Talk:Gun control/Archive 14

Progress?
Can we finally get rid of the templates at the top? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, considering that User:North8000 and User:Gaijin42 just removed the merge template through edit warring. This article is clearly a POV fork of gun politics.


 * Why is there a history of gun control in Germany both at this article and at Gun politics in Germany? Because certain editors find it amenable to their ideology to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis, which is propaganda straight out of the NRA playbook. Shameful. &mdash; goethean 00:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop with the false accusations against editors. North8000  (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Gothean, wait a minute, we've debated, lambasted, argued, cajoled, and ridiculed that subject to death. There's no clear consensus (or apparently compelling evidence) that either is a fork of the other or that either is a distinguishable sub-topic of the other.

Are there subjects regarding gun politics that have nothing to do with "control", yes. Are the subjects related to gun control all "political" in way or another, yes. We all seem to agree on this, but it doesn't get us any closer to a solution. Interested in trying to take a strictly clinical approach to this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How about starting by providing a reliable source that explains why and how discourse over the regulation of firearms can usefully be subdivided into 'control' and 'politics'? Or is asking for a source too 'clinical'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Andy, just curious, but how much effort have you put into finding one since you are the staunchest of the editors asking for it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Andy. TFD (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Or, conversely, ask for one that says they are the same topic.   WP:RS's do not write about Wikipedia disputes, which is what such a specialized question would be.  North8000  (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since clearly there is still a dispute over whether the articles should be merged - and there will continue to be unless and until it is demonstrated in reliable sources that there are two different subjects - the templates must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy, probably inadvertently you have tried one of the oldest tricks in the talk page book. Which is to try for "my/a view automatically/by default stands unless the other guy meets a very high bar for proving his".  And to illustrate, I stated the equally (in)valid converse.    North8000  (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not the slightest bit interested in responding to your repetitive stonewalling BS. It is a fact that there is a dispute over whether the subject of the regulation of firearms can legitimately be subdivided in the way it is - and therefore the templates must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you not be so nasty and rude? Including mis-stating and mis-characterizing my comments.  North8000  (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, your demand is backwards. Sources do not address the infinite pairs of topics that are disparate.  Can you find a wp:rs source that says that a Ferrari is a different topic than a goldfish?   A claim that they are one and them same is what would need to be supported by sources, and such would plausibly exist if such were the case.  North8000  (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This article clearly not a POV fork. Type Gun Control into Google and you get 700million returns! How can anyone for a second, with a straight face, attempt to argue that this does not merit it's own article????? All the major newsinfotainment providers have sections dedicated to gun control. It's a POV push to try to delete or fold this article into something else. Some people out there are trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" and the term "gun control" doesn't quite fit with their new brand. Tough, it's what society calls this to the tune of 700million articles! The template can go, this is an established topic and it is stand alone. Now even if in some bizzaro world this were a pov fork, it's big enough and diverse enough to merit it's own article. Look at Climate Change there is an article for global warming and an article for global cooling and an article for global warming politics. I mean, seriously, can we stop this nonsense. Gun Control is an article. It might be related to gun politics but it merits its own article.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Then it needs to follow WP:SS rather than creating a hodgepodge of NRA propaganda bullshit in an attempt to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis. &mdash; goethean 15:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've been advocating a significant rewrite of this article for some time - just look at the archives. The problem is that it's very contentious and editing this is difficult.  As an aside, I just reverted your removal of 4,000+b of data from the article.  Please get consensus on the talk page before starting to make radical edits, especially deletions of this magnitude.  Please don't edit war.  Let's figure it out here.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We could rename this article "gun control conspiracy theories", then we could keep the nazi stuff and add door-to-door gun confiscations. TFD (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a serious forum about improving this article. I'm for rewriting the article. Let's get consensus on the direction of the article here and then we can edit. Ridiculous statements are not constructive.  Let's be constructive.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's be constructive. I removed the Nazi material from the article. You added it back in and (somewhat hilariously) accused me of vandalism. If I vandalized the article, then you need to start a WP:AN/I thread on my vandalism. Otherwise, I will regard your accusation as just another piece of nonsensical rhetoric.
 * The addition of the material is indefensible. It was added in order to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis. It is NRA bullshit propaganda. Anyone replacing that garbage is guilty of flagrantly violating the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Removal of the Nazi material is non-negotiable. &mdash; goethean 16:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, my statement was that your actions could be described as "close to vandalism" -- let's be precise but they were inappropriate because you didn't have consensus here. There are other editors here who value the large block of information you deleted summarily without consensus. Let's get consensus.  Please feel free to open up a talk section on the edits your propose and see what the other established editors here have to say. Have a good day.  Note, my talk page is off limits to you for use of profanity and vulgar language. Please discuss the article improvements here. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently you didn't see the letters NYC is sending out confiscating .22 bolt action rifles then. The information is sourced. MANY MORE sources are readily available User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments There have been multiple RFCs none of which indicated support for removal of this information, except for the cabal of you 3. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's well sourced Gaijin42. It's happening in NYC.  Thank you for your patience in dealing with these contentious articles. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * NOT THE NYC BOLT-ACTION RIFLES!! OH THE HUMANITY... &mdash; goethean 16:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So when confronted with actual evidence of confiscation, you try to brush it aside, or move the goalpoasts? That's not particularly neutral of you, I sense a ready bias.95.109.103.15 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not a forum for your general comments goethean.  Please discuss article improvements.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Justanonymous, you have clearly demonstrated what I've been arguing for some time - that this article, which purports to be giving a multi-national perspective on the issue, is instead driven exclusively by U.S. discourse. This is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy, and a further reason why this article is problematic. We already have two U.S.-based articles on the subject, and there is no justification whatsoever in having more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Article discussion
(this title inserted afterwards) Im fine with that. This is not a holocaust history article. It is a gun control article. The arguments being made (pro and con) are notable and influential within the gun control debate. Regarding Harcourt's position being fringe, Kristallnacht is universally considered an event in the holocaust is it not? Certainly our own article has it cited as such to multiple historians. The holocaust and genocide is more than the final solution (although certainly the bulk of the genocide happened in that context), In any the argument is that the disarmament aided later genocide, as well as aided the lesser offenses that happened more contemporarily. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a gun control article which contains a fringe historical thesis about the Holocaust perpetuated by scholars who have no expertise in the subject and are, as Harcourt acknowledges, uncited and totally unremarked upon in the relevant literature. That the thesis, indeed the whole debate, is fringe is not really open to question. "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide." The statement is ambiguous in regard to the periodisation of genocide (earlier in the essay, however, he uses the word "subsequently" which does support your interpretation), signals, perhaps, an adherence to the intentional thesis, and is fringe insofar as it links gun laws and regulations as a means of "furthering the genocide". On the last point, this is fringe even if it were true because none of the relevant scholarly literature on the holocaust makes this linkage. In regard to the notability of the thesis that is questionable (and questionable also in terms of the necessary detail to include to delineate the thesis beyond saying that the historical comparison has been made) for an article that is about gun control in an international context but that problem might be effectively solved if we followed 's proposal or a variant thereof - but there doesn't as of yet appear to be much engagement with that idea. Again, and to echo 's advice, I would advocate that you make an edit protected request to remove this material until such time as a consensus can be formed as to its inclusion. In the context of the current ARBCOM proposal, this may even be politik. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FiachraByrne, first on the underlying situation, I would think that one would consider disarming a people that one wishes to persecute or commit genocide against to be a no-brainer rather than fringe. And that such is to some degree a component of the overall persecution.  Attaching more superlatives to it as has been done earlier (e.g. "was a major factor in") moves it deeper into arguable and sometimes straw-man territory.
 * Not that I feel that mere coverage of the history can't stand alone, but the contextualization added lists the (in the case of one side widely-covered) opinions from both sides on this, stating those items as being their opinions. The wording chosen to summarize the views from one side is "that these laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance" "Enabling factor" may be an overreach regarding the impact of such, but it is given as views from one side, not a statement of fact.   And even if such a statement were an overreach, I don't think that it qualifies as fringe.      North8000  (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on Scolaire's initiative to develop proposed text remain positive.   As I said before to Scolaire  "even though I disagree with a few of things that you have said, I appreciate your substantive and friendly discussion, support your efforts, and am happy to compromise to help those efforts move forward." Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What may or may not appear as "no-brainer" to you is, I'm afraid, irrelevant. The pertinent factor in determining whether Halbrook's thesis is fringe is whether it has been subject to critical examination by the relevant expert authorities on the Holocaust. It has not, but the likelihood that it will be is increased with the publication of his recent book - we'll see how things develop over the next year or two. I think if we could agree that the article should largely address the modern gun control debate in the US dating from the 1960s then, whether or not the thesis is fringe, its notability and significance in the context of internal US domestic politics would be unquestionable and it could be covered and contextualised through invocation of WP:PARITY. Frankly, I think there are still problems even with Harcourt's rebuttal that stem from the fact that he has no real expertise on this issue (his sourcing is pretty poor throughout). I'm not sure how things can develop in the context of the ongoing ARBCOM case request. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, my core thought remains the same, which is that straightforward coverage of an instance of gun control that is significant (including in terms of coverage in sources) is OK all by itself, and that such is a norm in Wikipedia. But since we're sort of going in circles on that one, let's set that aside at the moment. On your fringe-related points, I was not discussing any particular claim except implicitly the the most basic one; it is logical (and certainly not fringe) that someone would disarm somebody that they intended to persecute. But, moving beyond that, do you have an idea to start working on to move forward?   Possibly Scolaire's idea?   North8000  (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scolaire's idea, or a variant thereof, is definitely the way to go (I'd favour a more explicit title including the location and periodisation of the debate but that's open to discussion). If the article is defined as explicitly treating of the modern US gun control debate and if it functions as a sub-article of Gun politics in the United States we have, in my opinion, a workable proposition. I couldn't reasonably query the notability of Halbrook's thesis in such an article - although the manner of its presentation and contextualisation is liable to remain a point of contention. If it was agreed that it was a fringe thesis, as I and others argue, we could invoke WP:PARITY as this is the manner in which a variety of fringe topics, such as Homeopathy etc., are given coverage. I also think that if, as part of such a proposal, agreed to make an edit protected request to remove the current Nazi paragraph until such time as consensus could be established to its contents, the waters might be considerably becalmed. Otherwise to ARBCOM and bannihilation for everyone but me. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)<<
 * ... and if I was to participate in such a process I'd like a general informal agreement on the following items: 1) we spend some time identifying the best scholarly, independent and reasonably impartial sources; 2) the article structure broadly follows that suggested by those sources; 3) we avoid a point-counter-point article structure that resembles a POV bulletin board; and, 4) the best scholarly sources are given due prominence in the article regardless of their findings or perceived biases. But is this proposal likely to receive any momentum during the present ARBCOM proceedings which, given the alacrity with which the case was accepted, are likely to result in some form of sanctions for some editors. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Equating this theory with homeopathy or UFOs is offensive. You may disagree with the theory. You may be right. But to say that someone who has an opinion about something, where you admit there IS NO mainstream alternative, is on par with those types of topics is ridiculous. however, to the degree that WP:PARITY allows it in a US centric article, it would allow it here as well. We have ample neutral sourcing indicating the theory has traction outside of the US. In fact you could source the entire paragraph to neutral or even HOSTILE sources, and not change a single word in the text, as all we have done is neutrally say what their argument is, and what the counter argument is - and the hostile sources cover that just fine. Past that, Im not sure that arbcom can be handwaved away at this point, even if everyone agreed to play nice together. However, as regards to the overall structure and content of the article, i think your suggestion is fine. such an article would of course need to cover notable arguments for and against gun control by various notable persons, where this content (along with many other pro and con arguments) would sit perfectly appropriately. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, psychoanalysis then, or take your pick, but I don't remember posting about any other close encounters. My familiarity with fringe topics stems from involvement with various articles on alternative medicine (e.g. Alternative medicine & History of alternative medicine). The point is that fringe topics, whatever their validity, can still be given appropriate coverage but that they have to be contextualised as regards mainstream views. Now I personally don't like Halbrook's thesis as represented in his journal articles not because he is an advocate of gun rights - which I could care less about - but because I think it's an instrumentalisation and politicisation of history - indeed, of the history of genocide - in the pursuit of a rather shoddy political point. But such feelings do not impact on my analysis of whether the thesis is fringe or not which rests upon the thesis's examination, or lack thereof, by the relevant experts on the topic. And it is problematic that those scholars who have critiqued it heretofore lack expertise as they are quite capable of misrepresenting the issues. You haven't addressed the removal of the section by the way. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hardly worth repeating that I'm not yet convinced as to the international notability and significance of the thesis such that it would require any elaboration beyond stating that the Nazi historical analogy has been used in the rhetoric of NRA campaigns. Anyway, I take it you're opposed to any clarification/redefinition of the article subject. Night. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On your last question, I am confused. I think this should be an international overview of gun control. I do not mean to be rude, but convincing you is irrelevant. The sources have been convinced and written about it saying so. If the effect of the argument in Canada or Australia (or Britan britan 2 was not notable, the authors would not have chosen to write about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no such country as 'britan' - if you are really that poor at spelling, use a spell-checker. And secondly, a source that states that the 'Nazi' argument was treated with contempt in the UK is hardly evidence that the argument was 'significant'. Quite the opposite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not get nasty over spelling errors....we all make thim. :-)  North8000  (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there are now two edit requests regarding the "Nazi paragraph" and I am the one who suggested the other, I will note that I am fine with this suggestion and if this request is acted upon, it will leave my request moot. My own request is limited to removing a BLP violation while this suggestion as I interprete it is more addressing possible NPOV problems. Iselilja (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Striking, as it seems to have been a misunderstanding/edit conflict. Iselilja (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As a mechanism to try to "gel" something to move forward, as reasonable people on somewhat opposite "sides" who are engaging the issues in depth, might I suggest that Gaijin42 & FiachraByrne work up something? Both advocate something different than I would have done (just cover straightforward history on it, e.g. as in the article over recent months) and so I'd not be the one to do it, but I'd support some compromise that is different than that. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no basis to move forward if we can't agree on what the actual subject of the article is. If it is a global overview of gun control the sourcing, the weighting of sources and the article structure will differ considerable from an article on gun control in the US since the 1960s. The article subject and its relationship to the Gun politics in the United States and Overview of gun laws by nation would also have to be resolved. Those are preliminary determinations to be made prior to anything else relating to article content. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that we need to agree on what the actual subject of the article is. But there are so many overlapping articles in Wikipedia that I think that trying to come up with a scope that ideally resolves all such overlaps is too high of a bar. What are your ideas?   From pure logical analysis, I think that "gun control" has the broadest scope amongst the three that you mentioned.   "Overview of gun laws by nation" is more nuts and bolts on current instances of gun control.  Probably a sub-article of this one.   Regarding "Gun politics in the United States", one would need to decide on the definition of "politics"......I would tend to go by the common meaning which would including everything related to efforts for and against gun control laws, and the political process, but not the nuts and bolts of the laws themselves. And of course, only in one country which either way, makes it a narrower article  than this one, possibly a sub article of this one.   and regarding this one, my thought is that its everything that would fall under the definition of "gun control" from respected dictionaries.  Questions of depth of coverage in any particular area are a separate question, particularly if we were to consider those others to be more specialized articles within this one.  What do you think? Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - A moderate degree of overlap, rather than the redundant repetition of material or the plausible existence of a point of view forks, is not a problem. The first thing to do would be to establish consensus on the subject matter of the inter-related articles on Gun control, Gun politics in the United States and Overview of gun laws by nation.


 * I still think that it would be a better idea if this article was a child article of Gun politics in the United States, because a sizeable proportion of editors here are not really interested in writing an article on firearm regulation and availability in a global context, whereas they are very invested in the US debate, it would resolve any notability problems for this article in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of Halbrook's thesis, and because evidently the term "gun control" is used most frequently to refer to the US domestic political dispute between advocates of gun rights and controls that has festered - as a subset of the so-called US culture wars - since the 1960s. Indeed, that definition of the subject matter for this article would most closely follow the definition and context provided in the OED, which has been posted and commented upon above.


 * If that is not to be the case, then, given the overall suite of articles on firearm regulations within WP the only alternative subject matter for this article would be gun control as an international topic. In that instance, the appropriate sourcing and issues of weight for this article would be largely determined by sources which discuss gun control as a global topic. A leading example of which would be the annual yearbooks published by the Small Arms Survey and not sources whose focus of interest is primarily upon the US domestic gun control debate.


 * However, in my opinion I'm probably better off withdrawing from the discussion on this and related pages until there's an outcome from the ARBCOM proceedings and a formal closure of the RFC above. After that I'll review if there's any point in further participation here.FiachraByrne (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello  I think that your ideas are also some of the viable routes even if they would not be my first choice.
 * I think that the RFC is on a much much narrower question and so is probably not relevant to the larger issues being discussed. On your last paragraph (aside from my RFC note), it's sad but I hear you. I'm still going to try the idealistic route that it's safe to continue to have good civil discussion and debate, and that any "look" would be thorough, accompanied by careful analysis. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for moving on
''Note: I am aware that while I was composing this, Gaijin made a different proposal. I apologise for the inevitable confusion.'' Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your considered responses to my critique at. I would draw three conclusions from the discussion. First, what is in the article at present is not satisfactory to anybody on either side, with the honourable exception of North8000. Second, there has to be some mention of the Nazi Germany argument, if only because the RfC has shown a significant number of editors in favour of it. Third, there is no question of reverting to the status of last April, because you can't turn the clock back. It seems to me, therefore, that the protection of the article is as good an opportunity as you'll ever get to collaborate on an alternative text. Collaboration does not mean leaving your POV at the door. On the contrary, if editors on each side suggested a draft based exclusively on their own POV, it might be easier to come up with a balanced version. Ideally, we would end up with a short, concise and neutral version, in which everybody concerned would have invested enough effort to keep it stable, and stop it growing into something else. My own view is that the section, subsection or paragraph should deal with the Nazi Germany argument as it appears in books, articles etc., rather than with the history of the 1938 laws or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and commentary or speculation on the significance of these. With regard to the argument, there are a number of questions that I think could be usefully addressed in the article: One further observation: despite the oft-repeated assertions that "gun control" is a global topic, I suspect that all the major contributors to the article are Americans. The article is far more Americocentric than probably any of you realise, notwithstanding references to ECOSOC resolutions and international surveys, and the talk page is overwhelmingly Americocentric. I think a frank acknowledgement of this fact would be more useful than well-intentioned but inept attempts to give it more of a "world view", such as the ridiculous "Japan of the Shogunate" section. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What exactly is the argument? To say that Nazi gun control laws led to, or facilitated, the Holocaust, is no more than a statement. It is missing a "therefore": Nazi gun control laws facilitated the Holocaust, therefore gun control is inherently evil; Nazi gun control laws led to the Holocaust, therefore gun control will always lead to genocide; the Nazis introduced gun control legislation as part of their plan to exterminate the Jews, therefore anybody who advocates gun control is a Nazi. If (as I imagine) it is none of the above arguments, it should be possible to state it in the same number of words. If there is more than one single argument, they should each be given due weight. If there is in fact no coherent argument, this should be stated.
 * 2) How prevalent is the argument? Not only is the prevalence important in determining the weight given to it in the article, but the prevalence should be explicitly stated in the paragraph itself. Thus, "a major argument against gun control is...", "a minority, albeit large, of gun rights advocates say..." or "a small minority of gun rights advocates say..."
 * 3) How old is the argument? Did it begin with Halbrook, does it go back to the 1968 bill, or does it go all the way back to 1945? If either of the latter two, who was/were the major exponent(s) of the argument before Halbrook?


 * Regarding your assertion that "all the major contributors to the article are Americans", (a) I am not an American (I'm British), and (b) I have been complaining from my first edits to this talk page about the ridiculous manner in which this article of supposedly global scope has been dominated by the discourse of the U.S. pro-gun lobby. Given the WP:OWNership of the article, I have of course been unable to do anything about it - and neither, come to that, have the multiple other contributors who have tried to ensure proper coverage of firearms regulation issues on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So would I be right in saying the great majority of contributors are American? If so, what I said still goes. There is and will remain a systemic bias, and grumbling about the fact doesn't achieve anything. I imagine you are in a minority because most non-American Wikipedians see gun control as an American "thing". Certainly I do. Scolaire (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly see strong evidence that firearms play a more significant cultural role in the U.S. than elsewhere - but that is beside the point. This is an international encyclopaedia, and this is an international topic. It deserves better than to be handed on a plate to one faction of the debate in one country. If it can't be written in a neutral encyclopaedic manner, we shouldn't be writing about it at all. We owe that at least to our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know where I suggested it be written by "one faction", or that it should not be neutral. All I said was that raging about systemic bias as regards location will get you nowhere, and accepting that bias and working within it has the potential to improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that you've withdrawn from this debate with the (in my view mistaken) instigation of the ARBCOM case. To satisfy my own curiosity, I wonder would you mind elucidating what you mean in practical terms by accepting and working within systemic bias and how doing so might improve the article? A point arising from this is if one accepts that this article is largely about, or at least dominated by, the highly polarised US gun control debate - which appears to be a subset of the rather depressing US culture wars which have been raging, apparently, since the 1970s or so - what relationship does this article have to Gun politics in the United States and Political arguments of gun politics in the United States which, despite the fact that the meanings of the terms used in the various titles of these articles differ from "gun control", largely concern themselves with the topic of gun control in the US (indeed Gun control in the United States redirects to Gun politics in the United States). This raises the legitimate concern, first made by I think, that this article may in effect constitute a point of view fork and I think we have to carefully consider how the totality of these articles relate to each other. If this is to be (yet another) article about US gun control what article should deal with the international perspective on firearm regulations (a topic for which there are good sources, some of which I've added myself, and very distinct security issues from those raised by firearm regulations in the US or, indeed, Western Europe). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is my take on what the article might usefully cover, how it would relate to the other two, and why it would not be a POV fork. As regards the international perspective, there is no reason why such an article could not have an "International context" section referring to ECOSOC resolutions and international surveys, and one or two brief, relevant examples from countries where firearms legislation is not referred to as "gun control". Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I might add that the Nazi argument, as opposed to the Nazi policies themselves, is of relevance mainly to the post-1963 debate in the US, and not to "gun control" in Germany, contrary to what others have said on this page and elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so based on the historical précis provided by the OED, you're suggesting that this article topic should be the Gun control debate in the United States (1963—present) or the Gun control controversy in the United States (1963—present) or some such which would be a subset of Gun politics in the United States and, presumably, also a subset of an as yet (amazingly) unwritten article on the US culture war(s) (although it would be an inevitable shit-storm, I'm half tempted to start this article myself; why doesn't it exist?). I think I could go with that although I think that even if "gun control" redirected to such an article the article title should indicate the periodisation and relevant primary country of interest (i.e. we couldn't simply retain the title Gun control for such an article I think). I'd drop most of the international stuff as well except insofar as its relevant to the US gun rights lobby as an NGO or influence in various campaigns, legislative efforts and referenda abroad. I'd then reserve the international treatment for a separate article probably titled Regulation of small arms and light weapons or similar - a title which would better reflect the sources in any case. Also, I agree that the Nazi thesis is irrelevant to the article on gun control in Germany - I'd really like to see how German sources frame the history of gun regulation there actually. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We can call it "Gun control" if we begin with "Gun control is a term used to describe the principle of legislative regulation of gun possession by citizens in the United States. A highly contentious debate on the subject of gun control has been ongoing in the US since the early 1960s", and if we put an template at the top saying, "This article is about the debate on gun legislation in the United States, for gun legislation in the world at large, see Overview of gun laws by nation." Gun law already redirects to the latter article. It would be worth changing Gun regulation to redirect to that as well, and creating a Gun legislation article, again as a redirect to the Overview article. Just to stress, I'm not talking about changing the article so it is about the US, because it already is primarily about the US (one of AndyTheGrump's major complaints). I'm just saying we should acknowledge the fact, work with it, and take out anything that has been artificially inserted to make it appear "global". Again, that's just my own 2c worth, and now I really am going to retire from this discussion for good.  Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Argument - Gun registration enables and often leads to confiscation (even if initial motives are benign). disarmament makes tyranny and genocide easier. the genocidal/tyrannical regimes have generally all implemented gun control (the reverse argument is often left implied but unstated (but certainly some groups do argue the reverse directly)
 * Before Halbrook - Yes. JPFO, Wayne LaPierre, Charlton Heston John Dingell among others. Halbrook is used because he has done the research to find the primary sources that back up his opinions in a way that can be verified.
 * Size of argument - The direct Nazi argument size is unknown, but certainly Harcourt and other contrary views attribute it widely. (Harcourt (remember, on the counter argument side!): "Say the words "gun registration" to many Americans-especially pro-gun Americans, including the 3.5 million-plus members of the National Rifle Association ("NRA")-and you are likely to hear about Adolf Hitler, Nazi gun laws, gun confiscation, and the Holocaust. " and "In fact the nazi-gun-registration argument has so far penetrated the American consciousness that, today, a majority of Americans (~57%) believe that handgun registration will lead to confiscation").
 * US centric - mostly agree. However, the nazi argument has been used elsewhere in terms of this specific content. To some degree this bias is systemic due to the editors involved, but also because the US is the main place that there is an active gun control debate. Places that arent having active arguments obviously don't have arguments to cite.
 * Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So we have Charlton Heston from 1995, JPFO from 1986, John Dingell no date given, and Wayne LaPierre no article. How old does that make the argument then? Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dingell was 1968. That is the earliest I am aware of, but as that was the first major gun control law debate in the US, prior to that there would not be much cause to bring up the argument (though obviously it was at least well enough known to Dingell to bring it up ad hoc). Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * However, (at the time of wwII) secondary sources (now primary? due to age?) commented extensively on the gun confiscation, its effect on the Jews, and then later confiscations in France etc. (Available in my userspace listing of sources from the RFC above). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, my question was specifically about the application of the Nazi argument to the current gun control debate. So, before Halbrook we have Dingell from 1968, JFPO from 1986 and Heston from 1995. I think they're all worth a (brief) mention in the article. Scolaire (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Edwin_Arthur_Hall in 1941!!! prior to Pearl Harbor, during debates for a bill (S1579) that would allow the government to requisition private property for use in the war had text prohibiting any registration or requisition of private firearms. Hall was a cosponser of the bill, and during the debates he said "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka. [goes on to warn about those in congress that want to register/confiscate guns]".(87th congressional record, 77th congress 6778 (aug 5, '41)) So that puts the earliest use of the argument at 1941. Thats pretty amazing imo, since most of the really bad stuff either hadn't happened yet, or wasn't widely known so Godwinning would have been a much less useful tactic. (Could this be the first documented use of the more general "Hitler did it!" argument?!) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Before the advent of Hitler of Stalin"? Well, then it couldn't be referring to Nazi measures, could it? But this is just nit-picking anyway. It doesn't relate to my (now historical) proposal for all involved editors to collaborate on a wording for the paragraph, a minor part of which was how old people thought the argument was. Templating my user-name isn't going to draw me back to this page more than once, so don't bother doing it again. Scolaire (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, even though I disagree with a few of things that you have said, I appreciate your substantive and friendly discussion, support your efforts, and am happy to compromise to help those efforts move forward.  North8000  (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I believe we can gather a cohort of people with a positive attitude towards finding a consensus text. It will need people to come outside their comfort zone, though. Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Before there can be a 'consensus text', it needs to be agreed that there should be a text at all. As I have made abundantly clear (as have many other contributors in this debate), there are good grounds for excluding the material on Nazi Germany entirely, as a violation of WP:NPOV - specifically, as intended to promote a fringe partisan pseudohistorical argument, entirely unsupported by mainstream historiography. This issue will need to be resolved before any talk of 'compromise texts' is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear you. Scolaire (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a "consensus text" it should be in Gun legislation in Germany; this article should be an overarching introduction to the subject and should not duplicate material found elsewhere (ditto Gun politics in the United States, Gun politics in Australia, 3D printed firearms etc.). It is frankly poorly written and would probably benefit from being rewritten from scratch.  Perhaps we could set up a sandbox page to do this, as has been done at other contentious articles.  The bottom line though, this section should not be here unless there is a serious consensus to include it; at the moment, there is definitely not. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

When I started this thread, I was unaware that page protection was about to expire. Since both sides have decided to resume edit-warring in lieu of discussion, I am withdrawing from this altogether. I wish you all many happy years of war. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Warring to make the disputed change / deletion would only serve to invalidate the short term result.  The civilized people are being chased away.  (with Scolaire  being the latest casualty).   Scolaire, even though I disagree(d) with you, thank you so much for your efforts, and friendly, civilized approach and engaged in-depth discussions. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk)


 * While any putative consensus on a compromise proposal is doubtful given the appeal to Arbcom (a mistake, I think, but anyway), I can't help but feel that if 's position represents the most recalcitrant stance towards any inclusion of a reference to the Nazi gun control thesis (be it the simple, if currently decontextualised, facts or a full statement of the thesis and rebuttal) there is, I think, surely still some room for advancement. This lies in the fact that while AndyTheGrump regards the thesis as mostly inadmissible to Wikipedia - and particularly so as it concerns the Holocaust - he grants a possible exception in the context of an article on the U.S. gun debate . There are (confusingly) two such articles, according to AndyTheGrump's position, that might then contain such material: the horribly named Political arguments of gun politics in the United States where there's no reference to the thesis; and Gun politics in the United States which has recently edited to include a very brief mention of Halbrook's thesis as part of a broader series of edits detailing the argument relating gun control to authoritarian regimes. Might it not serve our purposes best to agree a compromise text for insertion into one of these articles (ideally Political arguments of gun politics in the United States where there could be no dispute regarding the notability and relevance of thesis, even if fringe (here, WP:PARITY could be invoked to achieve proper contextualisation even if none of the sources, pro or con, can claim expertise in the holocaust). Then we could detail the thesis appropriately in this article - insofar as it may be necessary to explain certain positions or NRA campaigns, etc, and as reflective of the sources covering international issues of gun control, including comparative treatments - while referring the reader back to the fuller treatment of the thesis contained in the child article. The underlying assumption behind this proposal is that this article should have an international focus rather than merely reflecting the US gun control debate. Shit are we page protected again already? LOL. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FiachraByrne, I am going to reply to your longer comment in the section above, and this comment together, since they cover similar ground. first off, thanks for your considered replies. Secondly thank you for being direct about your answers to the "gradient of arguments" above. There is actually quite a bit of common ground to start working with there I think. I don't know if you noticed, but during the brief interval of non-protection the section changed significantly (it is essentially the proposed text section). It is now the contextualized argument rather than the bare facts. Regarding US only, I have a few comments - 1) It isn't US only. We have multiple reliable sources (both which lean towards the counter argument imo) discussing how the argument is raised an used in their respective countries (CA, and AU), with the AU source identifying several specific AU people and organizations raising the argument. Further the AU WP:RS specifically acknowledges that the argument is made by the "international gun lobby".  2) However, certainly the argument is most notable within the US 3) So what? a global overview does not mean "dont include things that are important in the US" it means make sure it isn't dominated by them and that other global perspectives are also included.  Once could never have an article on ANY subject if you had to only use sources that were discussing the entire global position at once. Here we have a single paragraph, more than half of which is dedicated to the counter argument. How much more WP:NPOV can you get, particularly as we agree that many of the core questions in the "gradient of argument" are in fact unanswered, so there is not a settled "science" to make the alternative WP:FRINGE. Regarding lack of experts, certainly we have many experts on gun control, and its effects, and their (opinionated) arguments on both sides. Nowhere in RS does it say "only historians opinions count" (Although if the wiki-voice were to take a stand on one side or the other on the historical arguments we would certainly need those experts). this is not science. There are not "right" answers. Nobody can go back in time and set up any alternate history experiments to see what would happen. Here we are neutrally describing both sides argument, with the argument attributed to the arguers. Above you brought up Bryant, a source I had not read before. I think it is a fine addition to the "counter" argument and would gladly list their name as one of the notable counter arguers. I don't know if you noticed but that book includes several essays, a number of which take the other side of the argument including chapters "Genocide and Guns" and "racism and gun control".  Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . My style of interaction is relatively calm and civil and mostly I'm focused upon - and swayed by - source-based arguments rather than a point of view. Notwithstanding this, uncivil editors can also make excellent points and, in the context of WP at least, incivility can be very effective (at drawing attention to an issue etc) although I appreciate that it can be difficult to digest such points when presented in such a manner. While I'd by no means endorse all the forms of interaction on this page I think it's also fair to say that a lot of the abrasiveness stems from an understandable outrage at what some feel is the instrumentalisation of a historical instance of genocide in the pursuit of partisan political aims. Reference to the Holocaust in the context of gun control is rather destined to generate a lot of heat. While not a perfect analogy by any means, it's a bit akin to editing on articles like Race and intelligence, I suppose.
 * The contextualised treatment is better than the previous presentation of the decontextualised facts which I regarded as a circumvention of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. As an aside the use of "circumvention" shouldn't necessarily imply any deliberate attempt to flout policy but merely the effect of the text. I can't say that I agree with the current text or its placement, however, not least as I don't think it's reasonable to give Halbrook's (et al.'s) thesis parity with non-fringe empirical studies on the impact of firearm regulation on the incidence of suicide or homicide, etc.
 * In the interests of talk page dynamics, I'd also encourage you to follow 's suggestion to make a edit protected request to remove that content until such a time as there is consensus on this page for its inclusion (and I understand that such consensus may take a long time to or never develop).
 * Regarding the international notability of the Nazi gun control thesis I'm open to arguments on this point and, if the topic of the article is gun control from an international perspective (to establish consensus on this point might be very useful), I think that this represents the strongest argument for its inclusion in some form. I've posted some sources for this myself and has also directed me to a few sources. I haven't yet read any sources on its impact on Canada (if you could post those here on in another section on this specific topic that might be helpful) and I'd like a little longer to look at the source on Australia. The Brazilian source, which is very good I think, is pretty equivocal on the impact of the Nazi gun control thesis on the Brazilian population (doubting its coherence) I also read a pretty good source which made reference to its use by one gun sports group in the UK where it seems to have been regarded as an extremist position. As of this moment I'm not of the opinion that this rhetoric, largely a US export, is of sufficient significance to merit detailed treatment of the type in current text and I wouldn't use it in this context either. I would refer to the Hitler trope, amongst other rhetorical strategies, in terms of the attempt by the NRA or its affiliates to influence public opinion in a variety of jurisdictions (which I guess dates from the mid-1990s when the NRA first applied for NGO status and appears to have formulated an international strategy). So far as I can judge from my reading of the sources thus far this would best reflect the presentation of this thesis in the relevant sources.
 * I entirely agree that a global overview should not exclude the US but the question of a global overview presents problems of structure and of whether and to what extent the situation in individual countries should be described. I would suggest that in the first instance we should emulate sources that discuss gun control from an international perspective. Such sources suggest a number of approaches: detailing how gun regulation is manifested in international law and organisations such as the UN; detailing significant regional agreements on gun control; detailing comparative treatments of national gun control regimes. Comparative treatments, organised thematically, should, in my opinion, strongly inform article structure. The US, or even individual US states, would not be absent by any means in such a treatment (in fact, as they're quite distinct, they would probably feature prominently) but would be presented in contrast to regimes in place in other jurisdictions.
 * Re fringe - as I've said - a real problem with this thesis is that it is not addressed in the relevant scholarly literature and thus, other than using Halbrook's own assessment, there's no way we can reasonably say the degree to which the thesis is a minority opinion relative to mainstream Holocaust research. I regard this as a major problem and those critiquing the thesis provide no real solution - they lack expertise in the historical dimension of this thesis just as Halbrook does. It might be solved if someone authoritative would review Halbrook's book. Also, this is the Holocaust. It's a major topic and a major field of study. None of the participants in this debate - although they may be expert polemicists in the US gun control debate and are certainly experts in areas of US constitutional law - have any expertise on the Holocaust and their arguments largely hinge on historical understandings of that process. I feel very strongly that the appropriate field of expertise by which to judge whether this thesis is fringe or not is within the field holocaust studies. As Halbrook admits, this whole argument lies outside of that relevant field of scholarly debate. It is fringe by this measure and this is the only relevant measure for a thesis ostensibly about the Holocaust.
 * I haven't addressed all your points and I suspect my reply could benefit from a copy-edit but it's 4:20 in the am here and to bed I must go. As a parting remark let me say I don't care whether the finalised article - if such a thing ever comes about - is pro or anti gun control. My understanding of US politics - particularly right-wing US politics is largely distilled through certain pervasive stereotypes and forms of political condensation - so I can't really trust what might pass for my own political instincts on these issues. I would be particular about sourcing, however, and the representation of sources. Likewise with the presentation of fringe theories touching on areas such as the holocaust. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two other comments/questions. Could you elaborate on what was Bizzare above? gotheans comment or mine? Im quite confused by that set of interactions. 2) I was not aware of the "political arguments of gun control in the US" article, and think that probably should be merged into "gun politics in the US" unless by "politics" we really mean "laws" in which case the article should be renamed, but since the arguments and the lasws created by those arguments are inexorably linked I see no reason to separate them. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh - I thought 's statements - especially his "no" - was quite bizarre in that section. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, even though my opinion remains that "non-contextualized" coverage is OK and normal, I would note that the new context material states the most plausible arguments from both sides quite well. Incidentally, those arguments are not mutually exclusive and I think some from both sides are correct.  North8000  (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think that if one power wants to persecute or commit genocide against a people, it is a no-brainer (not fringe) that disarming them would reduce their power to resist and that such would be a part of any even half-intelligent effort to do so. It's also a no-brainer that an incremental approach might be an easier/effective way to do that. These ideas are not only not fringe, they are no-brainers.  Those are the arguments from the one "side" that are currently in there.  The ones from the opposing side are not mutually exclusive and I think include some accurate points plus one that shouldn't be in there (a claim about what Holocaust survivors think).  North8000  (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI
See Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 12.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Suicide/homicide statistics
10.7326/M13-1301 is a meta-analysis from the Annals of Internal Medicine that looks at risks of completed suicide or homicide on the basis of access to guns. While the results are not immensely surprising, the fact that there is a statistically confirmed association should inform the relevant debate. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. And that AIM analysis was picked up and reported by a number of news orgs. (Popped up all over my newsfeeds.)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/"
 * "http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/20/study-finds-people-with-guns-more-at-risk-for-suicide-and-homicide.html"
 * "http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story#axzz2r3SVOM6o"
 * "http://www.nbcnews.com/health/guns-home-raise-suicide-homicide-risk-review-confirms-2D11950306"
 * "http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay684000_20140120_Easy_Access_to_Guns_Tied_to_Higher_Risk_of_Suicide__Homicide.html"
 * "http://nation.time.com/2014/01/20/study-guns-in-home-raise-risk-of-suicide-murder/"
 * "http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/hsn/easy-access-to-guns-tied-to-higher-risk-of-suicide-homicide"


 * It should be included, but I note that the study does not reveal how large of an effect the relationship is, just that it is statistically measurable. (IE additional suicides/homicides per X handguns) (The media sources are conflating the measured OR with the Risk Ratio, which as our OR article describes is a common error Odds_ratio.  Therefore, what we would be able to include in the article would have to be very narrowly described. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're supposed to opine about whether or not the media sources are conflating the ratios. Seven major media sources find this analysis newsworthy. We should add it. If a reliable, verifiable source disputes this analysis, we should give it due weight. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Popular media sources quoting statistics that ARENT IN THE STUDY are not reliable. We can quote the study, as it easily passes WP:SCIRS and is a secondary study but we cannot state claims that the study does not make.  Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but I need time to think about a reply. Also, WP:SCIRS is an essay about identifying reliable sources for the natural sciences. Is that what you meant to point to? Lightbreather (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS is functionally equivalent (if not stronger). I have made a post on RSN asking the question about the reliability of the popular media analysis. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a link to the question Gaijin posted on RSN. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The study deserves a mention, but it is not within Wikipedia policy to opine on it's results, or attribute findings to the study that are not actually in the study itself. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to drop the question of the reliability of the media sources, but on a closely related note: What are the most current studies on this subject in our article? I don't see these. Are they there and I just don't see them?

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390" by Fleegler et al in the March 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine.
 * "http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM12080.pdf" by Bangalore and Messerli in the OCT 2013 American Journal of Medicine
 * Those are both primary studies, so per MEDRS we would prefer to have secondary or systematic reviews (such as the one discussed above) where available. so it isn't surprising that a particular primary study isn't included, if that study has not gained much traction or notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS says that it's aguideline about biomedical information. Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are representative of the general consensus based on prior discussions. The studies in question are written by medical doctors and published in medical journals and firearms deaths in general are generally studied as a type of epidemiology. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Citing misleading information about sources: Harvard and "student-run" journals
The following statement is misleading on many levels: "For example, a 2002 review of international gun control policies and gun ownership rates as these relate to crime rates by Kates and Mauser,[28] published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (a student run journal devoted to conservative and libertarian legal scholarship)...". The details about the publication in question should be removed. Few of the other sources cited have such detailed information about a publication, and they only seem to be given here to mislead readers. There are three elements here that all require explanation for uninformed readers: (1) the journal has "Harvard" in its name, (2) it is "student run", and (3) it is "devoted to" publishing a certain kind of scholarship. These statements are misleading because (1) having "Harvard" in a journal name doesn't mean that the opinions of the articles are all endorsed by Harvard, nor do the authors have any affiliation with Harvard, (2) "student run" law journals are actually the norm in the U.S., and I noticed quite a few other sources in this article that come from them -- while to an uninformed reader "student run" conjures up an image of disorganized high-school kids throwing a school newspaper together, rather than a peer-reviewed professional journal, and (3) many if not most of the sources cited in the article were published in sources with a specific ideological commitment, whether it is a collection of a essays devoted to "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" arguments, a journal devoted to a particular kind of scholarship, etc. A "pro-gun" advocate may draw incorrect conclusions in their favor from (1), while "anti-gun" advocates may draw incorrect conclusions from (2) and (3). Thus, all of these publication details should be removed as irrelevant -- the article should just be cited as by "Kates and Mauser" as is the case with most other citations here. 98.25.50.67 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the specific issue, the fact that law journals are often student-run should make them generally unreliable, except where the author is a recognized expert. (No law journal is peer-reviewed as understood in science, although some may be peer-reviewed as defined in law.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As unreliable as the vast majority of publications we cite on here. The scientific community's peer review is exceptionally rare if one were to sample the majority of accepted citations on Wikipedia. That certainly applies to 99% of the books cited, academic and otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Before introducing opinions, we should use secondary sources that establish their WP:WEIGHT, which has not been done in this case. The article begins, "International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths."  Since that is a factual statement, even if phrased in a non-neutral tone, there is nothing wrong with using it if we consider the article to be rs.  But there is no justification for reporting the opinion of the writers, since there is no indication that their views have received any acceptance, and reason to believe they have not.
 * Incidentally, while rs does not require academic sources, they are preferred. Academic books undergo fact-checking and are more reliable than books from popular publishers.  Furthermore, they are more likely to accurately describe the state of current scholarship, even when the authors challenge it.
 * TFD (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD: I can't imagine how you think the version of the sentence you quote comes across as fact... the "have been long offered as proof of the mantra" doesn't convey at least a scintilla of skepticism about the claim. Actually, after looking at that, no matter what one thinks on the issue, that sentence does nobody any favors. But on the issue of law reviews, I don't think that book publishing is better across the board, so long as we're treating wide swaths of scholarship the same. The real answer is that there's immense quality differences between Law Journals, and between years, but like it or not (most law professors hate it, but they have their own reasons for that) the majority of legal scholarship is published in these kinds of journals. And despite some statements to the contrary, there are checks on what gets published, and also vocal debates back and forth. As far as this specific issue is concerned, I think the question about "peer reviewed" scholarship is misguided. Shadowjams (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote does not contain skepticism about whether the mainstream view is that gun control reduces deaths, it contains skepticism about whether the mainstream is right. So the article states a fact (what the mainstream thinks) and an opinion (what the author thinks).  RS, assuming the article is rs, says we should accept the fact stated, but NPOV does not say we should mention the opinion.  TFD (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There's wp:RS criteria and also a separate but related topic of reliability. The former is the structural stuff in the policy (essentially that it's published, with editorial review, and usually that it be a secondary source) and the latter is expertise and objectivity with respect to what is said in the text which cited it. The latter is not policy but tends to get included in wp:RSN discussions. The above discussion is a blend of the two criteria, which is fine as long as that it is understood that it is such. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the above discussion is a blend of the two criteria, and the fact needs to be made clear and understood that's what's going on. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I was commenting on the discussion immediately after this, and it caught my attention.
 * First, North8000 What does "secondary source) and c The latter" mean? Did you write that?
 * To the point, from the Harvard JLPP "About" page: "The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship." Here are two suggestions:

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove the "student-run" (seen by some as a possible false-light) part of the comment: "For example, a 2002 review of international gun control policies and gun ownership rates as these relate to crime by Kates and Mauser,[28] published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (a 'forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship'), argues that: 'International evidence....'"
 * 2) Remove the whole mention of Harvard (seen by some as giving undue weight to authors' statements; plus, it's in the footnote): "For example, a 2002 review of international gun control policies and gun ownership rates as these relate to crime rates by Kates and Mauser argues that: 'International evidence....'"

@Lighbreather, answering your questions to me, I had a couple of (just-fixed) typos in there, plus your question had one word from the tail end of a phrase of mine, so I'm not sure exactly what your question is. But clarifying, the first phrase was was just noting that I was talking about the official wp:rs criteria, and the "latter" was referring to discussions about (actual) reliability which would add in criteria of expertise and objectivity with respect to the material which cited it.  North8000  (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * North, it was just brought to my attention that I mangled your post and created some confusion. Please accept my apologies for that. It appears to be fixed now, and I will try to be more careful in the future. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's no biggee. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

PP-padlock template
Please add an appropriate "padlock" template. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

3D printing citation overkill
The 3D printing section of this article is small - but has 19 source citations (of 82 total numbered sources for the whole article). It makes for a distracting bloat of the references - and unnecessary too, IMO, since the section links to a main article. Most of these citations belong there (main article) and not here. Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there particular citations you think are redundant? Are you suggesting removing just the citations but leaving the text behind? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that the 3D printing section of this article - since it links to "main" 3D printed firearms article - needs a better brief summary, and that whatever all the sources on this page are being cited for would better serve that main page, per WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF. For comparison, see the 3D printers section of the Improvised firearm article; in addition to a link to the main article, it has one paragraph and two sources. Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lord, finding stuff on Wikipedia is maddening - to me anyway. What I'm proposing is this article needs to be summarized to the 3D printed firearms article, because what's here now is way more than a summary. Per Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, however i would note that I would not expect the two summaries (improvised vs 3d) to be the same. There are elements unique to 3d printing issues that should remain here (such as legal effects on other types of 3d printing) and issues that are more relevant to the firearms article (such as effectiveness/issues with gun control laws) (although I think that issue does merit a brief mention in this article as well). Obviously both topics would be covered in detail in the main article. Why don't you develop a proposed text below that we could discuss (Perhaps include the full text from the current article, and strikeout the portions you think should be removed, so we can easily discuss the changes). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that they would not or should not necessarily be the same summaries. My point is that the summary in the Improvised firearm article is truly a summary.
 * As for the number of redundant citations in the 3D printing section of this article: If there are more than a few, it's not really a summary, and if there are hardly any that are redundant, then that material needs to be summarized into (in my old thinking, "merged" into) the main. Either way, what's currently in this article re: 3D printed firearms is not a summary. Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, Gaijin, I have added your "Why don't you develop" suggestion to my follow-up list. Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any 3-D material here that is *NOT* on the main article? If so, what material specifically? It should be copied over immediately. If not, what you are actually proposing is cutting material, is that correct? If that is the case, I would say it's already summarized, unless the amount is truly excessive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having examined the section, it is already one of the smaller sections in the article, and I think that taking anything away from it would lessen it. That having been said, if there is material in it that is not already in the main article, it should be copied over. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Id say maybe the quote could be summarized away probably. Other than that I agree, its pretty short. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to the quote being trimmed away if there was some sort of consensus to do it, but I'm not seeing that. I say keep it in until there's a few editors who really want it out. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the entry here is and should be more specialized (= gun control related) than the general 3-D printing article. To me it looks about the right length and depth, but I have no strong opinion about changing either.  The same for the number of references.   It looks a little heavier on references than average, but not unusual.   I have no strong opinions for or against changing.   North8000  (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)