Talk:Gun control/Archive 13

Good sense
Here's something that maybe everyone can bring themselves to agree about. There's a section in another article that really belongs here in this article. See Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation (I have never edited that section). If you disagree about moving it into this article, at least be polite about it. It may be that the absence of that section has exacerbated tensions here at this article. And ... happy forthcoming New Year's to one and all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why we need two articles on the same subject at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A country-by-country overview seems like an appropriate level of detail for a separate article. Is there something sinister about that?  I don't take your comment as an objection to moving the particular section in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Or how this fixes the Nazi fringe problem. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not necessarily fix the Nazi fringe problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'd call fixing it the highest priority for this article. MilesMoney (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that the section would be more appropriate here? If you'd rather not give an opinion, that's fine too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion at this time. I'd prefer to focus on the biggest problems first. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's see if anyone objects, and if not then I'll do an edit request. Once the section is here in this article, I think that section would be the best place to briefly summarize the international gun lobby's very well-documented use of a Nazi argument, and briefly explain why the majority of scholars say it's mostly wrong.  All of the Nazi material could be removed from the "history" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless and until it can be demonstrated through mainstream historiography that Nazi firearms regulations are considered significant to the Holocaust, there can be no 'best place' for such material. We don't cover fringe 'theories' in articles on mainstream topics. And incidentally, describing it as 'international' is questionable - the odd parroting of the line elsewhere doesn't alter the fact that only in the U.S. has it ever gained any traction at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, please see here regarding the international gun lobby's international Nazi- related campaigns. And please see WP:FRINGE: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". 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]". Please respond regarding these things that I'm referring to.  Please....Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am responding to you. Specifically, I am responding to your refusal to accept that Wikipedia content on history should be sourced to historians, not gun-lobby propagandists. The Nazi material is fringe because it is unsupported by mainstream historiography. As for our article on evolution, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not responded in any meaningful way. What I see is a group of editors determined to erase any trace or hint of a POV that they disagree with.  That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, Andy, but I agree with you that's how it does work.  Our bans come next.  Without referring to you Andy, I will say that this general trend at Wikipedia is shameful and frightening.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not responded in any meaningful way. What I see is a group of editors determined to insert fringe pseudohistorical 'theories' regarding the Holocaust into Wikipedia - and you are clearly trying to do the same thing. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And that they have been allowed to get away with this behavior for so long is shameful, obnoxious, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. This is the Holocaust we are referring to here, not some petty dispute about an episode of The Simpsons. We owe a duty to our readers not to allow this misrepresentation of history to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm guilty of wanting to follow policy by removing a fringe POV from this article. The question is why you want to violate policy. Any answer? MilesMoney (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I have to quote WP:FRINGE to you people. "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner".  It doesn't 't say: erase everything!Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have omitted the start of that sentence: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and..." The field is the historiography of Nazi germany. The scholarship supporting the theory is non-existent. The 'due weight' (in proportion, by simple arithmetic) is none whatsoever. Any 'weight' at all, unsupported by scholarship, is out of proportion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WOW. Can you read, Andy? Try reading the quote you just linked. It's talking about due weight with regards to theories. That's what it says. There is no theory being put forth in the Nazi Germany section as it currently stands in the article. It's all facts, and no theory is mentioned in the section at all. You're back to attacking your little strawman. ROG5728 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC) We can't do that because the "marginal idea" has not been addressed in mainstream expert sources on the history of the holocaust. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many mainstream sources (political scientists, sociologists, et cetera) address the issue of what might have happened if Hitler hadn't disarmed Jews and other people he wanted to subjugate or kill. It's a rather speculative question, and therefore not exactly a historical question.  Historians primarily deal with what did happen, rather than with what didn't but could have happened.  The modern history of gun control arguments is very clear though...google books is full of it...and I am rather dumbstruck that all of it could be deemed unsuitable for a neutral article about gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then please provide a reference to a reputable historian who considers the holocaust to be an instance of gun control. Should be a very simple matter. &mdash; goethean 03:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a reputable historian on the face of the earth who denies that the holocaust involved a law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms. Are you looking for an English- language historian who uses the precise term "gun control"?  Would the term "gun regulation" be adequate?  How about "firearm regulation"?  I would like to know your requirements before providing what you have requested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cite a historian who says that such laws had a significant role in the Holocaust. Or that they were enacted as a means to assist in the Holocaust. Without such citations, what 'you think' is utterly irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I take issue with your last sentence, Grump. Our biography of Marie Antoinette says: "The phrase 'Let them eat cake' is often attributed to Marie Antoinette, but there is no evidence she ever uttered it...."  Must we delete that information from Wikipedia, since historians agree she never said it, and agree that people who say otherwise are spouting false history?  If President Obama makes a speech tomorrow saying that Napoleon had a secret husband, it would be well worth including that fact in Wikipedia regardless of whether historians agree with Obama or not.  The Nazi argument is a prominent argument of the international gun lobby, while mainstream authors mostly dispute it.  Historians have largely not taken sides about it, except to say what the Nazis actually did (rather than saying what would have happened if they hadn't done what they did), but whether historians agree with the NRA is about as relevant as whether they agree that Marie Antoinette said to "eat cake". Why is this Wikipedia article unsuitable for material describing the modern gun-control debate?  It's not relevant whether you like parts of that debate or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If mainstream historians 'mostly disputed' it, there might be something to write about. The fact is though, that they mostly ignore it, for the same reason that most astronomers ignore the 'moon is made of green cheese' theory. Because it is bollocks, and historians have better things to do with their time than respond to tendentious cherry-picked decontextualised horseshit. Their job is to write serious history. And Wikipedias job, when it comes to history, is to report the writings of serious historians. Not to dress up pseudohistorical piffle concocted by partisan non-historians for another debate entirely as some sort of historical 'argument'. Wikipedia's content on the Holocaust must be sourced to historians of the Holocaust. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a prominent argument of the gun lobby, but its a fringe argument. You could make an article about it, but it doesn't belong in an article on the general topic of gun control. 05:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How prominent does a bogus argument have to be before we can mention its bogusness in this article? See also Horned helmet: "However, there is no evidence that horned helmets were ever worn in battle at any point during the Viking Age.  Nevertheless, popular culture came to associate horned helmets strongly with Viking warriors."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You must be getting desperate if you are citing that dog's breakfast of an article in an argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No desperation here. Try Napoleon Bonaparte if you like. Napoleon was actually taller than the average Frenchman, but it's 100% fine for Wikipedia's article about him to mention and dispel the misconception about his shortness. There are numerous myths about the holocaust. Here are several, according to a Northwestern University historian:


 * Anti-Semitism played a key role in bringing Adolf Hitler to power.


 * Killing Jews was on Hitler's agenda from the beginning of his political career.


 * The Allies could have saved more Jews


 * Jewish resistance could have reduced the death toll.


 * Greater popular solidarity with or sympathy for Jews in German-occupied countries could have saved large numbers of the victims.


 * Killing the Jews diverted large German resources from the war effort.


 * The persecution and slave labor system were driven primarily by greed

It's fine for Wikipedia to mention such misconceptions as long as we give the actual mainstream version too, as a corrective. Your description of Wikipedia's policy about history articles is as accurate as the NRA's description of Hitler's gun control policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. WP:FRINGE does not allow us to include fringe views in articles that are not directly bout the fringe view. We can talk all about 9/11 conspiracies in the article for that subject, but would need a good reason to even mention their existence in the article on the 9/11 attack itself. If you want to make an article for far-right historical revisionism about gun control, it would be great to fill it up with this nonsense, but that nonsense does not belong here. MilesMoney (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding this article, the international gun lobby denies that the holocaust would have been as awful if the German Jews had not been disarmed. Regarding the article about 9/11, it says: "Osama bin Laden initially denied any involvement...."  All historians explicitly reject bin Laden's claim (which even he subsequently rejected).  In contrast, historians don't comment much about the gun lobby's claim because it's speculative, but mainstream sociologists, political scientists, and other scholars mostly reject the gun lobby's claim.  I don't think the international gun lobby, and the massive amount of sympathetic scholarly literature (and opposing literature which seriously addresses the claims) is comparable to a few stray  9/11 "truthers".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #1

 * FiachraByrne, the statements in the article are straightforward history. Why do you call those a "marginal idea"......do you doubt the veracity of any of the statements in the article?    If so, which ones?     And the presence in the article is because (merely) it is an instance of gun control, which dictionaries describe as "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms." (dictionary.com) or similar.   Are you saying that it is a fringe theory that it is "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms."?    People keep trying to say that there is a "fringe theory" but they avoid any specific conversations as to what in the article they say is a "fringe theory".    Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because, if you had read this section, you would know that that is just what has been proposed . As to the addition of these facts without the attendant fringe theory that would make them coherent in the context of the article, they are either redundant and superfluous to the article - just random facts from global instances of firearm regulation with no rationale underpinning their selection - or are intended to make a meaningful and implicit association between gun control and Nazism (and to pretend otherwise is to engage in a kind willful obtuseness as to the significance of this whole debate). FiachraByrne (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FiachraByrne, so you are saying that what's there is not per se a fringe theory, but that a fringe theory would be required to make it coherent in the context of the article? So you are in essence saying that there is a lack of a linking theory, but if there were one, it would be fringe?  North8000  (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is there contains the selective, decontextualised facts used in the thesis posited by Halbrook and others without the explicit statement of that thesis. As it currently stands, the reader is clearly being invited to see an association between Nazism and gun control. Because this narrative is so decontextualised, uncomplicated by other facts, the thesis survives even in the absence of an explicit statement of the thesis. If that were not the case there would be no significant argument here. If Halbrook were not fringe, if his work was seen as a valid - even if heavily disputed - thesis in the historiography of the holocaust we could cite these facts along with the attendant thesis and any rebuttal or contextualising factors. If we dispense with an explicit statement of the thesis - assuming it is judged as fringe (as I clearly believe it should be and as I think consensus indicates) - and if we pretend that these are just neutrally presented "facts" about gun control, there's no underlying rationale for their inclusion barring as a covert means of retaining the fringe thesis within the article. There's no other rationale for their inclusion because there is nothing to distinguish them from the myriad other facts drawn from national histories of gun control, all of which could be sourced, but whose addition would collectively destroy any semblance of a coherent article. What we should do, in my opinion, is find sources that attempt to discuss firearm regulation from as international a perspective as possible and summarise them. Radical though it may seem, we should also try and step beyond the confines of the US national debate on this issue. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this not step beyond those confines?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it does and, in my opinion, it represents the best rationale for a presentation of such material in an article of this type (although that would require a significantly different portrayal than currently). At the moment we've found sources discussing the Hitlerian trope in Brazil, where the author doubted it was significant or a coherent historical analogy to the populace during the referendum there, and we have another attempt in UK where it was widely derided as a very extremist view. In neither case could we argue it was significant. Frankly, I don't know yet its significance to the Australian debate - the source doesn't provide any basis for any kind of evaluation. I'm not yet aware of any other countries where the NRA have tried to exert similar influence and used the Hitlerian argument. As things stand, I don't think we could conclude that it's a tremendously significant argument to the international picture. You may not feel it coincides well with your own viewpoint but I'd encourage you to have a look at the publications of the Small Arms Survey to get a better feel for these. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FiachraByrne, I read your last two posts. Which of these would you say is contained in your argument for removal?
 * Some arguments that article quality (and not policy) calls for removal or changes
 * Some arguments that policy (or core guidelines) calls for removal or changes
 * That you have both #1 and #2 type arguments.
 * Also, I think that a core thing in some or most of your arguments is that there is no "statement of context / relevance"  (that is just my title, I realize that it does not summarize your point in that area) for that content in the article.  What is your opinion on whether or not such a reason/rationale actually exists, sufficient for inclusion? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To which of my arguments do you think there is no applicable WP policy? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

 * North8000, don't be absurd. The presence of this material in the article is due entirely to the efforts of pro-gun POV-pushers (on and off Wikipedia) who are promoting the 'theory' that restriction of access to firearms enabled the Holocaust. If one were discussing firearms regulation in Germany, rather than this nonsense, one would start by pointing out that it was the Weimar Republic that first restricted (entirely) access to firearms, that the Nazis relaxed firearms control, and that post-war, the occupying powers again completely banned firearms (under possible penalty of death), and that since then firearms control in Germany had been loosened - and then tightened again after the tragic events at Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm trying to have a civil on-task discussion. You are in the wrong section; you belong in the "ad hominem arguments and villianizing & insulting editors" section.  North8000  (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ROG5728, if there is "no theory being put forth in the Nazi Germany section", then there is no reason to include it. When not have an equally long section on the laws on gun control in the Criminal Code of Canada as it stood in 1938?  Or France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Brazil, Uruguay, and I could name a hundred other countries.  Why not add the laws as they stood in 1928, 1898, 2008 or any of the several hundreds or perhaps thousands of years of gun laws.  TFD (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How did you arrive at that twisted conclusion? In order for something to be included in the article it needs to be a theory? Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. The information is factual and pertinent. And yes, it would be fine to include information on gun control in other countries, so long as there is actual coverage by reliable sources, and due weight is given accordingly. ROG5728 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are being convoluted. You hold the fringe theory that connects gun control and nazi Germany and accept that conspiracy theories do not meet neutrality.  So instead you argue that it is sourced.  But you need to show why this specific law is significant as opposed to for example, gun control laws in England in the late 17th century.  You are playing whack a mole.  Someone says the nazi theory is fringe, you say you are not presenting the theory, only facts.  When someone asks you why these facts are significant, you say because of the nazi theory.  How do you expect to convert reasonable people to your belief system if you cannot even provide rational arguments for it?  TFD (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What? I said the facts are significant because of a theory? No I didn't say that. You said that. What I said is that the facts are significant because they have significant coverage by reliable sources. Your examples of other instances of gun control are irrelevant because they do not have significant coverage by reliable sources. If they did have significant coverage by reliable sources, then yes, of course they could be mentioned too. ROG5728 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000 is being tendentious. The "straightforward history" rhetoric and "facts" gambits are complete non-starters, as North8000 has been told many times. North8000 does not have a reputable historian to back up his claim that the Holocaust was a significant event of the topic of gun control. He simply refuses to listen, and keeps repeating the same debunked nonsense, because his Nazi Nonsense is already in the article, and so he is happy as a clam. He can just scream "straightforward history" until the neutral editors go away. That's his plan. Since no administrator is willing to enforce Wikipedia policy against North8000's clearly tendentious editing, I think that the only way that this gets fixed is ARBCOM. &mdash; goethean 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you came up with that bogus criteria to try to keep the material out of the article. You won't find that criteria anywhere in Wikipedia policy. The bottom line is that the section material is factual and is covered by numerous reliable sources, therefore it is noteworthy. That's all that's necessary for including a brief paragraph such as the one currently in the article. Now, if the article devoted a massive amount of time to discussing the subject of Nazi Germany then you might have a point, but it does not currently do that, so you do not have a point. ROG5728 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Baloney. Why would this article include material that no reputable historian connects with gun control? &mdash; goethean 01:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably because that's just a bogus set of criteria that you made up to try to keep the material out of the article? ROG5728 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your refusal to answer my simple, direct, relevant question. &mdash; goethean 02:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Goethean, probably because your question has a fundamental false premise which is put forth as a premise rather than as the question, and an answer would tend to indicate acceptance of the false premise.  North8000  (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * False. The question is simple, direct, and relevant. The refusal to answer is due to an unwillingness on the part of User:ROG5728 and User:North8000 to admit that no reputable historian considers the Nazi Nonsense to be a significant part of the topic of gun control. To admit such would mean the removal of the nonsense propaganda. So North8000 and ROG5728 refuse to answer the simple direct and relevant question: Why would this article include material that no reputable historian connects with gun control?. Their refusal to answer this question is a violation of WP:TE. &mdash; goethean 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question. You just didn't like the answer. You can keep linking WP:TE all day long, but you're the only one that's being tendentious (ok, Andy is too). ROG5728 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally I've removed reference to the 1938 Nazi Weapons Law, sourced to Halbrook, from the article on the Holocaust . There were some 400+ anti-Jewish German laws, yet this one was highlighted. There were similar attempts to add this material into the article Kristallnacht about 3 years ago. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ROG5728, you are now arguing the gun laws of nazi Germany are "significant because they have significant coverage by reliable sources. Your examples of other instances of gun control are irrelevant because they do not have significant coverage by reliable sources." That is not true.  Gun control became and issue in Canada with the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre and continued with the Canadian Firearms Registry, which is still in the news.  It was an issue in the UK with the Dunblaine and Hungerford massacres.  The only place the 1938 German Weapons Act receives attention is in an extreme gun rights community in the U.S.  TFD (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The Nazi regime's confiscation of Jewish weapons receives attention by reliable sources, therefore it's included. If the other examples you mention do have significant coverage by reliable sources, then yes, of course they could be mentioned too. ROG5728 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Content transfer
At the start of this talk page section, I pointed to Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation and asked whether anyone has a problem if I move it into this article where it more properly belongs. As far as I can tell, no one has yet objected. If there are no objections in the next hour or two, I plan to do an edit request. This would be a simple move of content, without any content change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please wait. Minimally, I'd like to investigate why it has a tag in regard to worldview/systematic bias. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, go ahead and edit it as much as you like. But it really should then come here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Following this conversation on my talk page, is correct that consensus has been reached on the proposed transfer of material to this article? Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus has not been reached, because you indicated that the material should first be edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When I look at it I see a huge section which probably has some problems with it where it would be far more appropriate to have it in this article than that one. I'd be in favor of a move where we clearly recognize that it is merely that, not considered a specific decision/review on each piece in it.  North8000  (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could (and should) be edited like any other part of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Current state of the article
, As a relative outsider I'd like to see if I can address your issues without geting tied up in knots as the four of you seem to be doing. You say that the discussion should hinge on what is in the article, not on what is not in the article, and that is fair enough. Now, what is in the article is a short, factual paragraph, with plenty of citations, concerning a number of measures implemented in Germany in the year 1938. Your position, as I understand it, is that content that is factual and sourced, which can be said to fall within the scope of the article, should not be removed under any circumstances. This is where I find myself disagreeing. Any content added to any article must serve a purpose, so the question that must be asked is, what purpose does this paragraph serve? If it is nothing more than a chunk of German gun control history, then it fails WP:UNDUE, because the history of gun control in Germany spans hundreds of years, as it does everywhere else, and the year 1938 is not important enough, in terms of the whole history of gun control in Germany, for it to eclipse everything else in that history. If that is not what it is, then the only purpose it can possibly be intended to serve is to link gun control, as a concept, to the Holocaust – the Reductio ad Hitlerum that others have talked about above – but without actually asserting that link in words. And in that case, it fails WP:NPOV, since of its very nature it allows only one point of view to be presented. Have I at least answered the point that you were making? Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * {u|Scolaire}} as a "supporter" of the content, I agree with you, the relevance of the facts needs to be made clear by the inclusion of the POV argument (and relevant counter-argument). The current state is quite bad, and due to the months long edit war, where the argument and the facts were originally together, then split into history vs argument sections, then the argument was removed, and now the facts are moved into the argument section. The argument was continually edited out as people have argued (and continue to argue above) that the proponents of the argument are non-notable, fringe people. The facts have been harder to remove since they are indisputable. Obviously the entire matter will revolve around the answer to the previous question. If these peoples opinions are notable (even if we disagree with them) then they should be included (along with the notable arguments against them). As WP:RS states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral or objective. WP:NPOV states that all significant viewpoints should be included. This viewpoint is shared by the NRA, Multiple researchers (Halbrook, Kates, Polsby, etc), and has been raised by two federal court judges in gun control rulings, by sitting congressmen in gun control debates etc. A neutral presentation of their argument, including a brief recitation of the historical fact for context,  is clearly supported by policy (or course attributed to them as an argument, and not presented in wiki's voice as "the truth" . Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly a minor point, and unlikely to make any difference, but can you cite a source for the assertion that "This viewpoint is shared by the NRA"? As far as I'm aware, nobody has cited such a source - and I've certainly got the impression that the NRA as an organisation has tended to avoid getting directly involved in debates over such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to argue Estoppel since one of the most persistent oppose rationales above has been that it is an NRA talking point, but yes, there are numerous NRA sources. Many of these are covered (and indeed this is how I know about some of them) by Harcourt's article which is an argument against Halbrook & NRA
 * Charlton Heston often brought up this history/analogy during his NRA tenure. One particular quote is "Any of the monsters of modern history—such as Hitler and Stalin—confiscated privately held firearms as their first act." (From Harcourt, citing Canadian Press newswire.)(As well as many other Nazi analogies used as rhetorical devices and less based in historical fact)
 * Wayne LaPierre's book "Guns, Crime, and Freedom," makes the argument "In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust [...]" and "In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolph Hitler..." (pp 86-87, 167-168)
 * Neal Knox's (officer and board member of NRA, and universally acknowledged as one of the driving forces behind the Modern NRA) book "the Gun Rights War" covers the JPFO argument (p285-286)
 * The NRA regularly links to articles making the argument (Halbrook most obviously)
 * They also host articles by those authors directly
 * Or articles under their own editorial voice
 * They often use Nazi analogies as a rhetorical device (See Beck's recent keynote at the NRA, which actually turned out to be bloomberg as stalin and not bloomberg as hitler as reported)
 * Although not strictly the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (Highly influential in the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS cases, and often lumped in with the NRA by gun control proponents) "The experts have always agreed that gun control is the single best way to take freedom away from the people. It worked in Nazi Germany, and gun control works today in Cuba, Libya and the Soviet Union
 * Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links - I'll look at them later. As for 'estoppel', I'm not sure what others have argued, but I think my position has been that from what I'd seen support for this argument has come from sections of the U.S. gun lobby, rather than the gun lobby as a whole - which is why I asked whether the NRA had ever officially supported it. Of course, if all you are saying is that the NRA has used the Nazis as a 'rhetorical device', rather than actually directly supporting the specific position adopted by Harcourt - that the firearms regulations of 1938 were instrumental in the Holocaust - then it is a moot point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The NRA has done both, used nazi allusions as a rhetorical device, and specifically made the argument that registration/confiscation was an enabling factor in the Holocaust. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit war started when User:ROG5728 moved the material from "Arguments" to "History". I objected, and my complaints were ignored and rebuffed by editors known as User:ROG5728, User:Gaijin42, and User:North8000. Don't blame the disgraceful state of this article on others when it is you who are responsible. &mdash; goethean 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I found Gaijin's post to be very neutral, and also very useful to my understanding of the current state of the article. He said that "the argument was continually edited out as people have argued (and continue to argue above) that the proponents of the argument are non-notable, fringe people." That is a statement of fact, with which I'm sure you'd agree. He didn't name names. He also said that the article was in a bad state "due to the months long edit war", which suggests to me that both sides share the responsibility, since it takes two to edit-war. Prolonging the blame game does nothing to resolve the situation. Having said that, thank you for the diff from last April, because that was useful in showing the state of the article before the big row started. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit warring over this article has been going on for years, not months. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Before the most recent big row started, then. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, thank you for that summary. And for sticking to the top 3 levels of the "pyramid" and avoiding the bottom 4. There is one way that I see this differently than you/Gaijin (imagine that grouping! :-)    )  And that is that, given that articles are to provide information on their topic, putting in a significant instance of the topic of the article is for that purpose and IMHO that is sufficient purpose without requiring insertion of an argument or viewpoint about that material, and the common practice in  And so while I agree with Gaijin42's narrative (that the related opinions/analysis would also be good material, and that somebody had removed them)   IMHO that is a parallel / belt-and-suspenders rationale for inclusion of straightforward coverage of what happened.

I would also like to provide some observation on your point that presence is to "link" gun control to the holocaust. I'm not sure exactly what "link" would mean, but in questions  about neutral coverage, the mere presence of material affects that without needing to make any linkages. And so folks who are in favor of gun control would like the mere presence of instances of "good" gun control and removal of coverage of instances of "bad" gun control. And folks who are against gun control would like the reverse. This observation does not weigh in towards either side, but I think it is useful to acknowledge it. The little operative guidance that Wikipedia provides in this area is in the weight section of WP:NPOV which (roughly) says that it should follow the amount of coverage in sources.

Finally, in order to possibly inch forward, I note that some arguments have been based on article quality, and other based on policy. I know folks will disagree with this, but I think that the inevitable end result of thorough policy based discussions would be that there is none supporting removal, and (not that such is required in wikipedia) one (wp:weight) supporting inclusion. And the result of an RFC would be long painful roll of the dice. But if we all realize the likely results of those two routes, put on our editor hats, stop and shun/deprecate the negative tactics, and focus on article quality, that might provide a good way to navigate out of this. If everybody redefines that as their objective, then there will be all "winners" and no "losers". Who's would be "in" on this idea? I would be. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. Specifically, this:
 * I would also like to provide some observation on your point that presence is to "link" gun control to the holocaust. I'm not sure exactly what "link" would mean,  but in questions  about neutral coverage, the mere presence of material affects that without needing to make any linkages. 
 * So you're saying that there's no link to ravioli, but I can put material about ravioli into the article, because "the mere presence of material affects that without needing to make any linkages." As you can see, this makes no sense at all. And the Holocaust is related to gun control to the same extent as ravioli. The fact remains that you have failed to produce a source that links your preferred content to the topic of the article.


 * Additionally, and speaking of your adherence to the pyramid, this:
 * And so folks who are in favor of gun control would like the mere presence of instances of "good" gun control and removal of coverage of instances of "bad" gun control.
 * violates WP:AGF. Do it again and we will take this conversation elsewhere. &mdash; goethean 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (added later) Quit the crap. That is such a reach that it looks silly. To start with it is a symmetric statement (which you chopped the other half off of) which says the same about everybody that is either for or against.  North8000  (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Goethean, seriously, man, you need to chill. You are right in saying that North expressed himself badly in that first sentence; it made no sense to me either. But there was no need to follow up with the ad hominem. That does not strengthen your case, it only derails the discussion. Your second quote left out "And folks who are against gun control would like the reverse.". There's no failure to assume good faith there. It's just an observation on human nature. You may not agree with it, but it's not grounds for "taking it elsewhere". Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess something just personally irks me about filling Wikipedia articles with poorly sourced garbage. &mdash; goethean 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Goethean, Additionally, there are multiple sources that have made the linkage, and you are well aware of them since you have repeatedly edit warred to remove them. The fact that you do not like a a source does not mean that "there are no sources". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the source that you are referring to right now. &mdash; goethean 16:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Halbrook's articles (And now book making the same argument with more details/primary sourcing), the NRA sources listed above, User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments


 * Citations usually involve page numbers, not entire books. How do you expect someone to find what you are referring to? It's like the time that you cited the entirety of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, with no page number. (Sounds like a joke, but this actually happened.) &mdash; goethean 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The NRA links above provide page numbers. The Halbrook articles and books are indeed the entire book and article. as well as other academic articles (listed in my userspace link above) being the entire article. many of the other sources listed in my userspace listing also include the page numbers. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * North, you say that there is no policy-based reason for removal, but I have given you two reasons why the current content fails policy, depending on how you view the content. If it is "providing information" for its own sake, it fails WP:UNDUE. If it is an attempt to suggest a link between gun control and genocide without saying it in words, it fails WP:NPOV. Gaijin agrees with me. I can't see how WP:WEIGHT can possibly support its inclusion since it points to the "undue weight" section of WP:NPOV. Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hasten to add that this is not a demand for its removal, I'm just saying that there needs to be some action taken to remedy the defects. Scolaire (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (added later) Scolaire, thanks for your post, but I don't understand the arguments that you are making and so I am unable to respond. Most of Wikipedia is content that I would call "for it's own sake"  / just to provide information rather than to derive a point from it so I don't understand your assertion that doing so violates wp:undue.  I also don't understand the later part of your post; my point was that the main point (vague and hard to use as it is) of wp:undue/wp:weight is that amount of coverage in the article should be roughly proportionate to the amount of coverage in sources.   Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely WP:UNDUE does not mandate the removal of a single paragraph of self contained text which neutrally describes the arguments and counter arguments. The fact that Harcourt, Salon, Mother Jones etc have picked up the counter argument surely indicate that the argument itself is notable. (In addition to the plethora of soruces directly making the argument saying its notable). WP:DUE also should be taking into account the corpus of the topic as a whole, not the weight within the article as it currently stands. Otherwise no information could ever be added to any stub, because it would be undue compared to the current article text. Is a single paragraph mention of this argument undue within the hypothetical fully fleshed out article? Indeed, WP:NPOV specifically advocates this path "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process"Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh, yes, but I was explaining to North how the current content, which does not do those things, fails policy. And that's what I meant when I said that "there needs to be some action taken to remedy the defects." Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Surely WP:UNDUE does not mandate the removal of a single paragraph of self contained text which neutrally describes the arguments and counter arguments. 
 * Where is this proposed text? Certainly not in the current article. &mdash; goethean 16:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, indeed the fully protected article does not contain the content which you and others have repeatedly edit warred to remove. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Second request. Can you point me to the proposed text you refer to in the comment Surely WP:UNDUE does not mandate the removal of a single paragraph of self contained text which neutrally describes the arguments and counter arguments.? Thanks. &mdash; goethean 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, please cut it out, both of you! We have established that Gaijin was not referring to any content that is currently in the article, and we are all adult enough to know that you can't remove what isn't there. But we should also be adult enough to just accept that what a user wrote was a non sequitur, and leave it at that. And to respond to a question without recycling the tired accusations of edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an important point here; perhaps I failed to make it clear. The article does contain content about the Nazis, which North8000 and Gaijin42 were edit warring to keep in. Now it appears that Gaijin42 supports a different proposal. But the new proposal doesn't exist, so we need to see that proposed content before any more debate can take place. Otherwise, we are arguing over nothing. &mdash; goethean 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

 * (Note: In contravention of talk page guidelines, the proposal below has been edited after responses had been posted - leaving the discussion below difficult to understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

Within The Third Reich, the Nazi party instituted policies and passed laws that disarmed German Jews and other "untrustworthy" groups, while relaxing firearms restrictions for NDSAP party members and ethnic German groups. The Nazi's also confiscated arms in the countries they occupied. Gun rights advocates such as the Democratic Congressman John Dingell   NRA (voiced by NRA presidents Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre), Stephen Halbrook, and others in the international  debate on gun control have argued that these laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, , and have used allusions to the Nazis in the modern gun control debate context. In response, voices such as Bernard Harcourt and Robert Spitzer agree that gun control was used in the genocide of the Jews, but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance , and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. They further argue that the use of Nazi allusions is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.

Here is a stab at the text. I would also perhaps include the existing article "historical fact" text as a footnote to the first sentence, but the formatting/citing seemed too complicated for this stage of the proposal. I attempted to accurately describe the counter argument as well, but since I am personally more on the side of the argument, it may make sense for an advocate of the counter argument to provide that summary. There is better sourcing for Spitzer's counter-pov available (his book in particular) but I couldn't find the link to get exact quotes/pages. There are of course more sources available for both the POV and counter POV, but these people seem to be the most notable representatives, and I wanted to avoid overciting. However, if someone feels that a particular statement needs additionall buttressing, let me know.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is probably a minor WP:SYNTH issue especially in the counter argument section, where I have strung together the argument into a compound section for readability. If needed, we can certainly break things apart into separate sentences to avoid that issue, but it won't be as smooth. I don't think the issue causes any misrepresentation of fact or misstatement of opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Not in a million years. Wikipedia does not promote pseudohistorical fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is fiction? The laws? The disarmament? That the people stated above hold the opinions they are stated to have? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for exclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The fiction starts in your first sentence, and carries on from there. As you are fully aware, the only German laws regarding firearms discussed in the sources are those of 1938 - which only ever applied to Jews (or those designated as Jews by the Nazis) of German nationality. You however have falsely asserted that such laws applied to 'Jews' in general during the Third Reich. As for the rest, it is partisan POV-pushing hogwash, cherry-picking the opposition for material supposedly supporting the fiction, and if you are making this as a serious proposal, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The third reich refers specifically to germany, you can see so by viewing our own article on that topic.. Yes the 1938 laws did only affect German Jews, but there are numerous similar (or in fact wider ranging total disarmament) policies implemented by the Nazis in their occupied territories that aptly cover the rest of European Jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Third Reich - though given that you said 'during', you were clearly referring to a time period, not a geographical entity. And as for what the Nazis did in occupied territories (a) you cite no source, and (b) nobody but an imbecile would describe industrialised mass murder as 'gun control'. Or are you referring to the fact that the Nazis disarmed civilian populations in general in occupied territories? If so, I have news for you. So does practically every occupying army. As indeed did the occupying powers in post-war Germany - with a possible death penalty for infringement. Where is that little titbit of information in your history of firearms regulation in Germany? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The_Third_Reich "Nazi Germany and the Third Reich are common names for Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So your sentence starts, "During Nazi Germany..." Are you illiterate as well? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I welcome this proposal as a useful contribution to a possible consensus text, per my comments in the following section. I would like to see Andy write a paragraph of similar length, no matter how tendentious, and then we could get some idea of what needs to be done to represent the opposing views. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Absolutely not. As I have made entirely clear, without clear evidence from sources beyond the U.S. gun lobby that the Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 are seen as any particular significance, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to be including the material at all - we should not be giving any credence to pseudohistorical fringe theories entirely unsupported by mainstream historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, there is an australian source already included in the text arguing AGAINST the meme that attributed the meme internationally. In any case, please cite the policy that indicates that a global perspective should exclude US views. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you actually capable of writing a single sentence without misrepresenting what someone has said:? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you capable of saying anything positive at all? Where does all this nay-saying get you? Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing positive to be said regarding Gaijin42's proposal. It grossly violates WP:NPOV, and isn't even based on the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

please identify something specific that isnt accurately based on the sources provided. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * All of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And note that editing posts after they have been replied to is a violation of talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've both had your say now. A seventh iteration would be pointless. Please lay down your weapons. Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration
Gaijin42 is now apparently in the process of filing a request for arbitration regarding this article. I suggest that when the request process is complete, those wishing to participate first read the request, and the Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, and then respond accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Link: Arbitration/Requests/Case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan
The history section is light. I attempted to add the beginnings of a section on the firearms control of Japan's Shogunate. It was well referenced and is notable. While I hadn't added more to the detail of the total elimination of the firearm from Japan begining in 1607, it is inappropriate to remove well referenced material like this. There are entire histories of the shogunate and its suppresion of firearms. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the section because it had one sentence on gun control, and several paragraphs on just the use of guns in Japan. I have no objection to inclusion of gun control in japan (historical or modern) but the content must be actual on the topic of gun control, not the general history of guns. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we add that section here so we can decide? We have gun articles that need additional material.  Maybe it can go in one of those?-Justanonymous (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, content may be more appropriate in List_of_gun_laws_and_policies_by_country (in a subsection under Japan) - as I think the intent of this article is to be more an overview of the concept of gun control, rather than a description of specific gun control policies. (The above discussion notwithstanding, which is less about the actual use of gun control in Nazi germany, and the use of nazi germany as the most notable example of gun control as a tool of authoritarianism) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well unless this is supposed to be titled "Gun control in 20th century western countries" perhaps we should broaden the history section. I think it is entirely appropriate to add bit on Japan to the historical section. I would note that since this has nothing to do with current law (1607), it doesn't fit at all in a list of gun laws by country. How can we not have an article overviewing gun control and not mention Japan's shogunate which is the only society to have largely eliminated (even for a time) guns? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear, Japan of the Edo period was a tightly regimented and centrally controlled society, an island kingdom, culturally homogenous and geographically isolated. I think there is a reason why they controlled widespread gun use sucessfully, the fact they did should be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a general topic of gun control. To an extent, there's a richer history of arms control that stretches back into antiquity that can and should be covered somewhere if not here.  Guns only go back a few hundred years.  At the end of the day, so long as it's on point regarding gun control, we can include an aspect of this.  As I recall only Samurai could have swords in ancient times and they were at liberty to kill any peasant that gave even the most trivial of offenses....the same was true in Europe of knights and the coat of arms is what gave the knight the right to have arms.  Arms control and gun control have been with us for a long long time.  It's hard to talk about it because of the politics but I wish we could treat it more sensibly here.  Very hard to write a quality article when there is this much animosity though. Sad. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In the "Terminology and context" section it addresses Arms control and explains that Gun control is a subset of that topic. I think if we get off that track, this is a lost cause. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

the first 3 paragraphs ( have nothing to do with gun control, they are a history of guns in japan, which is not the topic of this article. the 4th pagagraph is tangentally related to gun control (reasons samurai don't like guns) and only the 5th is actually about gun laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't the article about national gun laws. It is the broader article about gun control. In Japan guns went from virtually non-existent to the critical arms technology in 50 years and then were controlled and supressed by the state. I think its important to briefly put in the first part of that history because it informs the "gun control" aspect. That is to say you can't understand why and how Japan controlled guns unless you understand the background. Others may disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither of the so-called "sources" used for the assertions posted in the section on Japan were written by scholars of Japanese history. This individual Noel_Perrin is not RS for this topic, and the other individual even less so, even though he gets part of the story right. So let's not add such flotsam and jetsam because we think that "the history section is light".
 * For the record, the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan decommissioned a large number of samurai retainers and enacted strict regulations on all armaments, including swords. Those were measures aimed at keeping the peace by recognizing the fact that standing armies were unnecessary after the warring states period, and more of a threat to a stable social order than anything else. And the program adopted by the shogunate was derive from the program implemented by Hideyoshi--for which he is well known--for the same purpose. Marius Jansen and other renowned historians of Japan have written on the subject, so keep the non-RS source out, as that section was basically unsubstantiated (anti-gun control) propaganda.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Capitalismojo Care to point me to one of the "histories" you referred to with the statement "There are entire histories of the shogunate and its suppresion of firearms."?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

reply to FiachraByrne
[comment copied from a user talk page to here by Gaijin42 to avoid splitting discussion] I do think the use of the Hitlerian trope, amongst others, in NRA international lobbying efforts can be mentioned but not treated in any depth as a valid theory. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are multiple levels to the argument.
 * Historical facts of registration and confiscation of jewish weapons
 * Arguments to what degree the registration enabled and precipitated the confiscation (very strong arguments since there is copious documentation as to how the confiscation happened)
 * Arguments regarding how important (or not) such actions were to the overall holocaust
 * Arguments as to general associations/patterns/correlations between registration, confiscation, and tyranny/genocide
 * Arguments as to how the historical cases inform modern debates on gun control in the US/UK/AU etc
 * Rhetorical devices largely not based on the history that motivate the base (Raise your hand if you believe in gun control : Nazi salute) etc


 * The further down the line you go, the weaker the argument is, but the top two certainly are historical facts that are completely undisputed (and directly admitted to by the sources arguing against). The third is a matter of valid historical debate, and counter-factual alternate histories (If the Jews had had weapons they still would have been killed) are also very weak (See the Warsaw Uprising). The later elements are Certainly POV arguments, in which there is strong disagreement, but to say that one side is "settled" and the other is "fringe" is WP:OR wikipedia should not be taking sides in the argument. We should be neutrally describing the arguments (both pro and con). It is frankly irrefutable that the argument is notable and influential within the topic of gun control. To neutraully say that "The Nazis disarmed the jews. Gun rights advocates  argue that this was one of the factors that enabled the Holocaust. Other people say this is bullshit (etc)" is perfectly accurate. WP:NPOV specifically mandates that all significant viewpoints be included in a neutral manner.To say that the NRA's viewpoint on gun control, or multiple federal judges, or sitting congressmen, or lawyers who have won multiple gun control cases from SCOTUS are not significant is an obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We can agree that the German Jewish population from 1938 were discriminated against in the provisions contained in certain firearm regulations. Those facts are contained in at least some mainstream sources on the history of the Holocaust and Kristallnacht, although few enough texts on the history of the Holocaust detail these events from what I can discern and none really place them in the context of gun control as such rather than the escalation of discrimination against the German Jewish population.
 * As to your second level of historical facts from the list above (registration facilitated confiscation), that seems plausible and is likely to have been true but I'm doubtful if that point has been made in any mainstream text on the history of the Holocaust (feel free to correct me on this) as that kind of point would only be really relevant to anyone wishing to extend a historical analogy about discriminatory firearm regulation in Nazi Germany to present-day gun control legislation or legislative proposals.
 * Your level 3 argument concerns what effect if any the 1938 legislation had on the Holocaust and you state that it is a matter of "valid historical debate". I have to correct you, I think, on this point. Whatever your opinion or mine on the validity of the thesis, it's not a matter of valid historical debate because it has never been debated in the scholarly literature on the Holocaust. I don't mean by this that one side is settled and the other fringe but rather that this debate, which is almost exclusively a domestic US debate about gun control rather than the Holocaust itself - whatever one's position - is effectively fringe as it is entirely uncited, unaddressed and unreviewed within the scholarly literature. Harcourt and Bryant are no more regarded as experts on the Holocaust by the scholarly community than Halbrook. Harcourt obliquely acknowledges this point in the title of his article addressing the thesis ('a call to historians') while Halbrook states it clearly when noting that Nazi gun laws are "a topic in Holocaust studies that has been assiduously avoided or neglected" p.115. I think there can be little doubt that, from the perspective of Holocaust studies at least, the topic is fringe. Fringe topics can still be discussed, of course, and then, following WP:PARITY, you could probably include not exactly expert sources to critique the thesis (e.g. Harcourt and Bryant).
 * So the question then rests on the notability of the thesis which also resolves somewhat on what the actual topic of this article is. If this article is substantially about the US debate on gun control we can include the thesis as fringe and try and handle it as best we may (which is highly problematic as we don't have any experts addressing the thesis - this is a real problem by the way). If the topic of the article is about gun control from an international perspective I think the thesis is more tangential. I would argue that appropriately following the sources that deal with this topic from an international perspective the use of these historical comparisons could be mentioned in terms of the international lobbying by the NRA but I don't think that laying them out in an arguments section would make much sense (I'll invoke WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT here).
 * As I've detailed in one of the sections below, I'd really like to see a contextualised presentation of the thesis first inserted into an article unambiguously about the US gun control debate which this article could refer to or summarise as appropriate. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Then make a well-sourced proposal. I gather from the above discussion, in which you defensively avoid answering my request, that your proposal doesn't exist. &mdash; goethean 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you put this reply in the wrong section (perhaps due to an edit conflict) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I asked you for your proposed content twice, and you changed the subject. Please write a proposal with sources (i.e., citations with page numbers) (fourth request) for us to discuss. Otherwise we're not actually talking about anything concrete. &mdash; goethean 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bizarre. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Under "United States" first paragraph, "unalienable" should be changed to inalienable. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The two terms are equivalent, as far as I know. I note that the United States Declaration of Independence used the term unalienable, and that WP's article about that document and the Natural and legal rights article use both. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At the time, there was a distinction. The two terms are not equivalent. Inalienable would cover rights such as the right to bear arms. Unalienable covers the natural rights, such as the right to be free. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request
Section labelled "Japan of the Shogunate" to "Tokugawa Era Japan" aas it is the more common description of the era. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation for Bernard Harcourt and Robert Spitzer statement
The sentence "Bernard Harcourt and Robert Spitzer agree that gun control was used in the genocide of the Jews" has a Pdf source. Can anyone give the sentence/s in this Pdf that backs up the statement? Iselilja (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request per BLP concern
I request that the sentence "voices such as Bernard Harcourt and Robert Spitzer agree that gun control was used in the genocide of the Jews" is cut. I am concerned that we don't have proper sources for the current sentence and per the sources I have read, the sentence can appear to misrepresent/overstate their views. Instead the article can simply say "In response, Bernard Harcourt and Robert Spitzer argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis." I think this represent their view better. Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

since you just posted the request for quotes, asking for an edit seems rather rushed...
 * Harcourt (starting at pages 670)
 * To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide. 
 * Fourth, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons,including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population
 * The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population.
 * Finally, with regard to disarming the Jewish population, there is no dispute that the Nazis did disarm Jewish persons aggressively-of all firearms, as well as "truncheons or stabbing weapons.
 * Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms law as an excuse to disarm Jewish persons.
 * But if forced to, I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the "trustworthy" German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic,while disarming the Jewish population and engaging in genocide.
 * Spitzer (due protection, and me not being able to find the source at the time, this is currently unreferenced in the body, but I have subsequently found the source link
 * http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4032&context=flr
 * Once Hitler won election in 1932 and consolidated power, he surely did take steps to confiscate guns as part of the larger campaign to disarm and render powerless opponents of the state, but by this point the intra-German battle against Hitler had been lost.

to be sure the sourcing for Harcourt is much stronger than for Spitzer. I swear there is a more direct statement in one of his books as well, but I am unable to find it at the moment. I would be open to rewording that sentence to attribute the "agree" less to Spitzer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The partisan cherry-picked and decontextualised quotes Gaijin42 provides to support the text can in no way justify the clear failure of said text to accurately represent Harcourt's actual arguments concerning the issue - accordingly, per WP:BLP (not to mention multiple other Wikipedia policies) the statement concerning what Harcourt supposedly 'agreed' must be removed. As, self-evidently, should the unsourced assertion regarding Spitzer. And no, the material Gaijin42 has now provided doesn't even remotely support the text either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am awed by your ability to generate a cognitive dissonance field around yourself, and completely ignore the very direct and unambiguous statements by Harcourt. His larger arguments are covered in the very next sentences. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Gaijin. Thanks for your swift answer. I agree it looks somewhat strange that I started these two sections right after each other. When I started the first (above), I didn't know that the article was locked, so my plan was to remove the quote in question after having raised my concern here at the talk page (then it could easily be inserted again when precise source was provided). I agree with you that one of the sources for Hartcourt "used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide." seems to back up the statement in the article. (I am not taking a position regarding Andy's arguements) As for Spitzer, I believe the statement that he agrees that gun control and genocide was somewhat related must be removed until you find sources. Per BLP, we must never quote people for saying something we don't have sources available for (even if we are sure sources exist) Iselilja (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks . i could support two solutions at this time I think
 * 1) Remove spitzer's name entirely. This would most comply with RS/BLP, but would make the rest of the criticism section weaker with less voices.
 * 2) Reword to be something like "Bernard Harcourt agrees that X, but he and other critics like Robert Spitzer argue that Y", and include the ref I linked above as backing of the criticism section. (Alternate wordings/grammar/sentence splitting that keep all the information included are also fineGaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be better to focus on the substance of Spitzer's critique of Halbrook rather than any real or imagined points of agreement. I have to say that I find Harcourt's statement problematic ("To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide.") It is somewhat ambivalent but if he's implying that the onset of the Jewish genocide can be dated to 1938, or that the genocide was already underway at that point, he's advancing a pretty fringe position - whatever of the recent accommodations and moderations between the intentionalist and functionalist camps. Typically, the beginning of the Jewish genocide is dated from late 1941 and it occurs on the Eastern Front. I'd just like to emphasise again that none of the participants in this debate have any expertise in the history of the Holocaust and even if the notability of the Nazi gun control thesis could be established unequivocally for this article real care would have to be taken in the presentation of such non-expert views on such a well-documented and researched historical field. Spitzer, incidentally, makes a point of emphasising Halbrook's lack of engagement with the relevant secondary literature and also of the fact that Halbrook can claim no expertise in German history of the 1920s and 1930s (pp 727-728, 728 n. 35). FiachraByrne (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijim. I think I am fine with both of those suggestions as a way to get the article BLP compliant for now. To make the change as little as possible, I could suggest.In response, Bernard Harcourt agree that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews[39], but he and and others like Robert Spitzer argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance... The grammar could be better, but this should only be an interim solution to clear a BLP issue anyway; I am sure the debate about how this should be stated (and whether it should be included at all) will go on. Iselilja (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bryant and Spitzer
For those who have not read it, I suggest Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control. Four pages by Michael S. Bryant in the current, 2nd. (2012) edition of Guns in American Society.

And Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment by Robert J. Spitzer in the Fordham Law Review (2004). It's 11 pages, but only two pages - "What the Nazi Case Tells Us" - if you want to focus on what's specific to this debate.

No matter where this material ends up on Wikipedia, these sources should be included. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazis
Just an FYI: there's a typo in the section about nazis; I'd fix it buuuuut it's semi-protected. (also, that section is horribly written) 211.31.47.45 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

When this article gets opened back up to edits...
I've been following this article with interest. Aside from the thornier issues, just want to bring up a few minor things that should be corrected when it's opened back up for editing:


 * "The Third Reich" should be "the Third Reich"
 * "Nazi party" should be "Nazi Party"
 * The opening sentence of the final paragraph in the current version uses the word "untrustworthy" (in quotes). The quoted words in the citation given (Harcourt's "On Gun Registration" in the Fordham Law Review) are "trustworthy" and "unreliable."

I'll add/insert other minor errors as I find them. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think nobody would consider any of these 3 controversial. Ill make an edit request for them and the changes can go in now. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggested re-write of sentence referenced above, if it remains in article: Within the Third Reich, the Nazi Party (NDSAP) instituted policies and passed laws that disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens. Lightbreather (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Seems uncontroversial to me too, so done. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a great edit. Good job. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
I request that the sentence in the last paragraph of the "Studies, debate, and opinions" section that starts "In response" is changed to In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews[39], but he and and others like Robert Spitzer argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance... This is per BLP concern as we don't have any sources in the text for Spitzer agreeing that gun control was used to further genocide of the Jews, and all statements attributed to BLPs must have sources (particular when potentially controversial). There appear to be consensus about this particular point. Iselilja (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * support Also, I have made a minor grammatical correction to Iselilja's post above agree->agrees Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good.  North8000  (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I agree this looks good. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for the copy edit. I have also added a few minor fixes of my own, as when I looked at the paragraph more closely I noticed some formatting and punctuation errors. I shouldn't think any of these would be controversial, but please ping me if you would like me to change something back. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi and Holocaust material in Gun politics in the United States article
Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was recently (3 JAN 2014) merged into Gun politics in the United States, and I'm concerned about what's happened since. The discussion is here, if anyone is interested. Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear in my post of 6 JAN 2014, but this is a request for dialogue, not a request to have an individual editor come in, "fix" what he or she perceives as a problem, and mark it "done". I am seeking advice about how to proceed myself, but the problem persists and still needs further dialogue. Lightbreather (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When you invite people to participate in a discussion, the last thing you should do is have ownership issues with it. Editors will show up and make whatever edits they feel are appropriate. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)