Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

WP:POVNAME

"Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Darknipples (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

[cc comment] The WP:NPOV concerns seem reasonable, as this is a partisan label and a repeated POV concern of editors here. Since NPOV is a core item, I will suggest the NPOV section WP:POVNAMING outranks the naming convention article of WP:POVNAME. The difference of note is :

The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed.

So -- partisan titles can be handled by in the article lead mentioning the significant point that it is objected to as a partisan labeling, giving due WP:WEIGHT to how much that topic is part of the subject. This sort of handling is what was given a right-wing label Death panels. This is the direction recent edits took (since the neutrality board was asked in January). The alternative seems to go further in naming convention to a WP:NDESC descriptive name and make "Gun Show Loophole" a redirect to that title. (Or it continues to sit as an unresolved POV concern.) Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I will suggest that the FAQ above capture any consensus on approach for future editors, since the title question seems to keep coming up. Markbassett (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative names (none of which meet WP:POLICY standards) are already mentioned in the "lead" and the "overview"? You need to refer to THE ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE BOARD - LINK [1] regarding this issue - because at this point, the matter is under administrative direction (see link here [2] from NPOVN). Darknipples (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have read the debates about the article title for months and have carefully considered the arguments in favor of a different name. I find the arguments in favor of the current common name compelling, and see no consensus for a change. Continuing to raise the same issue over and over again is increasingly disruptive, in my view. I encourage those who favor a different name to drop the stick and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

See Also & Brady Law Loophole Redirect

Regarding this recent reversion of mine [3]...I only have one question. Do we redirect to all of these (see "See also" section in the article)? (2 questions, i guess...) If we "redirect to all these pages, should we therefore bold mark in all or some said references in the ARTICLE, including in the lead? (OK 3) Since when is Brady Law Loophole a "redirect"? - Sorry, this is all just kinda new to me. Darknipples (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We are also a redirect for Gun show loophole controversy. Who added that and when? Darknipples (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Corrected [4] at GC page. Darknipples (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:, any thoughts on these points? Darknipples (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So this answers one question...Hi Faceless Enemy.

• (cur | prev) 06:38, 5 March 2015‎ Faceless Enemy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Gun show loophole) (thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

Here's the answer to another...Hi DrPepper47. Darknipples (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Revision as of 20:43, 11 August 2015 (edit) DrPepper47 (talk | contribs)(→‎Studies, debate, and opinions)← Previous edit

There are a lot of these I think...Darknipples (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• (cur | prev) 17:53, 23 July 2012‎ Edward (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75 bytes) (+75)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Gun shows in the United States#Controversies) (thank)

Do (pinged) editors wish to comment here? Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:R#PLA says that "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" . If someone follows a redirect they expect to have confirmation that they are on the right page if doesn't have a similar name. Brady Law loophole if it is a well-known phrase needs to direct to somewhere, the alternative being the target of "Brady law" which is Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Why am I being pinged? What redirect did I create? Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just new to them. [5] Darknipples (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that redirect was probably created before there was a dedicated GSL page. I've updated it. Still not sure which redirect of mine you're wondering about. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Image for Recent Developments or Early Efforts

Zwerg has recommended a photo of one of the prominent people mentioned in the article. I would suggest one or both of these.

• For Recent developments

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg

• For Early efforts

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bill_Clinton.jpg

I'm open to suggestions...Darknipples (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think all three go well with the article. Darknipples (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, it sort of feels like overkill. Any thoughts? Darknipples (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the Clinton photo makes sense, given his administration's role in the issue, but the other two feel like overkill. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Per FE's response I'll remove the other two photos...Thanks FE! Darknipples (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As more information is added over time to the Responses section, especially regarding Bush's term, I think it may be a possible addition. It will help provide visual Q's in terms of aesthetic, weight, and balance. Darknipples (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead section Tagged for Tone & Layout

Godsy, please stop tagging the article without at least explaining it on the TP. Most of your issues can be addressed here with a simple discussion. By only tagging the article without starting a discussion, you are leaving the rest of us in the dark to fix issues no one else can see but you. Darknipples (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, considering none of these issues were raised in Zwerg Nase's GA review, I will refer them to Godsy's recent changes... [6] [7] [8] [9]....Darknipples (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The templates describe the issues that need to be handled clearly. Regarding the two {{tone}} templates: A similar issue was raised in the GA review (i.e. the second bullet point in the section following Finally on it) as I pointed out in my edit summary [10]. Secondly: The {{lead rewrite}} template and my edit summary [11] clearly describe the issue with the lead. I didn't/don't have the time to fix the interconnected issues, but they should be addressed before the article is promoted to Good Article status (falling under good article criteria number one). "Good Articles" "are considered to be of good quality" and should meet the bar of being "written very well".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: The second bullet point Zwerg mentioned (Finally on it) was already addressed. SEE Review Work

• 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

You would know this if you "had time" to pay attention to the article's talk page. I appreciate that you want to improve the article, but it may require you to be a little more involved than you are used to...I ask that you refer to Zwerg with regard to any changes you feel the article needs during the GA review. They are in charge of the making necessary changes for GA status, and until they are finished, it is only common courtesy. Wouldn't you agree? Darknipples (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"A similar issue", not the same one. In regard to your last paragraph: While it isn't my intention to step on the toes of the reviewer, the issues are valid; I feel the templates, especially the {{lead rewrite}}, are appropriate.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have copy-edited and altered the lead so that it is now divided into 4 equal paragraphs...I'm hoping this pleases Godsy, and I'm removing the "layout tag" unless Godsy has any objections...Darknipples (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I will ask Zwerg if we should omit or attempt to change the last paragraph due to tone (per Godsy's request). Darknipples (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, please make a note Zwerg's response [12], you're welcome to omit that last paragraph or attempt to change as per WP:MOS, IMO, otherwise I will probably end up just removing it. Darknipples (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gun show loophole/FAQ

Consensus needs to be gained for the FAQ subpage. Following that, consensus is needed for its content. Quite bluntly: It shouldn't be used otherwise.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Admittedly, I recently posted in this section due to a recent editor's failure to pay any attention to previous discussions and events regarding the alleged POV/NEUTRALITY issue. Additionally, this issue/discussion was recently discussed and archived at ANI (ARCHIVED-DO NOT ALTER [13]), without any administrative consensus or closure. Naturally, I think the first order of business for the FAQ should be to address this "alleged" POV issue. Darknipples (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added the number one Frequently Asked Question to the FAQ, here. I sincerely believe that I have accurately stated or paraphrased this reoccurring question, and supplied a very neutrally worded answer. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I took the liberty of simplifying it a bit. [14]—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: That does simplify things, but I don't think it captures the spirit of the actual frequently asked question. The FAQ templates on some other pages do phrase the questions to reflect the sometimes critical views of the editors who frequently ask them. See for example the FAQ questions at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I took another swing at it [15]. Feel free to do the same, I'll check back in the morning.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: How about this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I'm alright with that; though WP:NPOV is of importance to the issue, WP:TITLE is as well. How's this [16]?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: The frequently asked question is about the NPOV policy, though other policy pages, including Article Titles, are also relevant and are referenced in the various discussions. As far as "violate" vs. "comply with", I think the former better represents the question. In fact I think my original wording of the question represents it even better. I'd actually prefer to go back to that. (Original wording: Isn't the article title "Gun show loophole" biased in favor of the pro-gun-control side of the controversy? Current wording: Does the article title "Gun show loophole" violate the neutral point of view policy?) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I still prefer this version [17], but I'm okay with the current version posted directly above this. Isn't the article title "Gun show loophole" biased in favor of the pro-gun-control side of the controversy? suggests to the reader a possible side of the issue. Does the article title "Gun show loophole" [comply with] the neutral point of view policy? (current version) simply asks if the title complies with policy. Comply states bascially "meet specified standards or rules", violate is harsher and suggests breaking a rule. The issue is complex it may not necessarily "break" the rule, there could simply be a better title. I think the former word (i.e. comply with) is more neutral and a better fit.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: The FAQ doesn't need to be neutrally worded. In fact, it shouldn't be, if it's going to accurately reflect the actual frequently asked question. But the answer should be neutrally worded, and the current answer is: There have been a number of discussions about this matter, but there has not been a consensus to rename the article. Like I said, the FAQ on talk pages of some other controversial subjects follows this same pattern, for example the one on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. That's why the first version was the best. But I could accept the current version, I believe. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Godsy here, Mudwater. The FAQ needs to be neutrally worded. Darknipples (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notes section "cite error: Invalid ref tag; name"

I'm unfamiliar with this type of issue. Anyone here know what caused this, and how to fix it? I tried reverting what I thought was the cause, but no luck. Darknipples (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this Zwerg Nase? Darknipples (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you have introduced both DOJ1999January and History-C as ref names more than once, referring to different references. That got it mixed up. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Here's an unrelated technical tip for you. A while ago you referred to me in a post as "they". You may already know that some editors have set a preference for being referred to as "he", "she", or neither. (Click on Preferences in the upper right and go to the User Profile tab, it's in the Internationalisation section.) Apparently there's not a direct way to see another editor's setting, but you can refer to it indirectly, using various templates that are documented on this page: Template:He or she. For example, Mudwater said {{he or she|Mudwater}} likes Wikipedia results in Mudwater said he likes Wikipedia. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Using the singular they is much simpler; though those templates are kind of interesting, they are inessential.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "they", or "he or she", are fine. But it's nice to have a choice, and the templates will appeal to some people. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

134.114.128.113 & Godsy, See the original reference (Paragraph/sentence 29th from the top [18])

• "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — “the gun-show loophole.”

The cite you (added) are using for your changes makes no mention, whatsoever, of GSL. Therefore it is most likely considered WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Darknipples (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, considering we are still in the middle of our GA review, I'm pinging Zwerg Nase, for their input on the matter. Before anyone changes this again, we should all refer to their guidance. Darknipples (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this is the second time a random IP editor has made this exact same edit, in about as many days, I think we should consider it for the FAQ subsection. Darknipples (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy If you have issues with the lead [19], please talk it over with Zwerg Nase. Darknipples (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, with regard to these edits [20], and [21], it's obvious you didn't notice the current discussion on GA1 between Zwerg and myself [22]. Excluding the report by the ATF...

• A late 20th century report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) claimed legal transactions of this type contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases.

...While adding what are essentially POVs to the lead, does not seem to meet the criteria standards of MOS:LEAD, which states...

• It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
• it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
• According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article. Darknipples (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Early use of the term or Provenance Section

I truly do appreciate Godsy's work to improve the section title here, among their many other improvements, but it still reads a bit awkwardly. I'd suggest Provenance or Etymology, just something a bit more succinct. Darknipples (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, really great work today, however it occurs to me that the section titles are mostly serving the purpose of showing a timeline or chronological order, if you will. Your most recent edits put some of the "developments in the 21st century" under Notable events in the Provenance section. While they are "notable events" I think it is important to maintain some form of consistency, chronologically or otherwise. What do you think? Darknipples (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

[23] Here's a possible resolution. Darknipples (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I majorly rearranged the article. I removed this information that didn't really have a good place:

State specific:

Former governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, wrote:

"I was disappointed to see the Virginia legislature balk, largely under pressure from the NRA, at efforts to close the gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy weapons without any background check. That loophole still exists."

Between Columbine and Virginia Tech, the gun show loophole issue largely faded from the legislative agenda. Immediately following the Virginia Tech shooting, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and other authorities called on lawmakers to close the gun show loophole. A bill to close the loophole in Virginia was submitted, but eventually failed. Since then, efforts by Virginia lawmakers to close the gap have been repeatedly blocked by gun-rights advocates.

References

I added a contradiction tag, because in the last paragraph of the respective section, the information doesn't align. Lastly, the "Notable opinions" section may need a little adjusting, I'll take another look at it tomorrow.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy if you want to remove that information, I suggest you provide a much better reason than "it didn't really have a good place". Darknipples (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've also noted that you've "added" in a new reference from Alexander DeConde without a retrieval date, along with your "overhaul". Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

To address "add[ing]a new reference": I didn't add any new references. I took what was a very general statement that was backed up by that source "Some gun rights supporters said that requiring background checks for all gun show sales was the prelude to registration and their Second Amendment rights would be jeopardized." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_show_loophole&oldid=686722188#cite_ref-DeCondep277_56-0 before my rearrangement, source #54) dated and attributed it to someone, making it more appropriate and inline with the manner the article currently handles things of that nature.

To address "remov[ing] information", though I'm not going to spend much time as you've already added it back in: That information was very state specific, where as a lot of the information is on a federal level. It may not belong in the article. I decided to not just mash the info together, or stick in somewhere where it really didn't belong.

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional overhaul suggestion GA1 Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_show_loophole/GA1#Additional_overhaul_suggestion Darknipples (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

removals

Darknipples I don't object to removal of the content, as it wasn't very well written, but reverting it on the basis of vandalism is not kosher. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your point Gaijin. I will avoid saying that moving forward. I saw the tag and assumed it was obvious. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Perceived gap"

Currently, the second sentence of the lead reads: "The term refers to a perceived gap in the law regarding the sale or transfer of firearms between private citizens." [emphasis added] I don't like "perceived gap", and I don't like just "gap". The first makes it seem like the gun control advocates are wrong in calling it a gap, and the second makes it seem like they're right. Neither of those is acceptable; our job here is to be neutral. I'll think it over for a bit and see if I can't come up with something better. Any suggestions or thoughts on rewording are appreciated. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Our job is to be nuetral, but we are also not supposed to to "interpret" sources...That is what it says, if you can find a source that explains it better, by all means, share it with us. Darknipples (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, thanks. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the word "perceived" implies that it is not necessarily a fact or simply an opinion. It is an account of notable events that occurred, and these events are to be documented without giving "more weight" to one side or the other. At least, that's the idea. Darknipples (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattmogram, thank you! That's perfect. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which '[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms'." Using the actual definition of loophole and stating that it is a point of view maintains the integrity of both neutrality and clarity.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A more positive approach might help "It is a crime to sell a firearm to someone you know is prohibited from owning one" and why its not a loophole "A prohibited person cannot legally buy a firearm even at a gunshow" ( in other words the buyer commits a crime even if the seller does not) I am just trying to help J8079s (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If this cite [24] is to be removed from the lead, as well as replaced by the notion that GSL (specifically) refers to a "fact of law...etc", rather than a perceived gap, by this source [25], I believe an RSN regarding the context of these two cites is in order. GSL isn't even mentioned anywhere in the latter cite, and yet it is referenced twice in the lead. Removing properly sourced and cited references from the lead with no consideration for it's relevance to the entire article, and replacing it with a "Top ten FAQ" from an ATF website seems extremely inappropriate. Darknipples (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I put the cite back [26], now to check with RSN. Darknipples (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to RSN [27] Darknipples (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy

As it is now, the lead basically says the same thing twice in a row...

• "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

• "Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. Federal law prohibits private individuals from selling a firearm to a resident of another state, or anyone they have reason to believe is prohibited from owning a firearm."

Eliminating the redundancy would look much cleaner, like this...

• "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal gun laws, under which private-parties selling firearms are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. The law also prohibits private individuals from selling a firearm to a resident of another state, or anyone they have reason to believe is prohibited from owning a firearm.[2][3][4]

• "This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who..." Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

RSN for ATF cite in the lead

Faceless Enemy [28]

Couple of things that are perhaps obscure but also confusing

1. Most gunshow sellers are FFL's bound by all the rules. Those that are non-licensed regular sellers are often denied FFLs because selling at gun shows, regardless of volume, is allowed in the CFR and ATF does not want more licensees. The purpose is to prevent every person from obtaining an FFL. An FFL would exempt them from the shipping methods FFL use to send guns to each other. This increases their access to inventory as well as reduces their cost. There is nothing special about obtaining an FFL and has 0 training requirements and the check as a CCW. The only requirements is a place to do business that is properly zones.

2. Private sale middleman do not make guns more traceable. FFL's do not have access to the stolen gun database. Firearm information such as make, model an S/N are not provided to NICS.

3. NICS does not provide a background report. "Proceed" or "Do Not Proceed" are what is given to FFLs. No reason is given. --DHeyward (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• The information your adding (i.e. [29]) is rather out of the scope of the article in its current state, and would be better placed at National Instant Criminal Background Check System if it isn't already there. Secondly, the larger part of the information is unsourced. The information you added to the lead has potential, and you make a good points about it above, perhaps a better place within the article could be found for it. The other info is more questionable: I think a better road would be to possibly explain where "report" is mentioned, that it is simply a "'Proceed' or 'Do Not Proceed'" in a smaller less detailed manner. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @DHeyward: I re-added the information in a different manner. Does that look alright to you?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading byline under picture claiming it is a private sale, very unlikely and no supporting evidence

No reasonable indication of a private sale, so many guns for sale would indicate a legitimate dealer. The ATF would consider this a business and Gun shows would require proof of FFL if trying to sell that many. Sorry so many are confused by this act of deception from a well know anti-gun agenda editor. Any fool can take a picture of gun and say it is a private sale. Prove it is a private sale as it is reasonable legit. It would be grounds for a defamation suit if the sale is legit and the dealer recognizes this. 208.54.80.248 (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note The pistols underneath are all on the same table. The uploader also took other pictures they labeled as private sales which clearly are not due to standard dealer tags with ser #, etc. Those tags are used by dealers to track their inventory in order to comply with record keeping requirements of the ATF. Though they are not required it is extremely unlikely a privates sale would use such tags. It is very clear the uploader does not know what they are doing or they do not want others to know what they have done. My knowledge of gun shows greatly exceeds some anti-gunners trip to a gun show to gather "damming evidence". 208.54.80.248 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Your original research into the picture is admirable, but it is original research and so doesn't count I'm afraid. If the image says it's a private seller, then we consider it a private seller and not the other way round; a couple of plastic tags on weapons is not automatically indicative of a business or dealer. The upload description says it's a private seller, so that's what we consider it to be.

Additionally - regardless of whether it is or isn't. or it might be or might not be, your added description was entirely unencyclopedic and conversational in tone and removal/reversion was warranted for the sake of the encyclopedia itself.

For purposes of transparency, I'll state that I saw this discussion because SchroCat and I have worked together in the past so his talkpage is watched, ergo this is not a third opinion, DRN or judgement, merely a comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Per the same reason given by Chaheel Riens. It's OR and nothing more. – SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So we have your friend here to help you. Recruiting is against the rules and you talk about rules that do not apply to you like 3R? Additionally your friends logic is impeccably flawed. If there was an image of dog shit labeled Tootsie roll we would have to accept that is a Tootsie roll? I can make it happen if that suits your way of reasoning. Have fun in the Dog park but I caution people may find it quite disturbing. Do you even have a clue about what you talking about or just spewing some nonsense? I ask because you seem very ignorant of what the picture is representing and have not made a sound argument. Have you ever been to a gun show in America? Do you even live in the land of the most free people on earth or some restrictive society that does not trust its citizens? It is clear you have wiki hounded me to here. None the less the uploader has no clue as to what they are posting by their previous uploads labeled private sales with clearly marked dealer tags. The amount of guns on the table clearly indicates a dealer. A private sale would not be allowed to set up that inventory as it would be operating as a firearms business. I know the Federal Firearm laws in America. So come clean, do you have a clue? 208.54.80.248 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here of my own volition, and you would do well to assume good faith lest you be struck by a low flying boomerang. I know absolutely nothing about gun shows, private dealers, or guns in general. Also, I know nothing about Tootsie rolls, but that's not really important. What I do know is how Wikipedia works, and one of the cornerstones is that you cannot use original research - which I've linked so you can read up and understand yourself. I assume that from your rant you "live in the land of the most free people on earth", and one that does trust its citizens ? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"So we have your friend here to help you": CR has explained what brought him here, so it maybe best if you depersonalise your comments (particularly given your misguided 'Brexit sore losers' comment on Cheds talk page). – SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry my hammer swings true and hit that nail on the head. 208.54.80.248 (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Nope. Time to go now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, a picture of someone (even a private seller) selling a gun at a gun show does not illustrate the concept of "gun show loophole" -- it just shows someone selling a gun, or at least offering one for sale. Nor can I think of an image that would be a good illustration of "gun show loophole". So, I think the article would be better without any image. There are two previous, archived discussions about this topic, and I participated in the first one, where my view did not prevail. You can see those at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 5#Image for the article and at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 6#3.9.15 Vote for image. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that do not have any photos or illustrations. Photos and illustrations are nice; however, they are a 'want' rather than a 'need'. The photo bears absolutely no relationship to the subject of this article. It might bear a relationship to the 'gun show' article, but that's it. There is no evidence that suggests that the photo illustrates the "gun show loophole". It is nothing more than a photo of a person holding a gun, and the description of the photo has absolutely no evidentiary value. It could be a private seller; it could be an FFL; it could be a photo staged in someone's garage - we have no way to determine so objectively.

The image should be removed. It adds no value to the article, period. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF counters the fact that other articles don't have images, ergo neither should this one. Whether this image is appropriate is another question - as our dearly departed IP editor was quick to point out - it did indeed seem to be a gun show (whether business or private) and it's not inaccurate to have a picture from a gun show in an article that depends on a gun show for its existence - although I'm willing to be persuaded, not really having a massive opinion either way.

But what I do have a massive opinion about is the removal of the image while we're still talking about it. Oce we've all agreed - then it can be either removed, or rephrased, but in the meantime it stays in situ. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not contend that 'other articles don't have images, ergo neither should this one'. There is a difference, if you will reread my comments. What is fact is that images are neither required nor forbidden; they are a 'want' rather than a 'need'.

Your speculation that because the photo 'seem[s]' to be a gun show merely highlights the problem; the photo has no provenance. This is further highlighted by your edit summary - "Image description is "private seller showing rifle for sale" and we have no reason to doubt"; likewise, we have no reason to assume its veracity either, because again, the photo has no provenance. In fact, the photo itself and its description constitute patent OR. Certainly if we are to use a photo from a gun show to illustrate this article, we can find an appropriate one taken by a reliable source, such as a news organization. If the illustration is useful because the article content depends upon the existence of what it is illustrating, there must be a source that is not prone to the whims of the author, who claims that it is an example of a private sale, where there is no objective basis for the claim (I see no money being transacted; it appears to be a person *displaying* a firearm, not selling a firearm).

I appreciate your 'massive' opinion regarding the removal; I refer to WP:BOLD. The matter in contention - in my opinion, of course - is not whether the image tag is accurate, the matter should be whether the illustration improves the article. It does not, because - as tagged - it does not illustrate the 'gun show loophole', nor does it have reliable provenance to identify it as actually illustrating one. Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I mispoke above about the photo author's description. What is in question is not whether it is a sale, it is whether it is a private seller being presented (relevant to the article), or a dealer sale (which is obviously not relevant to the article). Anastrophe (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, as I'm about to have dinner (pork chops, sweet potatoes, beer) but we do have provenance of the photo and that's the description. Unless patently false (such as the Tootsie roll dog poop example above) we accept the file description as being an accurate portrayal of the image and what it represents. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a delicious dinner. An individual user's promise or bond or word that something they created is what it is described as being, has no weight at all. We rely upon sources that can be verified. We cannot verify that the photographer's description is accurate, not by any reliable measure. We specifically do _not_ take another editor's word for it that what they created is in fact what is represented. We have no means of verifying that the person shown is a professional dealer or a private individual. Period. If this were the article 'Cats', it would not be a matter of contention. This article's subject matter is however highly contentious, that's patent. When the subject matter is contentious, editors must take significantly more care that what material is presented is backed-up by reliable sources. I will have a look around for copyright-free images from gun shows. This image however really is not acceptable as described. Anastrophe (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and could not find a useful image that stuck to the subject matter, had an appropriate license, and was from a reliable source. I continue to maintain that this photo - or any photo for that matter - does nothing to improve the article. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole" means that, under federal law, private sellers (at a gun show, or elsewhere) are not required to perform background checks of buyers, only FFL holders are, and this enables convicted felons, and certain people with severe psychological problems, to (illegally) buy guns and then go out and commit crimes with them. Although some states require background checks for private sales, so this wouldn't apply in those states. So, even if we were sure we had a picture of a private seller at a gun show, that's not a picture of the gun show loophole. They, the private seller, would have to be (A) selling a gun (B) without performing a background check (C) to someone who was not allowed to possess firearms, because of their criminal or mental health record, who (D) went out and committed a crime with that gun. I don't think that there is such a picture. And if there somehow was, and the picture was licensed so that it could be used on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that including it would make this article better. But maybe it would, so as soon as someone can produce such a picture, let's start discussing whether or not it improves the article. Until then, we just don't have a picture of the gun show loophole. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly WP:OR and as a matter of keeping this a somewhat objective article I have removed the image. Until there is consensus to bring in a better one from a reliable source we cannot allow any editor to stage photos and rely on their word that it is kosher. That is very unencyclopedic. Being bold 172.56.12.209 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, photos are considered an exception to the usual WP:OR rules. See WP:OI. Otherwise, a large number of the illustrations on WP would be forbidden. I don't see any problem with the photo and suggest that it be restored. Felsic2 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, you are incorrect as WP:OI states "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." The caption is subject to OR as is the image if it potrays or makes unsupported arguments. Clearly the image is designed to make an argument that has no credible support. We cannot allow editors to make unsupported claims in print or media. Common sense also dictates that we do not allow staged images to make an OR argument. 172.56.12.209 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A person holding a gun does nothing for the article. Implying it is a private sale is clearly OR and is there to illustrate an unsupported POV. Also considering the lack of credible authenticity of what the image portrays it does not meet the smell test. Something is rotten in Denmark 172.56.12.209 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

• IP, Please do not remove the caption while it is under discussion: it remains until a new consensus emerges. See WP:STATUSQUO

Status Quo contradicts itself and putting it back up is reverting the original good faith edit and edit warring. It must stay down until there is consensus to put it back. It is WP:OR and that overrides the poorly written Status Quo guide. If you are going to lawyer then follow the rules to the T. 208.54.80.183 (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the status quo it the original article at this stage here - the one prior to the controversial edits, and the one that contains the image. You need to understand the concept of WP:BRD - which is "B" for Bold edit, then "R" for revert, and finally "D" for discussion. Any edits after the first "B" - especially when there is this much discussion surrounding it - cannot be considered "bold", and is rather considered "disruptive".

The constant removal of the image is getting in the way of reasonable discourse, because those of us who understand what binds the encyclopedia are getting sidetracked by constantly having to explain the rules to those who don't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(EC)I've also just noticed that the IP address above is 208.54.80.183, which is not a million miles away (both digitally and geographically - Kansas) from blocked IP address 208.54.80.248 - as per the duck test and socking, that makes your arguments pretty much null & void. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The 'gun show loophole' photo

Lets start anew, because the discussion has become muddled between whether the caption is correct, whether the photo comes from a reliable source, whether the provenance of the photo can be objectively determined, or whether the photo is even needed. In what way does this photo, or any other photo coming from an unverifiable source, improve the article? It's really that simple. If a clear rationale that is grounded in policy cannot be articulated, then it should be removed. I have yet to read such a rationale from proponents. Since the source of the photo cannot be objectively verified, then it should indeed be removed immediately - consensus for the photo's inclusion needs to be built before it stays in the article, not after - again, pending a rationale that makes any sense at all is proferred. Anastrophe (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. The photo description claims to be a private seller at a gun show. We have no reason to doubt this, and indeed WP:OI supports the claim that we show good faith in this area. I agree that it doesn't show th egun show loophole, but the gun show loophole is an ephemeral thing, not a physical thing to be seen. The loophole cannot exist without a gun show - and that's what the image shows. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

And in what way does having an image ostensibly from a gun show improve _this_ article? Same is certainly desirable in the Gun Show article - which is linked to in the opening sentence of this article. Since this article describes an ephemeral thing, why is a photo, not of the object of this article, helpful to this article? A photo of a person holding a gun does not improve this article. I don't see WP:OI supporting inclusion of this. It does not illustrate the subject of this article, and the caption is absolutely unverifiable.Anastrophe (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"I don't see WP:OI supporting inclusion"; that's because OI has no bearing on whether to use the image in the article, but focuses on something different (the deliberate manipulation of facts). It's not clear at all that is the case, and WP:AGF bids us to accept the rationale of the uploaded unless there is a problem (they serially misrepresent facts, etc.) – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In what way does this image improve the article? Anastrophe (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Enough for me, but if you wish to propose a better image feel free. – SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear what 'enough for me' means, but I propose no photograph, because it doesn't improve the article at all. Anastrophe (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Darknipples for comment as uploader of the image, and the person who wrote the original caption. – SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Notifying WikiProject Firearms as this is really their expertise. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're hitting the Reset button on the discussion, I'll reiterate my previous post. The picture should be taken down, and probably not replaced. Here's why. "Gun show loophole" means that, under federal law, private sellers (at a gun show, or elsewhere) are not required to perform background checks of buyers, only FFL holders are, and this enables convicted felons, and certain people with severe psychological problems, to illegally buy guns and then go out and commit crimes with them. Although some states require background checks for private sales, so this wouldn't apply in those states. So, a picture of a private seller at a gun show is not illustrative of the gun show loophole. The private seller would have to be (A) selling a gun (B) without performing a background check (C) to someone who was not allowed to possess firearms, because of their criminal or mental health record, who (D) went out and committed a crime with that gun. I don't think there's a picture like that, and even if there were, it might not really help the reader understand the article any better, which would mean leaving it out anyway. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo irrelevant. Off topic. Get rid. Owaavaax (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that we can disregard such a comment from a two day old account which has already been blocked once for vandalism and personal attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment. You are welcome to disregard anyone's views just as I can disregard yours. However when the push comes to the shove, my history of being blocked (which was for attacks, not vandalism) and the age of my account will not be taken into consideration. Either I am fit to edit or I am not and I have followed this discussion and my decision firmly lies in favour of those wishing for the image removal because it is quite simply - NOT - a gunshow pic. Nobody has provided any sources to show that it is. Otherwise we can just have pictures of guns taken from movies. Owaavaax (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong when you claim that it is not a gunshow photo. It is part of a group of nine photos uploaded to Wikipedia Commons on one day last year, and those nine photos taken as a whole make it crystal clear that all nine including this one were taken at a gun show. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Owaavaax, you vandalized The Mad Genius and Doctor X (film) on July 22. Your record here is clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Response. For the final time, those were test edits, and have been atoned for by the full serving of a block. I refuse from this point to enter into discussion about my past actions. Stick to the topic. I am a legit editor. If you don't appreciate my opposition to you, take it up with the sysops. I resolutely stand by my point which is valid - there is no source for the photo's relevance, and my final vote is remove. If you don't like it, I can't help you. Owaavaax (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Cullen, you should and I suspect know better than to keep poisoning the well against that editor. Without looking into it seems they are sorry and that should be accepted at face value (Good faith). You are now making personal attacks on them which you pointed out they made. We all know the word for that. It is likely a gun show photo (vs. a staged photo) but an extremely unlikely example of a private sale (everything points to a dealer and uploader incorrectly labeled many other dealer sales as private). The picture would be fine to demonstrate a gun show but not a private sale at a gun show. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have made no personal attacks nor directed any insults toward that editor. Instead, I have accurately and neutrally described their editing behavior in recent days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removing this photo although I agree that the caption can be improved. Images are not considered reliable sources, and do not need to comply with WP:RS. The notion that the image is staged is demonstrably false as the editor who took the photo uploaded a group of nine images to Wikipedia Commons, all taken the same day, which looked at as a whole clearly show that this photo was taken at a gun show. The Tootsie Roll analogy is invalid as there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a firearm offered for sale at a gun show. This is a Good article which means it went through extensive peer review in 2015, and editors on all sides of the controversy scrutinized it closely. The Good article criteria call for a photo unless one is unavailable. There are at least nine photos on Commons to choose from, and consensus was that this is the most appropriate for the article. There is no way under the sun that we can use a copyrighted photo from a news organization, so there is no point in discussing it. A photo of a firearm offered for sale at a gun show clearly improves the article, as shown by extensive past discussion and input from many editors. Before this photo was added, there was widespread agreement that the article would be better off with a photo, if a freely licensed photo could be found. The seller in this case clearly consented to the photo, since they are holding the firearm toward the camera. The notion that any such image must illustrate exactly the topic of the article is false. Closely related illustrative photos and images are common in Wikipedia articles. I suggest an indisputably factual caption: "A firearm offered for sale at a gun show". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"There is no way under the sun that we can use a copyrighted photo from a news organization, so there is no point in discussing it." Since nobody suggested doing so, what's the point of bringing it up?

I disagree that the photo "clearly" improves the article. It does not increase my understanding of the gun show loophole even slightly. Photos are nice; they are not necessary or required, GA or not.

"an indisputably factual caption: "A firearm offered for sale at a gun show". " Certainly it is disputable. It is a photo of a person holding a firearm. We don't know if it was for sale, but more importantly, firearms being for sale at a gun show are not the topic of this article. We don't know if the seller was a dealer or private party, which is very much material to whether it is related to the subject matter. The photo doesn't illustrate the topic of this article. It adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject of this article. Anastrophe (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We always assume good faith of other editors even if we disagree with their personal point of view. The editor who took this photo worked very hard to improve the article to "Good article" status, and there is zero evidence that they have falsified anything. Your comments on the credibility of the photo are groundless. Your assertion that a photo in a Good article adds nothing is your unsupported personal opinion which is contrary to what many other editors have said for years about the desirability of a photo in this article. Someone above did suggest using a photo from a news site. Feel free to take and upload a better photo for discussion as a replacement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggested getting a photo from a news site _if it had appropriate permissions_. I'm aware that much of what I've written is my personal opinion. I am guided by my appreciate of articles for the quality of their content. A photo of a person holding a gun does not better anyone's understanding of this subject matter, particularly when it leaves open inference that it actually illustrates the subject matter of this article, when it does not. But whatevs. Anastrophe (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of photos on news sites are restricted by copyright, and of the tiny minority that we could use, many are from Wikimedia Commons. Your general suggestion is not helpful, although bringing a specific alternative forward for discussion would be welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The above said, I honestly do not care enough about this dispute to spend any more time on it. I leave it to my peers to decide. Anastrophe (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Photo Including the photo adds nothings but doubt of its meaning. The uploader also uploaded other photos which are clearly FFL licensed sales and she labeled them as private sales. She clearly had no clue what she was taking pictures of. Whether intentionally deceptive or just plain ignorance only they know. The picture is likely a dealer with all the other guns on same table and those who have a first hand knowledge of guns shows know this and laugh at the collective ignorance of Wikipedia. Is this the real image you want to portray? 172.56.12.50 (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Reply That is exactly why I suggested editing the caption. The photo speaks for itself as an illustration of a firearm being offered for sale at a gun show. You say it is "likely" a dealer which indicates that you are not 100% sure. Maybe you are right, maybe not. Why don't you upload a better photo if you do not like this one? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You a free to take your own advice but remember to make sure the photo realistically supports the point you are trying to make in the article. This picture clearly does not. It extremely unreasonable to believe it is a private sale if you have first hand knowledge or have read all the comments. If you do not know what you are arguing about then why are you here, to argue or push an agenda? It seems many have their head buried in the sand and want to deny the obvious. This photo does not represent the article. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you upload a better photo if you don't like this one? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Take own advice Maybe you could find one but maybe they are no where near San Francisco. Can't speak about SF due the inexperience of never being there though. Well I guess I could as many seem to be doing that here but I will refrain. PS The link to article in latest caption clearly shows it is a WASR-10 semi-auto, maybe that is where it belongs. Too many amateurs who have never been to a gun show and are clueless but want to add confusion. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

IP, stop edit warring and stop lying. You need to provide a reliable source that THAT particular weapon is not a lookalike, and other brand, a counterfeit or a model. You can't. The previous caption was far better before your OR guesswork. And no, despite your lie, I have never been "banned", either here or on Commons. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• No IP, I did not call you a liar: I classified your incorrect accusations as lies. There is a difference. You may now stop removing the comments whcih are asking you to provide a reliable source

Pinging Bishonen so they are aware of the ongoing problem of the IP deleting comments. (I'll also leave it to them to decide whether the "cat shit" comments below add anything to the discussion aside from another attempt at a PA. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've self-reverted, but what the IP is claiming is not a sufficient source to claim what they are claiming. <rm personal attack, Bishonen | talk.> - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

<rm personal attack, don't put it back. Comment on content, not contributors. Bishonen | talk.'>

I question what the utility of this image is supposed to be. If we assume the person is indeed at a gun show and this is indeed a private seller rather than an FFL dealer (and even if we accept the first we have no way of confirming the second), this still only illustrates that people can hold rifles at gun shows (which I'm fairly sure most people would not regard as a concept requiring illustration) and not anything about the legal loophole itself. It's like showing a picture of someone sitting in a car in the article about the speed limit with the caption "a man driving at a speed." Herr Gruber (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Or a cat that is dead and saying it is sleeping. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a closer analogy would be if spider web had a single illustration of a bug that might be a spider sitting on the ground with no web, and we only had the uploader's word that said bug is actually a spider. This illustrates the useful concept "some bug exists," but it in no way illustrates what a spider web is. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the earlier analogy of a Tootsie roll but I would change it up a bit. Calling a picture of cat shit on a table (cats will shit anywhere sometimes, even here) is Tootsie roll because it looks like one is absurd. But I am sure some unfamiliar with Tootsie rolls and Cat Shit would be convinced by a photo. Those with a familiar (however not unduly familiar) with cats or Tootsie rolls would likely know better and laugh at the collective ignorance of those who are convinced and swear it is a Tootsie Roll. 172.56.12.50 (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that under the interpretation of the rules being used (image uploader's description has automatic provenance on par with a reliable source) how would we deal with an image the uploader captioned "Bigfoot sighted in the wild" or "working perpetual motion machine?" Even if AGF is bought up, good faith means the uploader is not being deliberately deceptive; it does not necessarily follow that the description they gave must be factually accurate since there is such a thing as an honest mistake. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Big foot is real, there is even a picture on Wikipedia of one. There is the logic being presented here. Pure Horseshit but we are not allowed to call it what it really is. The photo points out the collective ignorance of Wikipedia, I ask again is that the picture we want to portray here? Several days of pure absurdity to remove such a poor illustration for the article. Pure Rockin Horseshit 172.56.12.50 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• I still have the address and name of the company that puts on the show, but I still don't see how ANY of that is even relevant, other than the fact that I am responsible for obtaining them at my own expense. As I recall, there wasn't much dispute about which pic to use, as there were plenty to choose from. The pic was here when we received Good Article status, and I know Zwerg Nase did a good job. Darknipples (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not the company who put on the show so much as whether the person holding up the weapon is a private seller or licensed FFL dealer that people are questioning: if it's the latter it doesn't really fit the article. Personally I don't feel it adds much since it doesn't really do anything to illustrate the concept of a contentious aspect of a piece of legislation. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please also see the ARCHIVED discussion on the pic HERE [30] First of all, it's probably not a good idea to go around removing Article pics before discussing it with other editors here, and it helps to at least have an alternate suggestion. Secondly, your opinions are entirely welcome, but I'd request the proper channels and processes for a CONSENSUS, be utilized. Darknipples (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought the policy was take it down until there's consensus to keep it up, my bad. Herr Gruber (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for refreshing our memories, Darknipples. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

An IP editor is edit warring to remove the image against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will not restore the image at this time but I am warning all editors that edit warring is a blockable offense. This article is under discretionary sanctions, and disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• In reality Cullen is the only one who has exceeded WP:3R and in less than 2 hours check the history. Rather ironic she would excuse others of doing something only she has done. 24.159.206.108 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Errmmm.... no. Cullen has reverted three times, no more within a two hour window: that does not in any way "exceed" 3RR. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My skin is very thick, I know how to count, I know my gender, and I know how to deal with disruptive editors. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead by IP editor

Due to the vandalism, and poor behavior by recent IPs, I failed to notice some of IP's recent "contributions" to the lead. There needs to be some discussion about their changes to the lead that occurred without a consensus. [31] Make sure to mention whether you support or oppose the changes by IP. My concerns are the quality of the cited sources, the WP:Undue nature of the context used, and using Wikipedia's voice to pass off an OPINION PIECE as factual. It certainly does not belong in the lead. Darknipples (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• "In this latter view, regulating private sales at one type of location (gun shows) but not at other locations would create an exception in the law rather than eliminate one, while forcing any (or all) private firearm sales to go through dealers having access to the NICS background check system would be unacceptably intrusive and border on universal firearm registration." [32][33]

• According to their own About us page, thetruthaboutguns.com is a blog site, so it fails as a reliable source and should be removed. – SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Breitbart any good, or do I have to ask? Darknipples (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Breitbart is part of Breitbart News; I don't know anything about the organisation, except that it's politically conservative. It would probably pass as being a RS (on a very thin reading I've given it) but it would be worth checking the RS notice board to see if there has been any discussion there first. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Several questions remain, but I think removing the blog citation is prudent at this time. Let's further examine the bb source to find out how much of the context is from that cite. Darknipples (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the Breitbart citation that even mentions GSL, let alone, the context the editor wrote. In fact, the article's subject is about UBC. If anyone wants to take it to RSN they are welcome to do so, but I'm removing it on grounds of WP:OR WP:SYNTH. Darknipples (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather than OR, I think it's a clumsy case of WP:SYNTHESIS; either way, it's enough of a ground to remove the claim. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

ARCHIVE 3.13.15

[34] - Darknipples (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Improperly identified as private sale

This picture is from the March 7-8 Premier Gun show in Mesquite TX just like this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Rifles_3_%26_half.JPG which was taken by the same uploader on the same date and close to the same time according to meta data. She made a claim this other photo was a private sale but the name of the Federal Firearms License holder is clear on the tags. The license # is included in the discussion as is the dealers Facebook page. This proves that Bulls shit conclusively whether intentional or out of ignorance is not important. What is clear is the misrepresentation but I am sure some are dug in so deep ideologically they will not pull their head out. Hope that helps dispel any myths regarding this photo. I have removed it. Prudence would dictate leaving it off this page. 24.159.206.108 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

While I happen to agree that the photo adds nothing to the article and has no verifiable provenance, the photo in this article does not show dealer tags, FFL license number, or any other identifying features, so you can't claim that that photo is not of a private seller. However, that merely puts a finer point on the problem with the photo - it is being used as an illustration for "gun show loophole", but there's no evidence of at all to suggest that that is what it actually is a photo of. Anastrophe (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reread Above What you argue is not what is stated above. The linked picture demonstrates clearly that DN does not know a private sale from a dealer. That is proven by her other upload I linked which she claimed was a private sale. The licensed dealers name is on the tags. Her other photos also clearly indicate licensed dealer with inventory control tags, electronic alarm cables and gross number of weapons on table. Of course those who have no clue about gun shows would be easily deceived. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time. This is quite easy to see if someone remains reasonable, dligent and does not allow their anti-gun agenda cloud the reality. 24.159.206.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The concerns expressed should be taken up at Wikimedia Commons, where the image is hosted, and where the description of the image can be edited as appropriate. Here on English Wikipedia, the image is being used to illustrate a firearm being offered for sale at a gun show. There is nothing about the current use of the image that violates any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Some editors do not like it, but there was a clear consensus in favor of this image during the Good article review in 2015. There is NO consensus to remove the image, so please do not do so unless you can show that consensus to remove exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ironic earlier you said they should be discussed here but you are tossing out a red herring to throw everyone off track. The issue is does this photo represent a private sale. It does not as it is a licensed dealer at a Mesquite TX gunshot on March 7-8 2015 by Premier Gun shows. I am sure I can get a hold of the dealer by sending copy of photo to Gun show promoter. They would find it interesting someone here is claiming they are allowing a private seller to rent a table to conduct an illegal business in violation of federal law. That outcome will be interesting. They can easily serve the foundation to give info to court about uploader. Remember all here are legally liable for false claims and misrepresentation. 24.159.206.108 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• IP, Are you making a legal threat here? - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, I blocked them for legal threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like they are notifying the promoter and warning that the promoter has legal recourse. That is not a legal threat but a sound warning to not falsely represent. Good for them. Not so good for the uploader. This is the reason we should use some better judgement. 172.58.142.198 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• And given your Illinois location, it looks like you are in fact the same person attempting to circumvent your block. I'm sure Ymblanter, or any of the other recently involved admins would be able to examine this a little more closely... - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Google says Bellvue, WA over 1000 miles away maybe 1500 from IL the second biggest drain on the American economy behind CA. WA is a state that adds to the economy like TX (the largest source of federal funds). Texas economy is bigger than most European countries excepting Germany and Russia. Washington has world's largest aircraft manufacturer. Illinois has some of the highest murder and violence rates despite some of the most restrictive gun rules. They also have among the highest birth out of wedlock. A real social Marxist utopia. IL=failure, WA=suceess, TX=Excellence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:A0BA:2303:0:47:2D3A:5301 (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are talking about. The IP address 172.58.142.198 is active in Elmhurst, Illinois], close to the IP 172.56.12.50, which is active in Chicago (and both using T Mobile to edit). - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Geo IP locations vary widely in accuracy, and cellular networks are far, far worse.. There's little to be learned from these two IP's which are on widely separate netblocks. If you look on WolframAlpha, 172.56.12.50 is listed as Chicago, as you say. However, it lists 172.58.142.198 as being in New York. Yet another site https://geoiptool.com/en/?ip=172.58.142.198 lists the former also in Chicago...and the latter in Kansas. And yet another https://www.ultratools.com/tools/geoIp result lists it in Bellevue Washington, just as IP user above stated. TCP/IP doesn't work the way it seems you think it does, particularly with mobile devices. You cannot draw *any* conclusions from 'proximity' of IP addresses within widely divergent netblocks. With the rollout in recent years of Carrier-grade NAT, you could find two IP's in the same /24 that are thousands of miles apart. Note: I work in the cellular industry, and specifically on technologies related to geolocation. Anastrophe (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

On a similar topic, although none of that has anything to do with the giant handfuls of crap that are currently being slung, I'd like to remind you that someone just threatened me with legal action etc...So maybe, just asking nicely, we can focus on that briefly...Darknipples (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no, that should not be the focus. Correcting a misapprehension about whether one can claim that two different IP's are the same person is a matter deserving of attention, simply on the basis that it is inappropriate to speculate on such matters on article talk - such concerns belong elsewhere. Likewise, the (toothless bluster) threats of legal action are really irrelevant to article talk as well. So, no - we really have no need to focus on it here, since it has nothing to do with this article. I'll happily remove my educational comments if you'll remove your preceding comments, and the talk page can resume its true function, discussion of article improvement. Anastrophe (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP is so wrong, and so inappropriate on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. Do I even need to respond to this? This was a private seller. We had another photo of a firearm that even had a sign that said PRIVATE SALE on it, but the CONSENSUS was to go with this one instead. If anyone wants to know the name of the company or where the show was held, all they have to do is ask. The show was around the time the photos were uploaded. Sheesh...Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Lastly, some of the FFL's were selling their personal collections, and there was a mixture of private and licensed sellers at the show. Photography was allowed at the show, so I doubt very much the company is going to have any objection, the seller certainly didn't. Darknipples (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Darknipples, I think that it would be a good idea for you to identify the date and location of the show. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It was located at the San Antonio Events Center, 8111 Meadow Leaf, San Antonio, Texas 78227. I don't remember the exact date because it was over a year ago, but it was the weekend prior to the upload if anyone has a calendar. Darknipples (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Now that I've looked, I would say it was the same day, March 7th 2015. Darknipples (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the metadata near the bottom of the image page, the photo was taken at 13:49, 7 March 2015. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

So, unless this topic has any other point, other than to accuse me of misconduct and threaten me with legal action, I'm going to go contemplate making a few complaints of my own. Feel free to ping me if something important comes up. Darknipples (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Darknipples. The OP speculated that the event was in Mesquite, TX which is 280 miles from San Antonio. That is quite an error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove the Image Anyone can call the dealer Dark nipples labeled as a private sale here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rifles_3_%26_half.JPG&oldid=152631686 which DK LB has since removed. The licensed dealer tag is clear. Blackland Outdoor Sports of Greenville, TX is within an hours drive of Mesquite and over 5 hours from San Antonio. [35] They go to the Mesquite show in early March. Please do explain how they were in San Antonio at the same time. Talk about the Tootsie rolls being tossed around and eagerly eaten up by some less discerning types.208.54.80.197 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Whether the vendor is a dealer or not, the person would be easily identifiable from those two Commando daggers on the table. One's a type three (probably William Rodgers) with a brown leather scabbard, and the other's a chrome-plated paperknife. The kukri's a recently-made tourist one- the light brown handle is distinctive (there's probably a lion-head pommel). To me, that range of cheap stock says "dealer" (as does the mobile phone with the client list underneath). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I am interested to know why anyone would bring up a pic that isn't even being used in the article for this talk page. BTW the image description you are discussing was updated by OP a few days ago. It no longer says private sale. [36] Is that all ya got? Darknipples (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm discussing the image used in this article (the one you took and the you've just re-instated). I've just had a closer look- that's not a client list- it looks more like an auction notecard. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• …also his mate's in a wheelchair. Good job the photo was taken on an iPhone, else we'd know a lot more . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting Use of Third person referring to oneself DK is referring to the OP in the 3rd person which is in fact herself. They apparently do not want others to know they falsely labeled a dealer sale as a private sale there and several other uploads from same gun show. They have now acknowledged their error, intentional or out of ignorance you decide, and relabeled it and several other images as just gun show sales. As the gun show and dealer have been identified they really had no other course. And it is correctly surmised that the dealer holding the semi-automatic WASR-10 could easily be identified by the promoters by the militaria items in the picture. Gun shows are really a close knit group who interact quite often and would recognize the display. I would not want to be the one responsible for making false claims about legitimate businesses. I would never apply the false label of a private sale due to personal responsibility. 172.56.12.71 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• REGARDLESS that image no longer says private sale [37]. Take it to wikimedia commons if you so choose. I will consider any further discussion of this subject as a continuation of disruptive editing behavior. Darknipples (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hard to tell from the angle whether the helmet's Spanish or German. Judging by the careless way the vendor's using it as a rest for the gun, I'd say Spanish. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)