it.
A pretty stupid statement. You pump up your preferred section of the article completely out of proportion, elaborating on your preferred extreme minority position, and then sit back and say "Okay, balance out the article, but if you remove any of my preferred material, its CENSORSHIP!" Disingenuous is what it is. — goethean 21:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
And note that Gaijin42 seems to be arguing that other countries don't have debates over firearms regulation anyway, so there can't be any balancing material. Heads he wins, tails we loose... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Gaijin42 on that point. The US is far ahead of the rest of the world in having massive ongoing debate about gun control. It's virtually a non-issue elsewhere. This article should probably be renamed (and slightly modified) to be just about the US. On the other hand, I congratulate Andy for his patience, consistency and perseverance here. And please don't anyone think that it's just the frequent contributors here who have thoughts on this article. Several others of us are watching, waiting really, to see if things calm down enough for true, rational discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Well this postulated silent majority of lurkers needs to speak up if they are going to be heard. Hopefully they don't endorse turning the article into an NRA blowhorn, as our two outspoken friends here do. — goethean 23:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
True rational discussion istaking place Hilo48, welcome to the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, you know how it is. "There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the right version." Goethean's revert turned up prominently near the top of my watchlist, with an "undid revision" edit summary, so I took a look. Mind you, I must have worked pretty fast, for me. I would have thought it usually takes me at least 8 minutes to even perform a protection. Getting better with that! :-) Bishonen | talk 19:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC).


I have opened a DR on the Nazi issue. Everyone who cares is included, and should be notified shortly by the DR bot. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gun Control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not include you as an involved party, so you won't be notified, but certainly have no objection to you adding yourself. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I think one of my comments is missing above.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I will note that this (only) relates to one (#4) of the 5 questions. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It may be the main concern though. If this helps the situation I'm all for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the dispute over if the content should be included is mostly irrelevant to what the overall article title/location is. Wherever the primary article is that is discussing gun control, under whatever name, would gain "ownership" of this dispute. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I should probably mention that there is an open AN/I over the dispute (or part of it at any rate) and that DR/N declines fillings when there is another open DR venue/discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The question posed at the AN is on merging, not on what content belongs in any given article (although certainly the discussion has veered into that direction, it is not the formal point of the AN) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
When an article has a dispute ongoing at AN or AN/I, the case is always declined until the AN or AN filing closes. Perhaps if you drop a line to the DR/N talk page explaining that you feel an exception should be made here and for what reasons it may be allowed. If that AN/I filling looks close to closing perhaps they will just allow it to stand with the hope that the AN/I case will be resolved before the DR/N case is formally opened.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The AN is the wrong venue and a dead end, as the admins there are starting to point out. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The only problem with that is, as the DR/N volunteer mentioned, the AN filing is only two days old and does not appear to have a formed consensus as yet (even if it looks like it is moving in a certain direction). It seems one volunteer (transportationman) may be inclined to allow the filling while another (Guy Macon) feels the AN filing is a concern for opening the DR case. I'll await their decision before adding any opening myself.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13#Gun Control DR/N, and everyone in invited to comment there, but only on the narrow question of delaying a DRN filing while there is an ongoing AN discussion, not about gun control or content forking.
I am hoping that this does eventually end up at DRN, and I plan on asking if anyone -- DRN volunteer or disputant -- objects to me volunteering to try to resolve this. I will speak of this a bit more on the DRN talk page, and invite comments there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The night Raleigh died

Found this at Thompson submachine gun, where it got deleted, & it seemed like saving it might be worthwhile.

"For example, North Carolina restricts fully automatic weapons except for soldiers, law enforcement, and merchants with a permit who need them to defend their business.[1]"

Anybody want to try & work it in? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Homicide" / fluid terms

While the common meaning of homicide is murder of one human by another the technical one is the killing of one human by another. Folks who want to make the homicide figures look higher can use the latter definition, which includes, for example shooting of people by the police or military, or in self defense. For example, if someone kills someone in self defense using a gun, this is counted by some of them as a "homicide" and of course "due" to the presence of the gun. Additions regarding studies should explore and clarify exactly what the study used as a definition of a "homicide".

(BTW, another common one is counting suicides as "use of a gun against a family member" because technically a person is a family member of themselves.) North8000 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And please don't forget that this is the global article. It's not just about the USA. It covers the other 95% of the world's population as well. You will find it very difficult to get precise definitions for the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess what I meant is that these two are cases where there is available a technical meaning which is very different than the common meaning and that some utilize that disparity. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah. It's possible to find statistics that will support almost any view. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Since there do not appear to be any stats in the article, the discussion appears to be moot. However, police typically only report figures for cases they treat as criminal homicide, which would include cases such as George Zimmerman who was found not guilty based on self-defense. In 2007 U.S. police killed 391 people and citizens killed 254 people in self-defense.[5] It is not a major part of the approx 10,000 gun homicides per year and does not explain why for example the U.S. gun homicide rate is five times more than Canada, which itself has a relatively high gun homicide rate among industrialized countries. TFD (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The FBI includes both sets in their numbers (though they are relatively small as you state). Suicides are also included, and that however is a very large number. That still does leave the 10k number. In comparing to Canada, I am somewhat surprised the delta is not higher (its only 5x) considering how much lower Canada's gun ownership is. "—In 2010, 31,672 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.5 percent of all injury deaths in that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2 percent) and homicide (35.0 percent). The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) was 10.1 in 2010, unchanged from the rate in 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide increased 3.4 percent in 2010 from 2009, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3 percent." Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Injuries from lawn mowers are also higher in countries where more people own lawn mowers.North8000 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Canada's gun ownership rate is 30.8 guns per hundred people compared with 88.8 in the U.S.[6] But a number of those homicides are gang-related and they are able to buy guns smuggled from the U.S. TFD (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The USA also has about 160,000 deaths per year from doctor errors. Much more than countries that have few or no doctors. More doctors = more deaths from doctor errors.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be that high levels of gun homicides are perfectly acceptable. If you find a source that says that is a significant view, then we can add it. But it is not a conclusion we can make among ourselves and add to the article. TFD (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
North - neither lawn mowers nor doctors are the subject of this article. Please drop that nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that it was germane to the tangent that this thread has gone off on.  :-) :-) The thread was really about just clarity of terms, especially when a "technically true" definition is available which conflicts with the common meaning of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)
North8000, this talk page is for discussions of the article, not to chat about whatever you want. You've made several comments have don't appear to have any relation to improving the article. Please keep your comments on topic, or your comments may be removed. — goethean 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hilo, you misunderstand North's point. He is using an "analogy", not trying to make the article about lawn mowers or hospitals . For examples Suicides are the majority of US firearms deaths. Firearms are one method of suicide and the data suggests that a total absence of firearms doesn't change the rate of suicide death much, but rather the method of suicides. The real suicide number relevant and attributable to firearms in the US is between 200 to 1,200 (the studies show an elevation of between 1 and 6%.). Slightly less important but also notable are say firearms accidents. Hunting is an outdoor sport with health benefits like bike riding, kayaking etc. Yet owning a bike or Kayak when counting individuals against general pop, or jurisdictions with higher ownership rates, creates an elevated early death risk from those activities. Thirdly there is very god evidence that when it comes to gun murder the vast majority (80 to 90%) of victims are criminals. If people are engaging in a very high risk lifestyle (gang membership, meth production, part time mugger, armed robber, etc). In other words there is a different set of rational number than the aggregates thrown out there. They would be, say 600 suicides that occur because of guns; and 1,500 to 3,000 murders of non criminals.13:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk), how does this relate to improving the article? — goethean 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It indicates that "homicide = bad" is something that should not be implied, even though it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to actually use that in the article in regard the homicide statistics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
IP, those are anti-gun control arguments which may or may not belong in the article, but we need to take arguments from sources, not make them ourselves. See "No original research". Research btw shows that there is a link between gun ownership and suicide.[7] TFD (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control Statistics should be presented that show that Violence in America has decreased significantly over time while many other countries have simply hit a plateau.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dab1994 (talkcontribs) 07:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

An ANI discussion regarding this page has been started, and this page and its editors are under heightened scrutiny. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Link, please? I don't see it. (Well, actually I see several, all closed.) Happy New Year! htom (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent incivility and personal attacks by AndyTheGrump Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That wasn't a "discussion regarding this page". It was a discussion aimed at removing one of the participants in discussions on this page. I make no comment on the merit of the various sides of that discussion at ANI, but it was unlikely to solve any problems here. [Signed: Interested but bemused observer] HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

POV-section Template

The content which is disputed, and to which the "POV-section" template was added, has since been moved from the "History" section to the "Studies, debate, and opinions" section. Please move the template from just below History to just below Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms. --Scolaire (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral sources suggestion

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

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Great! How about

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

Yup - Scalhotrod's overt admission that he is looking for sources to cherry-pick to support the dubious premise that 'gun control' equals 'authoritarianism' is entirely indicative of the whole way this article has been concocted. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia that such behaviour has been allowed to continue as long as it has. Blatant POV-pushing like this needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That's terrible behavior. Scalhotrod said that they were going to look for sources relevant to the question at hand, and you turn that into a big string of insults and accusations as if such were wrong behavior (which it isn't) . North8000 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually I'm somewhat flattered and feel a bit vindicated. In order to earn that kind of rebuke from Andy, I must be on the right track otherwise he wouldn't be trying to undermine my idea so vehemently. I'm not insulted, I'm encouraged... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
If he's not POV-pushing, then it's an potential WP:Competence issue (and not just on the part of Scalhotrod, but on the part of the authors of the Nazi material), as this is clearly not the way to write a neutral Wikipedia article on gun control. "Let's find sources that connect the topic to my pet issue!" Instead, we need to find good, general, neutral, authoritative sources on the topic of the article (i.e. Gun control), and summarize them fairly. If they don't mention your pet issue at all, then that's a great big clue that your pet issue should not be mentioned in the article. This is extremely basic and frankly weird that it needs to be explained. — goethean 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I think a search for suitable sources (and thus also reflecting on whether or not they exist) is a very Wikipedian way to try to address the question at hand. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR engaged in to promote fringe perspectives is not 'the Wikipedian way'. It seems evident from this thread that elements of the pro-gun lobby active here are entirely unwilling to comply with NPOV - which would start by looking for sources discussing the subject matter in general, to see how much (if any) emphasis was put on any supposed link with 'totalitarianism' - and is instead engaging in systematic behaviour to promote the views of a minority unsupported by mainstream historiography. If such behaviour continues, I have little doubt that at some point sanctions will have to be applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


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

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

Use of Peer Reviewed Sources

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

It would help if you made clear (a) what the source cited is, and (b) what it is being cited for. It is certainly not the case that all peer reviewed journals are considered automatically reliable, and nor is it the case that everything cited to a reliable source is itself automatically considered reliable. It all depends on context. I suggest that you first provide the relevant details here, and if we can't come to an agreement, take it to WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fairly obvious he's talking about this edit. --Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the work of Stephen Halbrook on the history of gun control is comparable to the work of Michael E. Mann on climate change? If so, then you are either lying or incompetent. Michael E. Mann is considered an expert in his field, although his work is derided by ideologues who are bribed by oil corporations. Stephen Halbrook#Criticism is a right-wing ideologue who is paid to produce anti-gun control articles. He got one published in a journal, so of course we MUST quote him in this article, because this article is a clearinghouse for all of the right-wing anti-gun garbage that certain editors feel like shoveling into it. Right? — goethean 18:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
He also argues and wins gun control cases in front of SCOTUS, writes briefs for SCOUTS cases that are signed by a majority of congress (that take the winning position), has written books cited and referenced hundreds of times by other gun control sources, and that receive international awards. So yes, within the topic of gun control, he is absolutely the equivalent to Mann. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Appearing before a court to make a partisan political point is not the highest honor a scholar can receive. In fact, it's not an honor or mark or distinction at all, and it doesn't mean that he's an expert. It means that he is politically useful to a group of politicians, just as he is useful to editors attempting to impose a certain ideology on this article. — goethean 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
And equating this nobody with Michael E. Mann's stature in climate is nothing short of hilarious. — goethean 19:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The nobody in question has gone before the Supreme court of the United States and won. Just because you don't know him, or don't like him is no reason to bash him-Justanonymous (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see my previous comment. That's not relevant in the evaluation of a scholar's level of expertise. It shows that he is particularly useful to partisan politicians, nothing more. — goethean 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not the question, can we use peer reviewed academic journals? I know you don't like or value his contributions to society and the broader debate. The point is that there are many such people out there invested in what they do and sometimes like Mann, they are working at the cutting edge of their field and they do publish in top journals. Their work should be accepted per the standard.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It is worth pointing out that this source has already been raised at WP:RSN - by Gaijin42. [8] It seems to me that, given Halbrook's overt advocacy of a particular perspective on the issue, he should be cited only as attributed statements for his own position. He can hardly be cited as an impartial scholarly source. General statements about what went on in Nazi Germany with regard to firearms regulation should be cited to sources without an axe to grind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

The next snide of-topic personal attack made by you is going to be raised at WP:ANI. I made no comment whatsoever on Mann - in fact I had to look him up to ascertain who exactly was being referred to - and your assertion that I 'love Mann' is not only obnoxious, irrelevant, and a clear attempt to sidetrack this discussion, but a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's stick to the question at hand then and I'll ask for the same civility from you please Andy, " The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand."-Justanonymous (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Justanonymous is confusing "reliable sources" and "neutral point of view". Halbrooks's facts in his peer-reviewed article may be assumed to be reliable. In order to present his opinions, we need to assess the degree of acceptance they have in reliable sources. That is exactly the same case with Mann. Neutrality also determines what facts are relevant to the article, and that can be established by determining the weight that reliable sources provide them. You need to show that the 1938 firearms act in Germany has more significance then thousands of other firearms acts in order to single it out for inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I "love" Mann? I "love" Mann? I don't know the guy. I was addressing his status in the climate field. You (apparently) think that Stephen Halbrook's status in the field of gun control is the same as Mann's in the climate field, which is hilariously wrong. Should I make some comment about whether you are fucking Halbrook or not, just to match your comment that I "love" Mann?
The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand.
No, the question is why a group of editors insists on defending and promoting a clearly false, inaccurate and one-sided version of history in this article, and how that group's desires, which run directly, precisely against Wikipedia's most central policy, can be corrected. That's the question, everything else is a distraction. — goethean 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. That is a sick fantasy promoted by an American gun promotion lobby, not by historians. — goethean 19:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an author with a JD and a PhD, who was a long-time academic before becoming a widely published author and attorney. The ref is from a peer-reviewed RS. I understand that some on the left don't agree with him or his positions but that is really beside the point. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law is a recognised authority on the historiography of Nazi Germany? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No, he's apparently saying its an authority on gun control. — goethean 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right, that is beside the point of fixing this hideously unbalanced article. Halbrook shouldn't be cited, because neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. — goethean 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Uhmm. Why? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. It doesn't matter. This section is about a tag about reliability. The ref is RS. This other stuff is off point. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, on your previous post:

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

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

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

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

So why don't you take it to WP:RSN? Oh wait, you've already done that. Didn't like the answer, I assume... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The sole comment RSN said "But the author of this article is a nationally known expert, though the position e takes is controversial. What he publishes anywhere can be used as a RS, though, as with anything in this debate, it can not be quoted as definitively settling the issue it discusses. " so no, I am quite happy with that answer. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Goethean, your linked post essentially says that gun control in Nazi Germany should not be covered, and that such is a "sick fantasy". Unlike what you implied in a subsequent post, I think that my post directly addressed that. If not, where is the disparity? North8000 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
We've been over this many times. It is a deliberate distortion to call the Holocaust an example of gun control. The people using this language, like Stephen Halbrook, make the distortion in order to paint supporters of gun control as authoritarians. How many more times would you like to go over this? — goethean 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely nobody who disagrees with Halbrook on the fact of gun control being used as a tool of the holocaust. EVERY source. 100% that touch the issue admit the basic facts. Harcourt, Slate, Mother jones, take your pick. they may disagree on the effect of this within the holocaust, and may also disagree on what implications this may or may not have for modern gun control debate, but NOBODY disagrees that gun control was implemented against the jews as an intentional part of the holocaust. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The article in its present state is a hideous distortion of history. — goethean 20:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

If you seriously think that being 'peer reviewed' makes something automatically reliable for anything more than the author's opinions, take it to WP:RSN. Or would you rather not do that in case you get the same answer as the last time this exact same source was raised there? [9] If we cite Halbrook at all (for which we'd first need evidence from credible independant sources that the subject matter is actually relevant to the article in the first place), we can do so - as an attributed opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

There are 'dozens and dozens of books and articles' discussing flying saucers. We don't cite them regarding facts. And no, I'm not asking for 'tertiary sources'. I'm asking for independent sources for the assertion that Halbrook's opinions on Nazi Germany are relevant to a general discussion on firearms regulation. Without that, there is no justification for including his opinion at all. Find the credible independent sources covering firearms regulation in general that cover the topic on Nazi Germany in any depth, and we can then discuss whether Halbrook needs inclusion. Without such sources, the issue is moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That is the very definition of a tertiary source. Halbrook is a secondary source. The other gun control books are secondary sources. They are published reliable sources (at a minimum of their authors opinions) . The shared opinion is inherently notable by the publication of those multiple sources. Tertiary notability is NOT required by WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Utter bollocks. 'Sources covering firearms regulation in general' cannot possibly be 'tertiary' in an article on'firearms regulation in general'. Please at least attempt to present a rational argument... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The appropriate way to mention Halbrook is that he speaks for American anti-gun control groups. But that's not a sufficiently notable episode in the world history of gun control to mention in this article. Out of hundreds of historians in dozens of countries, this American conservative says that the Holocaust was an example of gun control. It's simply not appropriate for an article on a worldwide phenomenon to discuss at length the theories of American anti-gun control politicians on the Holocaust, esp. when a more neutral version of the history is available already at Gun politics in Germany! It's like mentioning debunked Serbian nationalist theories in the article on the Siege of Constantinople. The article would need to be book-length for inclusion to be appropriate. — goethean 22:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Halbrook is not the only ref in that section that is dealing with the Holocaust in terms of the gun control issue. Harcourt's paper does as well, suggesting that this is a recurring theme in gun control policy discussions. It should be noted that one of Halbrook's book on this subject has been published in four languages and that he has written articles on this issue in European law journals. So I would submit that perhaps this is a significant disussion in the issue of gun control and not just in the United States. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you mean RJ Rummel's book, Death by Government, which is also cited in the article? That definitely sounds like the most neutral and authoritative source on the history of gun control. Definitely. — goethean 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha ha, no. I was thinking Polsby, Daniel. "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly.p1237 and The Complete History of the Holocaust Capitalismojo (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Does the The Complete History of the Holocaust ever mention the phrase "gun control"? — goethean 23:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You got me. We are supposed to be discussion the tag in the section and you moved the discussion back into a broader discusion about whether there should even be such a section at all. I thought that was what the RfC above was to decide. I haven't weighed in up there yet. Lets finish the "unreliable source" tag on the law review article issue first shall we? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You are a veteran editor. You know well that if the cited reference does not mention the topic of the article, it violates WP:OR. And yet you don't know if the book that you just added a page number to[10] mentions the topic of the article. The cited URL is a search on the word weapons in the book. Is the implication here that if a book on the Holocaust mentions weapons, then it can be cited as an authoritative source for the idea that the Holocaust is an example of gun control? That's a stunning violation of both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. — goethean 00:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The proper course is to ask at RS/N whether the cite given supports the claim made. If you wish to accuse any editor of "violating Wikipedia policy" then post at AN/I. The article talk page is not the place to make such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
What? Let's go over this conversation again. Capitalistmojo adds a page number to a citation. I ask him if the book mentions gun control at all. He doesn't know. Your position what? Take it to a noticeboard? The reference is a fraud. I have removed it. — goethean 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What do you mean no accessible refs? Were they all dead? . The issue with per country sections is that we already have List of gun laws and policies by country in adition to the Gun politics in the United Kingdom article. the Nazi section above may superficially appear to be in that same grouping, but it is here as part of an argument about gun control in general. (I agree it should be moved from the history to the arguments section - as long as it is clear that the historical factsare uncontested). Information about the UK may also be relevant under a similar rationale, discussing the effectiveness or not of gun control (similar to the AU content) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean two things. First: the refs were in russian. Second: After a fair amount of searching I found no comparable english refs to validate or verify the section. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Guns and Germany, reboot

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

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

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

My suggestion is that if we want a fork that goes into all the conspiracy theories then we should follow WP:FRINGE, which allows that, provided we have a neutral title. There are articles about how the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, etc. Why not have an article about what extreme gun people think? TFD (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
One really ought to follow AGF -- the "reductio" argument that all who believe Nazi Germany did, indeed, disarm the Jews are "extreme gun people" and that it is like saying the moon landing was faked is not really going to gain any traction in a reasoned discussion about gun control history. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Who says that, Collect? TFD isn't saying what you say they're saying. They're pointing at the well-known conspiracy theory about authoritarianism and gun control, I think, not about basic facts (which are a lot more complicated than has been proposed on these pages). Drmies (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
In which case - read my comments above - and note what I consider a neutral section title, and that it could easily cover the topic properly. When aiming at a straw man, it helps to make sure it is actually made of straw. Collect (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I gotta say, I was already very wary about the inclusion of this stuff in the first place--reading what a real historian has to say is very insightful. Above, in the ole RfC, someone says "sure Hitler was all about gun control", so what Harcourt signals has been very effective. He also discusses that famous quote:

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

And that quote turns out to be, basically, bogus--unattested, unverified, incongruous with the time and the events, etc. So by now I'm dead-set against its inclusion: it's not just cherrypicking from the 1938 legislation or from the historical record of all countries in all of the world, it's marred by basic errors, misreadings, and inconsistencies. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, Harcourt is another law professor - this gun control argument has, not surprisingly, yet to make any kind of impact on the scholarly literature dealing with the history of holocaust. The fact that no historians address it (the argument and interpretation rather than the fact that there was such legislation) is a measure of its significance in the historiography of Nazi Germany. In my opinion, Halbrook et al. belong on WP, if at all, only in article dealing with the gun control debate in America (possible Brazil too) and only with proper contextualisation that traces the introduction of this historical analogy with the passage of the US 1968 Gun Control Act which it was alleged (by the advocacy group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) was a direct copy of the 1938 Nazi legislation. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968, and the recent history of that article, where this came up and has now gone the way of other conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't advocate the inclusion of a JFPO source or the treatment of their allegation regarding the 1968 legislation as in any way credible. The JFPO are fringe, no doubt. Rather, I think it would be valuable and informative to trace the origins and development of the analogy of firearm regulation with Nazism in American political discourse. Harcourt provides a lot of this context and, as with other sources [11], he indicates that the JFPO are part of the relevant context. The earliest reference I can trace for the comparison of firearm regulation to Nazi policies is to some militia periodicals in the early 1970s [12]. There are other reliable sources on the use of "holocaust imagery" in the US gun control debate that could also be used for context [13]. There have also been interesting treatments on the attempt to export US gun lobby rhetoric to Brazil [14] and (far less successfully) the UK [15]. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what weird sideroad you guys are going down with this Harcourt argument... but I agree with Drmies original post... the entire history of gun laws for the relevant regime should be included. That's a far cry from Drmies "very wary about the inclusion of this stuff" comment, but we already knew that's how you feel Drmies. There's obviously going to be battles over the language of that, but I think this is a no brainer resolution. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
On this, see Scolaire's excellent post above. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The "weird sideroad" is the Halbrook argument, "First they came for the guns." Harcourt merely writes about Halbrook's argument. Take out Halbrook and there is no need to add Harcourt. TFD (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Shadowjams, that the entire history for the relevant regime should be included is pure rhetoric: it cannot be done here, and if it's done anywhere it should be done in Gun legislation in Germany, which might be an interesting thing to write up. There is no rationale whatsoever to write up Germany here and not every other country in the world. You can give no reason for including Germany (and possibly Edo-Japan or Mao's China?) and excluding Finland, England, Swaziland, Mauritius, Mongolia, and every other country in the world--unless your argument already is that "totalitarian regimes restrict guns for blah blah", a presupposition previously made true in our article by cherrypicking and poor reading. So no. Harcourt is not a sideroad: the article clinches the scholarly assessment that the dictatorial gun controller thing is a myth (FRINGE). That's important here: Harcourt provides the rationale for excluding any partial mention of German gun control. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
drmies We currently have two overview articles This one, and List of gun laws and policies by country. This article should be an overview of the concept, not details on individual countries implementations. However, there are different types/puropses of gun control. (general) crime prevention, accident prevention, stopping spree killings. Other types oand purposes of gun control are obviously political - stopping revolution, class/race warfare, etc. It is entirely appropriate to have examples of each type for discussion in the overview article here, and the NAZI use (along with the weimar use, and perhaps others) are legitimate uses of illustrating and exemplifying the archetypes of gun control implementations, or as arguments for/against gun control (just as we include quotes and examples of how nifty it is at reducing crime in some place, but not others). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • What is fringe is the implication in this article that Nazi firearms regulations are in any way whatsoever central to an international overview of firearms regulation. You have been asked on countless occasions to provide sources to demonstrate that anyone but a minority of U.S. right-wing pro-gun activists consider it significant. You have entirely failed to do so. You can't because it doesn't exist. But again and again you resort to every tendentious and policy-violating trick in the book to promote this pseudohistorical propaganda. Either produce the sources required under policy to justify the inclusion of such material in this article, or find another platform to peddle this horseshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion, but in any case it is irrelevant. Neutrality says we represent ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Not just the ones you like. Not all points except pro gun activists. It is a notable pov, it should be included. You have previously admitted that this opinion is presented in reliable sources. That is the end of the discussion. ALL POVS from RSs should be included. " We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased" "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" I note that your repeated accusation of fringe is entirely baseless - as you have yet to identify a single factual assertion you think is untrue. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
And yet again, you grossly misrepresent Wikipedia policy in order to promote your propagandistic hogwash WP:UNDUE is completely and utterly unambiguous on this:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
Produce the evidence, from academic sources discussing the general topic of firearms regulation, that this particular 'Nazi' issue is relevant to the broader discussion, rather than being the ahistorical propagandising of a fringe minority within a single country. Or accept that you will have to find another soapbox. Significance within a topic only be demonstrated by sources which discuss the topic as a whole - no matter how much cherry-picking and Google mining you engage in, without such sources, WP:WEIGHT has to apply, and this issue relegated to its proper place - in an article on U.S. discourse on firearms regualation, as the opinion of a small fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
And where is the reliable source which says that Nazi Germany was a significant development in the history of gun control? If you had this, you wouldn't be digging through old newspapers to piece together your partisan jumble of "facts". — goethean 18:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Gaijin, at the risk of sounding pedantic, can you please insert paragraphing? My old eyes can't follow your argument very well. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
What's fringe, and what makes a mockery of NPOV, is the version of history that you have forced into this article, in which Nazi Germany is a major development in the history of gun control, when you have failed to cite a single mainstream historian who endorses this story that you're telling. There are plenty of sources available for it,[16][17] indeed, thousand and thousands of them. But they are editorials from right-wing magazines and emails that one gets forwarded from one's senile uncle. No mainstream historian would endorse your partisan version of history. But tellingly, you have been successful in forcing it on this article since ROG5728's original bad edit in April, when he moved the material from "Arguments" to "History". If this article is to maintain a semblance of neutrality, the OMG NAZI GUN CONTROL!!!111 material must be returned to the "Arguments" section, where it belongs. You are misusing sources, pretending that they talk about gun control when in fact they do no such thing. — goethean 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I personally have no objection to putting this information in the arguments section (or in the alternative structure being discussed elsewhere, as one of the examples of "gun control for political purposes". Under that latter grouping, the weimar laws would also be applicable, which would provide more context and balance as well. I cannot of course speak for others. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, then can we just get rid of the entire History section, since the material is more appropriate at the Gun politics at ''x'' articles? — goethean 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:SUMMARY it is perfectly appropriate to have overview articles that give examples and explanations and duplicate content that is discussed elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
All of this should be moved to Gun legislation in Germany. Into history, and out of the POV of the gun debate. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Its history! Its argument! the opposers should decide on what grounds they are opposing perhaps. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we're obviously not as organized as the supporters. — goethean 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's already treated in a more neutral manner, at Gun politics in Germany. Why we need to repeat it here in a more partial, slanted, partisan way is difficult to say. — goethean 16:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

He does not "rely on" Pierce, he mentions him because he is explaining how the Right in the U.S. views the 1938 act. Similarly he mentions Halbrook but does not rely on him. TFD (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
From his conclusion "How is it, you may ask, that I-the faithful and loving son of a Jewish refugee ... would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard? This is the truly bizarre, surprising, and somewhat uncomfortable product of culture war." That seems like he is making it, if not central to his discussion, certainly important to it. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
No, what is bizarre is that anyone would put that spin on his article. Did you read the article and come to that conclusion or did you get that idea from a website? TFD (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)