Talk:Gun control/Archive 10

There is no consensus to simply erase a significant aspect of the gun control debate from this article
I suggest that a more useful section would read as follows, first with wikicode, then without:

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

Without wikicode:

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

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


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


 * Why do we need Hitler to tell us that occupiers typically disarm local populations? Surely no one questions that.  The U.S. for example disarmed or attempted to disarm Ba'athists, Taliban and al Qaeda.  The subtext is that because occupiers disarm local populations, the American Occupation government is disarming citizens because they plan to turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany.  Hence fears of door-to-door gun confiscations and FEMA concentration camps.  TFD (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're completely right. MilesMoney (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll be curious what others think. It seems to me that the Warsaw & Poland stuff is key. Even if gun control opponents are wrong that gun control in Germany made a big difference, that says nothing about whether gun control in places like Poland made a big difference. I'd like a balanced and neutral section, not just a section that favors only one side. I strongly support including the Hitler quote because it balances the paragraph by supporting a major argument of gun control opponents: that gun control leaves a population more vulnerable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Disarming the population you're conquering has almost nothing to do with gun control. MilesMoney (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your POV is reflected by the sentence about Harcourt. We can't very well say "Harcourt and Miles Money", eh?  All the sources that discuss the Warsaw Uprising in relation to gun control are discussing conquered territory.  So why not follow the sources?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should go with our sources. But what our sources tell us is that the whole idea of connecting American gun control to Naziism is an NRA talking point. Read the Fordham paper, for example. Why are we trying to pass off an NRA talking point as fact? MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'll re-read the proposed paragraph, you'll see that much of it is devoted to carefully explaining why the NRA talking point may be defective. In any event, I've got other commitments right now, and so regretfully excuse myself, but will look forward to comments from other editors.  Happy holidays.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The proposal violates WP:NPOV - asserting speculative opinion as fact - and appears to be synthesis. More fundamentally though, unless and until it can be demonstrated through relevant reliable sources that the disarmament of Jews in Nazi Germany is seen as significant by anyone but sections of the U.S. gun lobby, the inclusion of material on NaziGermany is unjustifiable. The fringe views of sections of the U.S. pro-gun lobby no more merit inclusion in this article than any other fringe views in any other article. And without verifiable evidence that this viewpoint has any credibility beyond the said lobby, Wikipedia must assume that it is indeed fringe - and the onus is on those suggesting otherwise is to provide the necessary evidence from credible sources. This is really all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, since the proposed content is unjustified anyway, I'd have to point out that there is an obvious and glaring failure of logic in the text - Warsaw isn't in Germany, making the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 utterly irrelevant.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Andy. Some brief questions....Do you think the book by Carter is fringe?  Do you think the proposed paragraph distorts anything Carter said?  Do you think it's a fringe point of view that if the German Jews had weapons after Kristallnacht then that might have hastened their own demise?  Do you think it's a fringe view that Hitler was unlikely to be deterred from the final solution even if the German Jews had been armed?  Do you think it's a fringe view that Hitler said what he is quoted above as having said?  Do you think it's a fringe view that he disarmed the Poles prior to the Warsaw Uprising?  Do you think it's a fringe view that a vast number of reliable sources discuss (and disagree with) the opinion that gun control within Germany led to the holocaust?  Thanks in advance for answering.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in speculative debate. Provide the necessary evidence - as Wikipedia policy requires - or accept that material on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you decline to answer a single one of the very relevant questions that I asked in good faith, I withdraw my thanks, and decline to answer any inquiry you may have about a phrase ("Weapons Law of 1938") which is not in the paragraph I proposed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing 'relevant' about discussions concerning material for which the necessary sourcing to prove relevance have not been provided (and if your contribution isn't supposed to be about Nazi laws concerning the regulation of firearms, what in hell's name are you posting it on this talk page for? - this isn't a forum) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't even try to ask me a question after dismissing every reasonable question I have put to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

agree with Anythingyouwant, you can't just blank sections when there is obviously no consensus. Please come to talk and discuss the merits civilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanonymous (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your questions are not reasonable. They are based on the assumption that we should provide parity between reasonable views and those expressed by fringe elements in the U.S. who see gun control laws as part of a conspiracy.  TFD (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no such assumption. No way is it unreasonable to ask whether a source is fringe or not (that was my first question).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Allow me to simplify this for you. If you can't show that this view is held outside of the NRA PR dept., there's no way that section can be in the article. The onus is on you. MilesMoney (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What view is that, Miles? Perhaps this one in the proposed paragraph: "Had Jews been armed following Kristallnacht, and therefore been able to resist with force in 1938, they may well have hastened the genocide rather than averting it."  You seriously think that that is a fringe view?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The view that Nazi policies about guns have any relevance to gun control issues. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the nazi gun policies were gun control against the Jews especially the laws that banned Jews from having arms. It's pretty plain. milesmoney, let me make it simpler for you.....the content is sourced credibly.  Why are you bringing the nra into this?  Do you refute the sources? Prove it here with logic.  No personal attacks, no insults, no marginalizations.....discredit the sources.   Please do so logically....bring it.otherwise go away.  I tire too. -Justanonymous (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of reliable sources regarding Nazi firearms regulation. That isn't what is required. What is required is evidence that anyone but fringe elements of the U.S. gun lobby consider such regulations as of any particular relevance to a general discussion on firearms regulation on an international level. Provide such evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out earlier, one of the sources already in the article links this line of reasoning to NRA PR. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * not good enough. Plenty of bias on all sides. Just because one biased group agrees with an argument does not make it unworthy here....take small arms survey.  You're perfectly happy with that even though it's pro gun control....why no issue from you with that blatant bias??? What's good for the goose.. Now make a solid argument or go away..-Justanonymous (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there to reply to, so I'll just remind you that the Fordham article proves my point. Merry Christmas! MilesMoney (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are probably more sources claiming that this idea is a creation of the NRA's PR department than there are claims by the NRA about everything. Whether or not Dodd was inspired by his father's investigation into the Reich's firearms laws neither of them has ever addressed. That they haven't denied the charge over the decades may or may not be significant; they're politicians, so how much faith can be put in such statements? People forget that the NRA was in favor of the GCA '68, so they'd be complicit in the Nazi gun implementation you're claiming they opposed ... htom (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Given that yet again, no source whatsoever has been provided to support the assertion that the Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 are "a significant aspect of the gun control debate" in terms of the international scope of this article, rather than merely the obsession of elements of the U.S. gun lobby, it has to be noted that the section title is misleading, to say the least... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC) The source I cited by Carter (Guns in American Society, pp. 411-414, which you may want to actually look at) is emphatically not from the perspective of the U.S. gun lobby, and it instead argues against that lobby. Like it or not, the U.S. gun lobby is huge and influential; its views about Germany circa 1938 are widespread, and rebuttals to it are also widespread. The theory that the U.S. gun lobby is not entirely correct about Germany circa 1938 is broadly supported by scholarship in the field of gun control, it is mainstream, and it is the majority view. In contrast, the so-called NRA view is a significant-minority view. The mainstream rebuttal to the NRA view is given clearly and concisely in the proposed paragraph.

The paragraph proposed at the top of this section says: "The Nazis disarmed the Jews after Kristallnacht in November 1938…." This is a virtually undisputed fact that occurs in lots of reliable sources, including many histories of Germany, various biographies, many books about gun control both in the U.S. and generally, et cetera, et cetera. Here are a few more sources: I'm having some difficulty understanding why you have singled out this factoid about Germany, instead of, say, the material in this Wikipedia article about Japan or Australia or the United States, which each has a separate subsection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007).
 * O’Neill, Terry. Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints Digests), pp. 46-47 (Greenhaven Press 2000).
 * Fisanick, Christina. Gun Control, p. 15 (Greenhaven Press 2010).
 * I'm sure they will be discussed in due course. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll be curious to learn what you think about them, though based on your comments thus far I will not expect enthusiastic satisfaction. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we include a fringe view in the first place, even if we also include the rebuttal? This seems like stealing credibility from critics. The analogy would be to say Creationism is science because scientists refute it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, a portion of the so-called Halbrook-NRA thesis may be fringe, and I am willing to suppose so for the sake of argument (and even for the sake of editing this Wikipedia article), but it is not a fringe view that Hitler and the Nazis said and did what they said and did. But getting to your point, WP:FRINGE does not command: "do not mention any fringe viewpoint".  Quite the contrary, Wikipedia seeks to educate people about why particularly common views are actually fringe views.  WP:FRINGE says: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear".  It does not say "delete fringe information on sight and wage war at the talk page to keep it deleted."  In the article about evolution, for example, we have this and much more: "In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Today, the modern evolutionary synthesis is accepted by a vast majority of scientists.[49] However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[284]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether the Nazis took weapons from Jews is not and never has been the issue. The issue is framing these events as a notable event in the history of gun control, which no reputable historian does, but which the NRA does. And which this article currently does. That's the issue. &mdash; goethean 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you suggested any alternative framing, other than blanking?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No I haven't, because the content should not be in the article at all. Why should I suggest an alternative way to insert NRA talking points into the article? I haven't suggested an alternative because I respect Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia readers. Why should our readers be indoctrinated with this paranoid, senile version of history? The neutral alternative is to remove the section. If you insist, it may be possible to write a well-sourced, well-framed version. But the Nazi material as it is must go, and it must go now. &mdash; goethean 19:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do suggest "a well-sourced, well-framed version".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I most certainly will not, because I believe that our readers and the Wikipedia project are better served by a refusal to insert crazy NRA talking points into articles. It is only as a compromise that I offered to consider such a proposal. &mdash; goethean 19:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, please suggest compromuse language. I am open to considering it.  I have tried above to draft such a paragraph that explains why the majority view is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * From the first source (emphasis mine) ,

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

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


 * From the second source (emphasis mine) ,

 Then come the Hitler quotes, such as this one: [quote above]. Hitler made that statement in 1942, not anytime even remotely close to his assumption of power. And he made the statement in reference to the people of countries he had conquered. I’m not defending Hitler, but the fact is, this is what conquerors do when they occupy a foreign land. Guess what the United States and NATO tried to do in Afghanistan in 2002-2003: Disarm all Afghan militias and establish the central government as the sole authority in charge of the country’s security. Guess what the Northern Ireland peace accord set out to do in 1998: Decommission weapons and disarm the militias. When you fail to do this, you get a situation like the one that exists in Lebanon, with Hezbollah competing against the central government for the claim to authority over the Lebanese people. So, in that context, Hitler was simply stating what conquerors as well as peacemakers have stated for decades if not centuries. But did Hitler disarm his own people? No. In fact, the supposed "disarmament" campaign in Germany was the Law on Firearms and Ammunition passed in 1928, specifically to stop the growth of private militias, such as the right-wing brownshirts, and to prevent coup attempts such as the one Hitler attempted in 1923. '''Hitler's rise to power and subsequent dictatorial domination was not the result of gun control. It was in spite of it.'''

References

If we are going to have a section on "Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms" it must be properly sourced. Currently it is not. Arguing that consensus is required before removing material that is not properly sourced or uses sources in misleading manner is not in the best interests of this project. Please take the time to read over the sources and govern yourselves accordingly. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks properly sourced to me. Instead of waving the sources, please specify what is unsupported or otherwise incorrect.  I provided external links to both sources, so people could already easily see what they say. The sources say much more than you quoted, but obviously we cannot include it all, and you have omitted quoting parts that support the draft paragraph.
 * Moreover, you have incorrectly represented the sources for the proposed paragraph. It does not cite to "Parker".
 * Additionally, the proposed paragraph is not in the Wikipedia article. It is a subject of discussion, and hopefully improvement.  Therefore, I am bewildered by your comment about "removing material".  How can material be removed if it has not yet been inserted?
 * I would be glad to present additional sources if you would identify what particular parts of the proposed paragraph are not adequately sourced. Did I misquote Hitler?  Or perhaps the first sentence is incorrect ("Participants in the gun control debate have on occasion alleged that restrictive firearms policies in Germany rendered Jews defenseless against genocide during World War II")?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting your wrong citation to Parker, ArtifexMayhem. Also, please keep something in mind regarding the second source, which is an editorial in the Dallas Morning News.  Since it is an opinion piece, I deliberately surmised that the source is reliable only for statements of fact, such as the Hitler quote.  It is not reliable for opinion, unless it is attributed in-text, which I saw no need for.  It would be against Wikipedia policy to use that source as if its opinions were reliable, and so much of what you quoted is irrelevant, and therefore quite misleading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref tags were included in sections above without an associated template. So they appeared in the  of this section. It was not a "wrong citation." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It came out looking like an assertion by you that I had cited Parker, which I did not do. Thanks for fixing the error.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Circling a couple posts back, yes, in the wording there seems to be confusion on what is and isn't in there. What is currently in there is a short, heavily sourced paragraph with a straightforward description of gun laws and disarmament in Nazi Germany. What is discussed above (and which has gone in an out of the article over the last several months) is analysis an opinions on that. That is NOT currently in the article. The article had "analysis" and opinion type coverage, but it is NOT currently in the article. The recent attempted blanking was of the small amount of "mundane" coverage that is currently in the article, not the analysis etc. that is being discussed above.  North8000  (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, the current version is NOT well sourced and neither is the proposal. Please read the sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the same thing?   What's in there now (on Nazi Germany) is straigtforward history type statements, with a lot of sourcing. (and that is what a couple of folks attempted to blank on Christmas day) The analysis / inferences / opinion stuff  which was in the article is currently not in there, was not in there even before the attempted blanking, and that type of thing is what is being discussed above.  (Or are you saying that the sourcing is insufficient to support the straightforward history stuff that is currently in there? If so, we could pick a few and go to wp:rsn, but I would think that that would be a wp:snow  "yes" for straightforward historical statements.)      Sincerely,   North8000  (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not "straightforward history" to say what no reputable historian would ever say or ever endorse, or to say what you have FAILED to provide sourcing for. The Holocaust is NOT an instance of gun control, and you have FAILED to find a source to back up that bullshit claim. You've failed to find a source because no reputable historian would ever make such ludicrous claims as are made in this article which is filled with your NRA garbage. NRA talking points are not "straightforward history" and to say so is a LIE. "Blanking" the section is bringing the article in line with basic Wikipedia NPOV policy, which your actions have repeatedly and flagrantly violated, and for which you would face serious sanctions if any Wikipedia administrator had the backbone to enforce basic Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean 15:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Christmas Day? Is Wikipedia a Christian organization? &mdash; goethean 15:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm Jewish myself, and have never been an NRA member. Christmas Day is a fairly common term to designate a day of the year.  It's not exclusively a term reserved for use by Christians, or by NRA members.  Atheists often refer to "Thanksgiving", for example.  Do you have reliable sources to the contrary?  If so, they must be FRINGE. I think we should stop talking about this gun control stuff, and instead focus on this kind of holiday nomenclature issue exclusively.  What do you say?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that not all the people in the world live in the United States. TFD (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Misrepresentation of sources? No surprise there. Still, Carter for one is an ideal source for any article which covers the U.S. gun debate, as he accurately summarises the tactics of the pro-gun 'holocaust imagery' crowd: "rather than examine evidence scrupulously, some adherents of the Nazi analogy cherry-pick it by decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odds with their thesis." What it doesn't establish of course is whether this tendentious cherry-picked and decontextualised 'data' (and of course the description of it as such) belongs in this article at all - as I have said, we need sources (proper ones, not tendentious nonsense) which describe the firearms regulation level in broad international terms - where I've seen no evidence that the argumentum ad Hitlerum of Harcourt and co. has had the slightest traction at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a brief correction to your tirade, Andy: Harcourt has criticized and denigrated the so-called NRA view, and he has immense traction in the scholarly literature. If you want to accuse me of misrepresentation, I would have expected that you (unlike Artifex) might do me the favor of quoting something specific from the paragraph I proposed, so that I can respond specifically.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your proposed text is fine if it goes in the "Studies, debate, and opinions" section, and not in the "History" section. You know, since it is an argument, and not mainstream history. Like it was before User:ROG5728's bad edit in April 2013. &mdash; goethean 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Although you need a better (much better, like scholarly) source than the Dallas Morning News editorial opinion piece blog post(!) for that incredibly hackneyed/NRA BFF Hitler quotation which shouldn't be in the article at all. &mdash; goethean 17:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How come? Does anyone dispute that the quote is accurate? I can get more sources, but why?  You say it's hackneyed, but where is the policy or guideline against hackneyed quotes by extremely famous people that are extremely relevant?  If I get more sources confirming the quote, it would still be hackneyed in your view.  Do I need a source explicitly saying "The Hitler quote is not hackneyed"?  If so, I'd rather not waste my time trying to find it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be self-evident why a reliable source is needed for your ripped-out-of-context Hitler quotation. See WP:V for details.


 * Yes, it is a stupid, highly instrumental quotation. Let's give an example. In writing a history of the German language, should we quote Mark Twain's well-known insults of the German language? Mark Twain is extremely famous. People ho hate the German language would find his quotations highly relevant. We need to try to write a high-quality article which serves our readers, rather than bludgeoning them with our intense feelings about how GUN CONTROL IS NAZIS!!!111 If you must quote Hitler, then (1) it must be in the "Studies" section, not "History", and (2), you must cite a reputable, non-gun nut historian who uses the Hitler quotation in an article on gun control. Quality articles. Don't bludgeon the reader. &mdash; goethean 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hitler seems much more relevant to a paragraph about Nazism than Mark Twain is to a paragraph about the German language. You really think that's a valid comparison? You object to articles by "gun nuts", but the cited source is obviously not such an article.  How many "quality articles" would be sufficient, given that you have not cast an iota of doubt on the authenticity of the quote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hitler seems much more relevant to a paragraph about Nazism
 * We're writing about gun control, not Nazism. Hitler isn't relevant to gun control. At least not to reputable, neutral historians.
 * ''How many "quality articles" would be sufficient, given that you have not cast an iota of doubt on the authenticity of the quote?
 * It should be self-evident that an anti-gun control blog post is completely unacceptable. I don't think that there should be any Nazi material at all in this article, given that no reputable historian engages in such rhetoric. One quality article by a reputable historian, on the topic of gun control (not on the Holocaust) is sufficient. &mdash; goethean 18:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be self-evident that I have not cited any "an anti-gun control blog post".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you call this? Nevermind, it's pro-regulation. Doesn't matter. Still a blog post. Still unreliable. Still inappropriate. &mdash; goethean 18:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you have decided to read the cited source (better late than never, as they say). In addition to that pro-regulation source from the Dallas Morning News, see also this source that is not pro-regulation: Resnick, Ronald. “Private Arms as the Palladium of Liberty: The Meaning of the Second Amendment”, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, Vol. 77, Issue 1 (Fall 1999) at page 50, n. 154.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Zing! Are you glad that you wasted my time with a link to an unreliable and obviously inappropriate blog post? And now you're doing what...trolling through law journals &mdash; which are not works of history or written by historians &mdash; searching for any articles which mention Hitler and guns. GUN CONTROL IS HITLER!!!!11111 Are you interested in improving the article, or just in bludgeoning the reader with your ideology? And I notice that you have decided to ignore my condition that the Nazi material must be in "Studies" section rather than the "History" section. &mdash; goethean 19:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Get back to me after you've looked at the cited source, and when you have proposed some actual text to put in a "Studies" section. The quote is extremely reliably sourced.  And it is often cited, for example here and hereAnythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there something about the phrase "reputable historian" that you don't understand? &mdash; goethean 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hugh Trevor-Roper was a very reputable historian, and I've also shown very prominent use of the quote by both supporters and opponents of gun regulation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing. Here is the content that is in the article that I am calling straightforward. I put 100% of it in, verbatim, except that I removed the numerous references and split it into statements/sentences:
 * 1) Among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish were restrictions of weapon ownership,
 * 2) The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 relaxed gun control requirements for the general population, but prohibited ownership, possession, sale, and manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.
 * 3) During the initial reports of events that would later be called Kristallnacht on November 9 and 10, 1938, the Police President of Berlin had announced that police activity in the preceding few weeks had disarmed the entire Jewish population of Berlin by confiscating 2,569 of their hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.
 * 4) Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.

Goethean, are THESE the statements that you are identifying as: Or are you talking about the analysis / opinions etc. (not currently in the article) that is being discussed in the bulk of this talk page section?  North8000  (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "what no reputable historian would ever say or ever endorse"
 * "your NRA garbage"
 * "what you have FAILED to provide sourcing for"
 * flagrant violation of policy
 * "incredibly hackneyed/NRA BFF Hitler quotation"
 * Whether or not Harcourt has "immense traction" is irrelevant to whether or not his argumentum ad hitlerum, which has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, has traction. His traction is in his arguments about the meaning of the 2nd amendment in U.S. v. Heller, not his writings on Nazi Germany.  TFD (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes.


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


 * Imagine that you are writing an article on ravioli, and one editor insisted that the history section should consist of an account which connected the history of the ravioli solely to Nazis, serial killers and pedophiles. Let's imagine that the anti-ravioli text was completely factual and well-sourced: Hitler loved ravoli, John Wayne Gacy loved ravioli, pedophiles love ravioli. All true statements. So your article's history of ravioli consisted of all these psychopathic murderers who loved ravioli. Would that be neutral? That's what you are doing here at this article. And you are calling it neutral. &mdash; goethean 18:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you Goethean but I also hear the other side. No the history of Nazi Germany is not the history of Gun Control but neither can we say that gun control was not a part of the history.  It is part of that history, perhaps or perhaps not a central piece of the history, people disagree, but it was present there.  At one point the Nazi regime targeted Jews specifically, first with firearms ownership restrictions and then with far more horrific things.  Raviolis are made from flour.....we can't leave that important and relevant detail out.  It's also no coincidence that the jpfo.org was created by jews -- they're committed with their lives this time to never letting that happen.  You can go tell them what you think directly but don't expect a warm audience from that very smart and learned crowd.  Now, that does not mean that "all" instances of gun control will inevitably lead to tyranny but most certainly we can say that an unarmed population is more prone to being subjugated.  There are also examples of armed militias in Africa doing terrible things with guns to poor people who didn't have any, other armed militias etc.   The examples in history are rich with this kind of stuff.  It's not for us to pick and choose.  We just document it as impartially as we can.  I'm not entirely sure how this article should take shape but we'll get there.  Let's just not edit war and let's try to follow the policies as best we can and be respectful that some of our fellow editors disagree.  -Justanonymous (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is in horrific, hideous shape because you and North8000, et al have edit warred and bullied and dissembled in order to keep unsourced, non-neutral content in the article because it aligns with your ideology. Those are the facts. You have failed to provide a single reputable historian who engages in the kind of outrageous rhetoric that this article does. Stop bludgeoning the article's readers with your ideology. Remove the Nazi material immediately. &mdash; goethean 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Goethean, I'm not going to respond down on the level of your false accusations and mudslinging. But on the relevancy issue, the analogies you gave are not representative because they are one step farther removed.  They are not directly the topic, they are people's opinions of the topic.   North8000  (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is only the opinion of fringe pro-gun lobbyists that Nazi firearms regulations are relevant to the topic of this article. And per WP:FRINGE, such material doesn't belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you choose not to defend your poorly sourced, non-neutral addition to the article, I will assume that you have agreed with my analysis and have assented to my removal of the material. You can't just disengage and expect your poorly sourced, non-neutral content to stay in the article, especially considering that you have failed miserably to back up any of your arguments for inclusion with any remotely relevant source. &mdash; goethean 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have said that the statements in the article (listed above) are straightforward and sourced. And neither you nor Andy or others have even attempted to address the actual statements.  North8000  (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you have nothing. Nothing but edit warring. &mdash; goethean 19:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Nazis did not target the Jews "first with firearms ownership restrictions." 1933:  Jewish doctors, lawyers and businesses were boycotted.  Jews were banned from the civil service, including universities.  Marriage and sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews were outlawed.  Jews were forbidden to hire young non-Jewish women as domestic servants or to fly German flags.  1935:  citizenship of Jews was revoked and they were prohibited from joining the armed forces.  1936:  Jews were banned from all professions.  By 1938, only 214,000 Jews remained in Germany, as most Jews had been able to emigrate.  Even though you and gun rights activists  think that the ban against Jews owning firearms was critical to carrying out the Holocaust, scholars who write about the Holocaust do not agree with you.  TFD (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is of course also worth bearing in mind that the overwhelming proportion of Jewish Holocaust victims were not German by nationality - making the Nazi firearms regulations even less relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The firearms regulations internal to the borders of Germany, perhaps. But the distribution of Jewish Holocaust victims perhaps gives added relevance to Poland, the Warsaw Uprising, and Hitler's determination to disarm the conquered people of Eastern Europe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, your are describing "first with firearms ownership restrictions" "ban against Jews owning firearms was critical to carrying out the Holocaust" as if they were in the article or as if I was proposing adding those, and then arguing against those as if that were the question. Neither is the case; they are not in the article and I've not proposed putting them in the article. North8000  (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * I arrive here late, what with Chrismas and all., I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in your last comment, but my misunderstanding may or may not be relevant. Let me just say that the Hitler quote, "The most foolish thing" etc, has no place in this article. Read the relevant pages from Hitler's Table Talk: this is in the context of ruling conquered countries, it's hardly a comment on civil legislation regarding gun ownership, as is made abundantly clear by reference in the next sentences: "let's not have any native militia or native police". This has nothing to do with "gun control", and we don't need a "relevancy policy"--we already have that. We shouldn't have irrelevant content. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Drmies. You have (understandably) fallen victim to the "conflation confusion" here.  People have been talking about stuff that is not in the article and then implying that such is about things are are in the article.  And this section hops back and forward between those two.  My comments were about what is in the article; I was not supporting addition of the things that you are discussing which are things that are not in the article and I agree with you.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * North, only the first sentence was directed at you, North. The rest was "you" in general. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies Cool / thanks for clarifying. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)