Talk:Gun control/Archive 17

Re-ordering the paragraph
Since the ArbCom case seems to have stalled completely, I'm going to briefly re-enter the discussion to say what I was going to say at the beginning of January, before everything blew up. A major problem with the "Nazi" paragraph as it stands is its structure: 1) the "facts"; 2) how a number of people and groups draw logical conclusions from these facts; 3) the way in which others respond to those arguments. By putting "facts" in scare quotes, I do not mean to say that they are not true, but only that they are selective, and putting them up front in that way introduces a POV that no amount of "stating both sides" can undo. Facts are facts, after all. My proposal for introducing NPOV is simply to change the word order – not adding or subtracting anything – so that the "facts" are incorporated into the gun rights arguments, thus: Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gun rights advocates such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Democratic Congressman and NRA board member John Dingell, the NRA (voiced by NRA presidents Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre), Stephen Halbrook, and others in the international debate on gun control have argued that policies and laws instituted by the Nazi Party (NDSAP) during the Third Reich, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and later confiscated arms in the countries they occupied, 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 context of the modern gun-control debate. In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews, but he and and others like Robert Spitzer  and the Anti-Defamation League 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.


 * Kudos to you for such "high plane" efforts. On your proposed change, I think that it goes right to the heart of one of the main questions. I think that the two main coverages or potential coverages are:
 * Coverage of what happened (essentially without comment) simply as a significant instance of gun control
 * Coverage of it and discussions about it in the context of it in contemporary gun control debate.
 * Currently the article sort of does #1 and then #2. Your change (for better or for worse) sort of eliminates #1 by putting it solely "under" #2.  Ran out of time, but wanted to say a bit. Again, thanks for such high plane efforts.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This makes the sentence structure more complicated/harder to read, and could possibly run into WP:SYNTH since there is no single source that is giving all of the points in the sentence, but I can accept this change. I also would like to thank you in working cooperatively on this issue.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO we should not drop the idea of coverage #1. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that my proposal leads to a longer, more compicated and harder to read sentence. However, if the change is made and the POV issue addressed, it shouldn't be difficult to make stylistic changes afterwards. I hadn't thought about a possible SYNTH issue, but on looking at it again I see that the people cited for the "facts" are the same people cited for the arguments. Those citations aren't really needed any more; the "facts" are not potentially contoversial as they are adequately referenced within the arguments. As for specific articles, Halbrook (2012) and Halbrook (2013) are not cited for the arguments, but that can be remedied by just moving the refs to the end of the sentence. I'm going to go ahead and edit for my own proposal, and you or others can edit it for style and verifiability.
 * I do respect your view, but as you know I don't share it. More importantly, it seems to me from this talk page and from the Arbcom workshop page that you are in a minority of one as regards that particular view. If I'm wrong, then no doubt somebody other than you will revert my edit.
 * Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Scolaire. I was just giving my opinion. I think that it is most important to have a nice process in place as has been the case for this change. I think that the sum total of this thread leans a bit towards going with your version and so from a "supporting process" standpoint, I am fine with you making the change.  North8000  (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, before I comment on the topic at hand, is it possible we'll never hear any decision from ArbCom? Does that sometimes happen?


 * As for the Nazi stuff in this article, if you're going to work on it, I'd like to work with you. As you know, my preference would be for this topic to have its own article, with a brief sentence in this article like, "Some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws..." Yadee, yadee, yadee. I still hope that is an option that ArbCom might recommend. However, if we aren't to start on anything like that soon, I would like to help you with the material currently in the article. I have some commitments early today, but I will get started on some suggestions and check back in again after my day frees up.


 * 1. Assuming you're doing this too, but I'm reading and re-reading the sources given as I go along. The very first one, Horwitz p. 137, begings:
 * "'How can anyone support gun control after what Hitler did to the Jews?' What began several years ago as a throwaway line used by gun rights activists to suggest that perhaps European Jews could have organized themselves to resist the Nazis if they had been better armed has become a fully elaborated revisionist theory of the history of the Holocaust."
 * Emphasis mine - and supports my proposal. The source is given as a reason to include JFPO among the list of gun rights advocates who support this theory. I do not think we should include that group, for reasons I have given in a recent, related discussion, but this source would be a good one to use in an article about Nazi gun laws (or whatever we decided to call it). Lightbreather (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem not to have read the first line of my original post, where I said I am "going to briefly re-enter the discussion". Even if I was so inclined, I simply do not have the time to put in the work required for a major revision of the article.
 * As for ArbCom just not bothering with a proposed decision, that is unprecedented in my experience. There are only two cases before ArbCom. Both of them finished their evidence and workshop phase long ago, and yet arb activity on either of them seems to be close to zero. What can I say? Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was viewing the above as a compromise.  If this is going to evolve further, I think that straightforward coverage of what happened (just as a significant instance of gun control) should be included  in it's own right.  North8000  (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, I don't think it requires major revision to make what's currently in the article read better. I had done so before, back on Feb. 10, but someone reverted it. Writing a new article would be a major project, but I've been hold off on that pending ArbCom. Here is what I was going to post next:


 * 2. Taking the paragraph in its current form, since your last edits, I propose this change as the next step. It adds some more key details, giving it more meaning, and removes some less key details, lightening the word count (from 115 to 73):
 * Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator and author Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance. They have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate. In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews, but he and and others like Robert Spitzer and the Anti-Defamation League 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.


 * I removed "and others in the international debate on gun control" while we reconsider that statement and those sources. I have read them a couple times now and what they say - that is to say how what they say is used in this article - is hinky. Lightbreather (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources that explicitly say the argument is made internationally, is insufficient to say the argument is made internationally? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. Considering how contentious Nazi material is in any article, the dirth of high-quality sources for Nazi gun control is a problem. As I've said before, it ought to have its own article. Beyond that, to suggest that the argument is as significant internationally as it is among its fringe American adherents? The sources do not support it.


 * Here is what I re-wrote - including the "and others in the international debate" material (in italics) and excluding the inline citations (those for "and others" follows text snippet):


 * Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator and author Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, and others in the international debate have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance.


 * The sources for the "and others" material are these:
 * "" and


 * In a barely one-page section titled "Hitler tried to disarm the Germans," Simon (Australian) wrote: "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany." He gives a one-sentence quote by "Queensland's Ian McNiven," and a two-sentence quote (a what-if question and answer) by an unnamed editor of Guns Australia. There are no citations for the source of either quote. That is to say, he attributes the quotes to those persons, but doesn't cite where he got the quotes.


 * McNiven sounds like Australia's own Wayne LaPierre, so we could probably find some material by/about him re: Nazi gun control, though how good the quality?


 * Brown (Canadian) wrote: "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearms owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." This appears to be from Chapter 6, "Flexing the Liberal State's Muscles: The Montreal Massacre and the 1995 Firearms Act, 1980-2006," but no organization or person is named, and his source(s) is/are hard to verify (from the URL we give anyway). Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for. We are not stating that the argument is as influential or as notable outside the US, but it is a verifiable fact that it was made outside the US, as these pro-control reliable sources clearly verify. The ADL citation is in the section already, and the "throw a scare" line is from the Aronsen article in the previous sentence. It is not necessary to re-cite sources for every sentence that they support. I am reverting these changes as they removed valuable information. Please slow down your edits and get feedback on them before making the changes. This is already a contentious enough section, and making many sequential edits makes it difficult to deal with them on an individual basis. As to putting this content into a WP:FRINGE ghetto, Im quite happy to have a larger article on the topic, but it should not be removed from this one in this WP:SUMMARY form. This is a subjective political argument, the application of WP:FRINGE is mistaken, but even if it were a scientific fact, its notability would still require some level of coverage. For example global warming denialism is covered in about this same depth as this is, in the main global warming article. Global_Warming Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just about to call it a night, but I'll leave this question: To what were you referring when you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for"? As well as, how these edits improved the article? Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Above, you complained that Chapman and Brown do not provide their own citations for their sources. WP:V and WP:RS are not recursive. Saying that "people have made this argument" is not an exceptional claim that requires any exceptional sourcing. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Harcourt
To say "In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews" is a gross misrepresentation of Harcourt's views. I have read the two sentences cited. In fact, the citation is identical to the one used (twice within one sentence) to present the argument that he is supposedly "responding" to ! Those two sentences are nothing more than an acknowledgment that the "facts" presented by Halbrook et al. are factually correct, i.e. that they are not liars. It is in no sense a "response" to their argument. Further, "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" is a summary of a short passage in an article that is 28 pages long. It has the appearance of being deliberately chosen to give the impression that the whole thrust of Harcourt's response was "you're right, of course, but on the other hand..." Here are a few representative quotes from the cited article: Whether you agree with them or not, these are all very strong arguments, and none of them are of the drippy "yes, but on the other hand" sort. I know that editors here have a strong commitment to neutral point of view, regardless of their own personal point of view. We need to come up with a summary of Harcourt's article that truly reflects his position. And we need to get rid of that "In response, Harcourt agrees" bit as a matter of urgency. Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...the argument is of an odd form for the NRA and pro-gun proponents. After all, the NRA stands for the proposition that "it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people"...you would expect a member of the NRA to respond in the same manner when confronted with the Nazi-gun-registration argument: "It's not gun registration that produces gun confiscation and genocide, it's people who do."
 * The fringe pro-Nazi element in the country has far more ties to the pro-gun community than it does to the anti-gun community, and you are far more likely to see a swastika at a gun show or a pro-gun rally that you are at the anti-gun Million Mom March on the Washington Mall.
 * [quoting a Charlton Heston speech about the dangers to "God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, protestant" people]: But the symbolic message in Heston's comment is not one of inclusion or integration. At least, the imagery used is a far cry from that of the oppressed Jewish family in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Nazi regime.
 * The fact is, there is tremendous fragmentation internal to the pro-gun community on the specific issue of Hitler and gun registration. Not all pro-gunners buy the Hitler argument. The pro-gun folks at the talk.politics.com web site, for instance, debunk the infamous Hitler quote. They rely primarily on the research of Clayton Cramer, a pro-gunner...and they tend, to a certain extent—at least Cramer does—to minimize the connection between gun registration and the Holocaust.
 * ...within the pro-gun community there is a sharp conflict as to whether Hitler was pro-gun control...one of the leading defenders of Hitler on the question of gun control is also pro-gun...[William L.] Pierce [a white supremicist] writes: "...When you have read [and compare the 1928 and 1938 German gun laws], you will understand that it was Hitler's enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today."
 * The toughest question in all this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal [independent of or irrelevant] to their gun-control views.
 * In order to disarm Jewish persons, the Nazi government used both the "trustworthiness" requirements originally legislated in 1928, as well as more direct regulations denying Jews the right to manufacture or possess firearms. It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control. But if forced to, I would have to conclude...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.


 * I agree that Harcourt is arguing strongly against the meme. The current state is a result of two influences I think. Sourcing for both the "facts" and the initial argument. Previously, editors were arguing that the Halbrook et al were unreliable, even as documentation that that pov exists. If there is consensus that both the facts and initial argument are sufficiently sourced without harcourt, I am more than happy to not cite him for those points (Although I think its interesting that you can source essentially the entire section by only using sources arguing against meme, without changing any text).   However, if you want to change the summary of his objection however, I am open to that. At the time I originally rewrote this section, I said I took a stab at the opposing view, but thought it may be better for an advocate of the opposing view to write that summary.  Harcourt does explicitly say that the laws were used to further the genocide though, which is an important concession - but if the facts are indeed presented as facts (possibly current wording does this), I am probably willing to let them stand on their own.Gaijin42 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I knew I could count on you to take a reasonable position. I will have a think and try to come up with a reasonable (and reasonably brief) summary of the "anti" stance. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done the edit. In the process I removed references to web pages that were anti-gun rants (Aronsen, Seitz-Wald and Frank). I haven't taken them out of the Bibliography section because I don't know for sure that they're not cited elsewhere, though I'm pretty sure they're not. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits without discussion
I would appreciate it, and I'm quite sure others would as well, if editors did not make series' of edits like this one, creating new subsections with contentious titles in the process, without prior discussion on the talk page. I have made two important edits in the last few days, and both times I gave a lengthy justification here on the talk page, and waited for other editors' responses, before doing the edits. I see no reason why others should not show the same courtesy. Scolaire (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about them, one at a time. (I also think it would be a courtesy to revert edits one at a time, giving a content-related edit summary.) Would you like to do that here, or on one of our talk pages? I am quite sure we can work together on this. Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am going to bed now, but if you want to justify each of your edits, one at a time, then please do. On this page – the discussion is for everybody. You can use numbers or bullets or whatever way you choose, and I will respond in the morning, and hopefully others will respond as well. Scolaire (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Roger that, and sleep well. I really want to work together. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1. This edit was to add a subsection header under the existing Studies, debate, and opinions section. I chose "Nazi gun control and Holocaust imagery," but it could be something else. The main thing is, it needs to make it very clear that what follows is a small minority hypothesis, not supported by broad, mainstream scholarship or high-quality, mainstream news sources.

That said, if we go with a single sentence or two in this article that links to the article that is currently titled "Nazi gun control" (also not carved in stone) then a subsection header is unnecessary. A suggestion for the simple sentence or two is:
 * A small, but vocal and mostly U.S., group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control contributed significantly to the Holocaust. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to do the exact opposite of what you've just said. More than half the problems on this article have arisen from the fact that this was in its own section or sub-section. What to call it – no two people can agree; where it should go – it was moved from Studies and Opinions to History (while it was still full of opinions) and back to Studies and Opinions (after it had been reduced to just history); notable pro-gun argument or fringe theory – deadlock; and so on. We now have a reasonably short, reasonably balanced paragraph about opinions which are being expressed in the literature and in news media in the Opinion section of the article, and you want to change it back into a subsection with a provocative heading (no, please don't tell me to suggest an alternative heading; there are no "good" alternatives) so that we can go back to the fun days of the war. As for your "simple sentence", it is a more blatant statement of POV than any I have seen from the most biased pro-gun editor. I'll say no more than that. I assumed you were going to justify your edits one by one, but all at the same time. I'm not bothered to log back on thirteen times to respond to your response to my response to one point and then respond to your next point, so I'll comment on all of your other edits together now: Finally, please stop telling me that you want to work with me, when what you want is for me to follow your agenda. I don't want to work on this at all. I want to give it a long rest. Maybe you should too. Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Removing a second citation for an uncontroversial fact: I agree, but you need to discuss this with Gaijin before doing it again, because he has already reverted you once.
 * 2) "Occupied France": on p. 536 Halbrook talks about "the countries occupied by the Nazis." "Countries" (plural) or "occupied Europe" appear on other occasions. It's not just about France.
 * 3) "Critical theorist and legal scholar": let's choose one or the other. No other person cited is double-jobbing. If it's the first, no need to link, per WP:OVERLINK.
 * 4) Anti-Defamation League and Abraham Foxman: The cited source is a press release from the ADL which is headed "ADL Says Nazi Analogies Have No Place In Gun Control Debate". ADL, Not "Abraham Foxman, director of the ADL". The date is of no importance, and the direct quote does not serve a useful purpose. It would be sufficient to say, "The Anti-Defamation League has said that use of the Holocaust in these arguments, as well as being historically inaccurate, is offensive to the victims of the Nazis."
 * 5) Gun rights advocates / U.S. gun rights advocates: not bothered either way.
 * 6) "According to Bernard Harcourt": My edit said that Harcourt "has argued" the things that follow – all the things (see my next point) – because that's what he did: he set out a number of arguments in response to the claims that are made. There is no reason whatever to change that to the vague "according to". WP:SAY does not include the word "argue" and, even if it did, it does not forbid the use of any words, just says to use them sparingly and appropriately.
 * 7) William L. Pierce: Harcourt in his article pointed to Pierce as an example of a gun rights activist who took the exact opposite line to Halbrook et al. That is what is significant, not the mere fact that he said what he said. "Simplifying" it takes away the whole point of it.
 * 8) "Narrow to gun-rights advocates who have...written about it." Why? Speaking about it (if it is reported) is as good a way to propound an argument as writing about it. This seems completely arbitrary to me.
 * 9) "Re-ordering" the first sentence: The argument is that disarming Jews and relaxing regulations for "ordinary" citizens were an enabling factor in the Holocaust. "Re-ordering" so that the cause comes after the effect and in a separate sentence makes no sense. If you're worried about the citations, the sensible thing is to put them all together at the end of the sentence, where citations normally belong. A complex sentence should be edited to make it more readable, not to suit the placement of refs.
 * 10) "They have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate" is a woolly enough sentence as it is; "They allude to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate" just sounds nonsensical.
 * 11) Most importantly, the whole thirteen edits do not add one thing of value to the paragraph or the article. It is just tinkering for the sake of tinkering. The paragraph has undergone two substantive – and substantial – changes in the last couple of days. Why not leave it as it is, to see if those changes are acceptable to editors in general? Tweaking can be done at a later stage, if it is done in a reasonable way and at a reasonable pace.
 * Re: your "2" above, which given source are you referring to? Halbrook's SSRN article "Why Can't We Be Like France?" or his National Review piece "How the Nazis Use Gun Control"? Neither "the countries occupied by the Nazis" or "occupied Europe" appears in either. The word "countries" is in the "France" article 28 times, but only once in the context of confiscation. Re: U.S. Congress debates about GCA 1968, Halbrook wrote, "proponents recommended European models and denied that the Nazis used prewar gun registration records of the occupied countries to confiscate firearms and to repress the populaces." As the article's title indicates, it's primarily about France. The words "France" or "French" appear in it almost 200 times. We shouldn't misrepresent what H. was writing about by writing ourselves "Nazi Party policies and laws... which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied." Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The other items are addressed in my comments below, following the side-by-side "Before" and "After" text, and taken together they address the first part of your "11." They improve the article, though I'm sorry that being bold about making them seemed unreasonable to you. Lightbreather (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Leaving the section/subsection title issue for now, I had every intention of proceeding with the other items this morning, my time, which is seven? hours behind Ireland. (I'm in the U.S. West.) When I replied to your message last midnight? your time, I was getting ready to serve dinner and then watch a little basketball and a movie with my husband. It wasn't a good time for me to start re-explaining my edits one-by-one. However, I thank you for, in the meantime, addressing them one by one.
 * Also, I don't want you to follow my "agenda" any more than you want me to follow yours. My only agenda is to treat this Nazi gun control material in a Wiki-kosher way, which I don't believe it does in its current form, though it is perhaps closer than it's been before. As for the edits, here is the paragraph before and after. I will post comments on their parts separately.


 * "Before" sentence 1 is 72 words long with a grade-level readability of 35! (Other editors have knocked the importance of readability, but any good writer will agree that it is important - especially for a layman audience. I use the Flesch-Kincaid test, but there are many others as you may know.) That one sentence also cites nine sources. It is too long (trying to pack in too much info) and WP:OVERCITE. It cites four different Halbrook sources, two other pro-gun/gun-rights sources, and two mostly neutral sources. (One gets cited in two places. Also, maybe some would qualify them as not neutral. I dunno.) Considering that before this went to ArbCom the proposal to include Nazi gun control material was outvoted two-to-one, citing so much of it is uncalled for. Beyond that, it's unnecessary because many of the sources include the same material, even if presented in slightly different ways.
 * The "after" sentence is two sentences. One has 47 words and a grade-level score of 11. It's supported by three sources: one Halbrook, one LaPierre, one Harcourt. The other is 27 words, grade-level 18. (Higher than I like, but much more readable than before.) It's supported by two sources: the already-used Harcourt, plus one additional Halbrook. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Before" sentence 2 uses the passive voice. It also suggests that they have used allusions in the past, but do not any more. However, I can live with the passive voice if you think it's better in this case. Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Before" sentence 3. First, Halbrook and Harcourt are probably the two most important people in this debate, if one boils it down to two people. That's why it's important to identify them clearly: Halbrook, (gun rights or Second Amendment) litigator and author; Harcourt, critical theorist and legal scholar. Second, "has argued" is passive voice again. Also, it's more like the loaded WP:CLAIM than the neutral WP:SAY. "Argue" can simply mean to give reasons - but it can also mean to express opposing views in a heated way. "According to Harcourt" or "Harcourt says" is active and neutral. If it's agreed that "argue" is an improvement in this case, we should at least say, actively, "Harcourt argues." Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Before" sentence 4. "Point out" is a WP:W2W, but if it's preferred here, I don't have a big complaint with it. However, I replaced "there is disagreement within the gun rights movement on the question" with "gun rights advocates disagree about the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust" for two improvements. First, there are unquestionably gun rights advocates, but what is "the gun rights movement"? Second, "the question" is ambiguous, whereas "the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust" is not.
 * Oh! and again, I broke one 77 word sentence into two more readable sentences... And, I replaced "activist" with "white nationalist" because that's who Pierce is. (Neither "gun" or "firearm" appear on his Wikipedia page.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Before" sentence 5 I left unchanged - even though the passive voice makes my journalist anus pucker. (There, guys, I can be crude on occasion.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Before" 6 and 7: unchanged. Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Before" sentence 8. I think wrapping up the paragraph with a dated and fully attributed quote puts weight on an argument that, according to two out of three editors who weighed in on the "include-it?" proposal, is WP:DUE. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There are the explanations for all of my edits, and I apologize if the edits themselves along with my edit summaries did not make them plain. Lightbreather (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, not responding to last post) Lightbreather, people have limited Wikipedia time, and even more limited time for any particular article. And, particularly on contentious articles, people like to and expect to have the opportunity to review edits, and to have the contentious and POV-related ones go through the normal process, including engagement of other editors. When you make large bundles of edits, given the above time constraints, you are effectively removing your edits from that process or stymieing that process, and people are not comfortable with that. This concern is further heightened because you do do situations where you do a large amount of gnome edits with a few (right or wrong) POV-shifting edits blended in with them, and typically always being in the same direction. I'm not saying or getting into whether such is right or wrong or neither, but all things considered I thought it might be helpful to elucidate what has been the source of some concern and fireworks on these situations. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * North, friend. Without commenting on why you've written some of the things you've written, here's my suggestion. I am addressing my edits here one-by-one. Let's talk about those and not about me. OK? Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Lightbreather. I made an effort to make it clear that I was not saying that any of these things that you are doing are wrong.  In essence, if I was implying anything, it was to suggest that on contentious articles, to slow down and not do large bundles of edits at once, even if they are all fine.    Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your whole post only confirms what I said in mine, that the edits were only tinkering for the sake of tinkering. None of them served any useful purpose. I'm not going to go a third iteration on this. You have my critique, and if you try something like this again I will revert you again. If there is a particular, non-trivial issue that you want to discuss, start a new section and put forward your view. Otherwise, please just leave the paragraph alone, and let other concerned editors give their opinions. There are over 30 other paragraphs in this article alone which could be improved; you needn't be idle. And, by the way, underlining is a form of shouting. It doesn't make your case any stronger, it just makes you look aggressive. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Halbrook aricle I was referring to was the only one you had left following "occupied France", i.e. Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews. You will find that the words and phrases I quoted were in it, in context, where I said they were. If the speed and recklessness of your edits confuse even you, then you really should heed North8000 instead of dismissing him so brusquely.
 * I certainly don't knock the importance of readability, but readability is not just a score based on word count. If you break up a sentence so that the first part of a "because...therefore" is moved to the following sentence, that makes it less readable, not more so. I said that "A complex sentence should be edited to make it more readable, not to suit the placement of refs." You seem to have gone straight to answering me without reading what I said first.
 * The fact that the RfC was showing a majority for excluding the material does not mean that, if it is not excluded, it should not be properly referenced. To say that the inclusion of citations is "uncalled for" goes directly against policy. As it happens, I agree with you that there is an excess of refs in that sentence, and I said so above (again you obviously didn't read it), but that is a question to be raised in a separate section here on the talk page, to allow all parties to agree which refs should be retained.
 * "They have used allusions" is not the passive voice. If you don't know what passive voice is, you really shouldn't be giving lessons in grammar to others. There is nothing wrong with the perfect tense. It doesn't imply that the person has stopped doing the thing (another misconception), and MOS has nothing to say about it. Ditto "Harcourt has argued".
 * The notion that the "two most important people" ("probably") should have two descriptions each to show how important they are is laughable. Which guideline is that in? I missed the fact that Halbrook has two descriptions; that should be rectified. "Argue" is only a loaded term if it implies somebody is arguing when in fact they have only made a statement. Harcourt has presented an argument, therefore he has argued. Again, you don't seem to have bothered reading what I said before responding.
 * Ditto with "points out". It's only a word to watch. I do watch it and I use it only when it is appropriate.
 * Harcourt's words were "pro-gun community". I paraphrased that as "gun rights movement". You may as well ask "what is a pro-gun community?" as "what is a gun rights movement?", but that is what Harcourt says. You might reasonably expand "the question" to "the question of the Nazis and gun control", I'll grant you that. Again, it is Harcourt, not me, who puts Pierce in among the guns rights activists. And I'll repeat (since you didn't read me the first time), Harcourt in his article pointed to Pierce as an example of a gun rights activist who took the exact opposite line to Halbrook et al. That is what is significant, not the mere fact that he said what he said. Improving the Flesch-Kincaid score is not a justification for changing the whole meaning of a sentence. Moreover, playing around with the summary of an article without referring back to the article as you go is bad practice.
 * There is no need to "wrap up" a paragraph (again, I've checked MOS and can't find any guidelines on how to end a paragraph). Saying what the ADL said gives it due weight. A "dated and fully attributed quote" does not add one iota to it. That particular sentence has been there since the beginning of the year; why is it only now, when I added a decent pro-gun control summary to the paragraph for the first time, that you discover the need to change it?

First pass / general impression from reading the "before" and "after" paragraphs above. My general impression is that (especially in the second half of the "after" is that it converts a paragraph about the actual instance/uses of the meme in discussions into a debate about overreachng "straw man" assertions. The most notable overreaching straw man is  "gun control leads to authoritarian regimes"  North8000  (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph, in deference to Flesch and Kincaid, to break the second part into smaller sections, as well as clarifying two or three things per Lightbreather. Since it was Gaijin who wrote the first part, I think we should leave it to him to edit it appropriately. Gaijin seems to be on a short break at the moment, but there's no rush – it has been there for two and a half months, so another few days won't make any difference. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire said in one of his last edit summaries that he will respond to me no further on this subject, but I will still reply to clarify some things, if anyone else is interested. Finally, my underlining is only a result of inserting more text into already-posted comments. When I was a newbie editor, I was chastised for not doing it that way... so that's how I do it now. However, if it looks aggressive, I will go back and remove the insert code. And I will reply to Scolaire's other personal remarks on his talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He wrote, "The Halbrook aricle I was referring to was the only [source] you had left following 'occupied France.'" That is not the source attached to the before (and current) statement, "which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied." The two sources that are given are the ones I asked about in this question. Those are both bad sources for the "which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied" statement. The one I chose absolutely supports "occupied France" and, not-so-well (but better than the other two) "countries it occupied." I am going to restore that citation to that place. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the "readability" comment: Of course word count is only part of how readability is measured, and that's why I didn't refer to just word count. The long, complex sentence that is the subject of this debate was two sentences before it was changed. Another editor said, "This makes the sentence structure more complicated/harder to read, and could possibly run into WP:SYNTH since there is no single source that is giving all of the points in the sentence...." I think he was on to something. A complex sentence should be edited to make it more readable, and one of the ways of doing that it is two break it into two sentences. Also, although my preference is to place all citations at the end of a sentence, when it's controversial material like this, it's probably best to maintain close text-source integrity - even if it makes for an ugly sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say that inclusion of citations was uncalled for; I said that inclusion of so many here is uncalled for. Or as Scolaire said, "there is an excess of refs." Lightbreather (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely f***ked up saying "they have used allusions" is passive voice. I have been schooled by Scolaire. ;-) However, I still say that "they allude" is better in this case. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also stand by WP:SAID, which says "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." If "argue" is an absolutely unambiguous synonym for "say," then let's edit the sentences so that the pro-gun statements use "argue" and the "anti" (launch eye-roll sequence) gun ones simply use "say." Anyone? As for "points out," if everyone else is cool with its use here, OK. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As for what Harcourt has written about Pierce, I don't know how to argue my point any better than I did before. Contrary to what Scolaire wrote - repeatedly - I did read all of the sources to-do with this paragraph, many of them more than once. I think this simply boils down to one editor's opinion over another, with no call for personal attacks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto regarding the final (wrap-up), ADL sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing Harcourt

 * I am back from my short break. With one exception, I don't have any strong objection to your changes, and I am in generally agreement with your commentary above re LB's etids (In particular the great need for discussion and collaboration on this contentions topic before rashly making edits). The one exception : " Bernard Harcourt has argued that the disarming and killing of the Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy" I think this is not supported by the sources per the line you took objection to before where Harcourt explicitly admits gun control was used to further the genocide.  I think there must be some phrasing that correctly exposes the full POV of Harcourt, or at a minimum is not stating something explicitly contradicted in the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The exact quote is, "Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views." Orthogonal, according to Wiktionary, means "independent of or irrelevant to". I paraphrased that as "unconnected to", but I'm not wedded to that. Having said that, what Harcourt acknowledges, on page 676, is that the Nazis "used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide." He then goes on, on the following page, to say that "It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control" (italics added). In other words, their use of the gun laws in this one instance is not their gun control policy. I am open to suggestions as to how we express this subtlety. Scolaire (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I think you have identified the crux. Harcourt spends quite a bit of time discussing if the Nazis were in general pro or anti gun control. This is a convenient straw man (and admittedly directly addresses some of the gun rights rehetoric of things like "raise your hand if you like gun control") - but is not really on point to Halbrook, to whom Harcourt is ostensibly responding.  Beyond that, I agree with Harcourt entirely that control was liberalized for the "trustworthy Germans", while being applied against the ones about to be pogromed and sent off to the camps - but I'm not sure how that is in fact an argument against the meme - Arming group A, disarming group B, and then sending A  to round up B seems like a pretty solid plan.


 * Personally I think we should avoid "Nazi's views on gun control" as that is a very complex, multifacted issue, and getting the correct nuance is going to be exceedingly difficult. Harcourt and the other arguers do directly respond - the arguments about Jews not having enough guns to make a difference, or the Nazis already being in power by the time these laws were implemented - are much more on point, and frankly much more persuasive. Thats where I would focus the anti-meme argument, but thats just me.


 * On this specific point above, I think by switching from "views on gun control" to "gun control policy" magnifies the discrepancy in the straw man. Do you object to any inclusion of the "used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide" quote? If we could include that bit back in, and then perhaps rewrite the other quotes to be more inline with the actual text I think that could resolve my issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as it doesn't take the form of "Harcourt agrees". Perhaps something along the lines of 'Harcourt acknowledges that the Nazi gun laws were used for the disarming and killing of the Jews, but argues that it is "absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control."' Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Scolaire's assessment of what Harcourt wrote (in his paragraph that begins "The exact quote is"). As for Gaijin's response, I think it's another example of why this material belongs in a separate article. Before you know it - either now or in the near future - in order to explain all the subtleties, this thing will grow larger and larger. Considering how many editors believe that this stuff doesn't belong in the article at all, it already has more space than it deserves. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazi gun control article
I created a Nazi gun control article. If you check it out, PLEASE read what I wrote on its talk page, too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have read and responded to what you wrote there. I still hope that it will be brought to AfD ASAP. In three years it has not been possible to get a single paragragh in this article that is encyclopaedic and NPOV. The chances of doing that for an entire article are as close to zero as makes no difference. With all due respect to yourself, this new article proves my point; it is unmitigated rubbish, and I can't see a way even to begin to improve it. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Gee, Scolaire, despite the "all due respect," the "unmitigated rubbish" seems a little hasty and harsh. I have been nothing but collegial with you here, and I supported your ArbCom proposals, and we had a friendly discussion on your talk page.


 * I am moving the rest of my reply to the Nazi gun control talk page, since you have made some comments there, too. Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the fact that you have been friendly towards me does not and cannot stop me from expressing my opinion on content. If something is unmitigated rubbish I will say so, it doesn't matter if my own mother wrote it. Scolaire (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Question, since I've only been editing articles like these for seven months: Has anyone ever written an article, a separate article, on the topic of Nazi gun control before? Perhaps not with that name, but if not - why not? Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge that has not been one before. Personally, I think its just part of the evolutionary cycle of articles, plus the real world events. This was just one of the many arguments discussed in the "Politics" article, and it was using fairly low quality sources - mainly relying on just the common knowledge of the meme. It stuck around in that state for many years until the heated debate ignited last year, (along with the creation of this article) at which point the more detailed/more reliable sources were found and discussed during the arguments, that would sufficiently back a stand alone article - also real world events certainly play a part - although the meme is quite old (1940s) it was recently reignited after Newtown and the resumed gun control pushes, and that triggered the creation of some of those more reliable sources. The most detailed work on the subject (Halbrooks new book) was only published this winter, but also many of the anti-meme sources (Mother Jones, Salon, etc) are quite recent. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The subject has no significance beyond the US gun control debate - as is evident from the lack of coverage from those most qualified to discuss it, academic historians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaijin, what do you mean when you say meme? Nazi gun control? Also, since you apparently have lots of sources on the subject (I won't comment on their quality right now), why don't you write a separate article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Meme "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." - one of the main popularizers of the word "meme" itself is Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law specifically identifies Nazi comparisons (and gun control comparisons in particular) as a meme http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html   As for an article, I think there should be an article, and the more compliated/expanded discussions should go there, but your suggestion of reducing the content in this article to a single sentence or so is too drastic - the argument is too notable for that. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what a meme is. What I mean is, which one are you referring to when you use "meme" on this talk page? Question withdrawn. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how much of it is see-alsoed or summarized here or in other articles, if it's so important to you guys - go write it. That's all I'm saying. Obviously, I won't be the final word on how much of it goes into this or other articles, but at least we won't all have to spend our time debating this stuff over and over and over again. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant to add, your argument that the Nazi gun control argument is too notable for a single sentence has not been proven by anything like a consensus among Wikipedia editors, though more than a sentence has been strong-armed into this article (and Gun politics in the U.S.)... while ArbCom was underway. For the flak I'm getting about creating a fringe/revisionism history stub/start article, that more important fact is being ignored. Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph, top to bottom, one point at a time
OK. Since I've been asked to discuss my edits to the paragraph, I am starting at the top. I propose we edit the first, long, complex sentence, which was two sentences before, back to two less long and complex sentences that we can agree on. Here is current:
 * Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance.

Here is my proposal:
 * U.S. gun rights advocates such as gun law litigator Stephen Halbrook, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have argued that Nazi Party policies and laws were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance. Their arguments refer to laws that disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and to the later confiscation of arms arms in countries it occupied.

I gave most of my reasons for these changes in my discussions with Scolaire, and I've made some changes based on some of his comments. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the "US" part at the beginning, I do not see a problem with the splitting. There were multiple sources for international, which you removed and those should be included again. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That brings us back around to our unfinished discussion from March 20-21. Should we resume it up there, or should we move or copy that portion of that discussion down here? Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say copy it to a new section. That way consensus can be read in this section on the single issue of the split or not. And we can deal with international independently. I think the above sections are too cluttered to be useful at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably should have waited for to opine, since he was the one who voiced opposition to the split above. 2 does not generally make a consensus, unless they are the only 2 to have said anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are John Dingle and Charlton heston removed? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, I had not noticed that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ????  They should go back in.  North8000  (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are Dingell and Heston IN the article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed Dingell and Heston with a detailed edit summary, which I copy here: WP:UNDUE Dingell=2 sentences in a 361-pg book; Heston=1 sentence + 2 short pro-gun rally quotes in a 29-pg paper; sources support those who seriously argue/d this and wrote about it are Halbrook, LaPierre, and Zelman. Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying content
Yesterday, I copied material from the Nazi gun control paragraph of this article into the Nazi gun control article, but I put the Halbrook and others material into the section titled "Nazi gun control" hypothesis, and the criticism into a section titled "Reactions to the hypothesis." I also changed the citation style to what I was already using on that page. However, all of these - article title, section titles, citation styles - are only placeholders, suggestions. I won't put a lot more energy into developing it since A) we're still waiting for word from ArbCom, and B) some have hinted at an AfD. Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and then you replaced the agreed content in this article with a most egregious POV statement, and linked to your new article, which has your version that was not agreed by anybody. Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't make personal remarks again, but that trick was just too blatant to go without comment. Your behaviour is coming very close to the kind of disruption that leads to AN/I. Please, please dial it down. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What agreed content in this article did I replace with an "egregious POV statement"? And which statement is the one you think is egregious POV? Lightbreather (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the edit (it's not that difficult to spot), much of the discussion from Re-ordering the paragraph down is where the deleted content was agreed, and here is where I said that "your 'simple sentence' is a more blatant statement of POV than any I have seen from the most biased pro-gun editor." Feigning innocence or ignorance only makes your actions more reprehensible. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no 'agreed content' concerning the 'Nazi' issue in this article. The inclusion of such material has always been contested, and indeed is currently the subject of an active ArbCom case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is disagreement over whether the issue should be dealt with in this article or not. As of now, it is. The paragraph that deals with is is the result of a discussion between editors that led to agreement. So yes, it is 'agreed content'. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So it was 'agreed' because the editors that agreed to it agreed to it, and those that didn't don't count because they weren't part of the agreement? Interesting logic - if by 'logic' one means 'utter bollocks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, thank you for the first ("This") DIFF. That answers both of my questions. But for Pete's sake, let's not make this about either of us feigning anything. The reason I asked is because this is a discussion on a PUBLIC talk page, on a controversial subject. We know that people are following it now and very likely will read it in the future. Why make them dig for and assume what you're referring to? So, could you please strike the "reprehensible" remark?
 * Since it's not long, I'll copy the "egregious POV" statement here:
 * A small, but vocal and mostly U.S., group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.
 * Of course there are plenty of WP policies and guidelines on writing about controversial subjects, but here's a succint one: WP:CONTROVERSY says, "Describe the controversy." When summarizing the Nazi gun control historical revision (according to some, fringe) hypothesis, what is egregious POV about the proposed statement? Lightbreather (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Small, but vocal" is opinion not backed up by citations. "Historical revisionism hypothesis" is opinion not backed up by citations. "This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship" is opinion not backed up by citations. All of it is POV, therefore in total it is egregious POV.
 * I've thought about striking "reprehensible", and decided against it. You are playing a double game – insisting on the talk page that you want to be collaborative while persisting with disruptive edits such as these on the article. I want people who read this page in the future to understand this. Scolaire (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering all the sources that have been discussed by all of the editors (pro-gun and pro-control) that have been involved in the discussion, I don't think citing/editing that brief statement - or something like it that could be cited/edited collaboratively - will be difficult. Here's a start:
 * A small, but vocal and mostly U.S. group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.


 * Did I miss something from ArbCom? Have they decided that whatever you and Gaijin agree to is what will stay on this page? Lightbreather (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And since you insist on making this personal, despite our private discussions, OK, here goes. If you won't strike the "reprehensible" comment, and you think I'm playing a game (which I'm not), maybe your proposals in the ArbCom workshop are just a game, since you insist on breaking many of the policies you named there. You keep up the personal attacks, and you've named yourself and Gaijin as the approved editors to "agree" that not only will Nazi gun control material stay here, but that you - "I will revert you again" - and he -  "you need to discuss this with Gaijin before doing it again" and  "Since it was Gaijin who wrote the first part, I think we should leave it to him to edit it appropriately" - will give the final stamp of approval on how much will stay, and how it will be written. Lightbreather (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say what I've had to say explicitly on other gun-related talk pages, which are predominated by pro-gun editors: Don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * During a lull in the fighting – and after I had absented myself for over two months from this page – I began a dialogue with Gaijin on a couple of matters that I felt were of major importance. North8000 joined the conversation, and anybody else might have, but nobody else did. When Gaijin had explicitly endorsed my proposals, and North had said he wouldn't oppose them despite having reservations, I edited accordingly. I believe that the result was a paragraph far better than what had been there until then. I hoped that anybody joining the conversation after those edits would follow the same, collaborative, procedure: make their proposals, make a case, make concessions where necessary, and establish a consensus which they could then implement. Of course, there's no law on WP that says everybody must follow this procedure, so in principle I had no complaint if an editor decided to follow a different path. But if one editor has the right to be BOLD, another editor (like me) has the right to revert. I made it clear that it was my intention to do so. I named nobody as "approved editors", I argued with you in respect of what I had written, and said I thought you should not argue with me, but with Gaijin, about what he had written. Gaijin took the same approach as regards one of my reverts here.
 * Having made my position clear, I am going to withdraw from this page again, because the atmosphere is no longer conducive to improving the article in a collegiate fashion. Goodbye, and happy editing.  Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The subtle POV pushing is typical. The reverts are necessary. I have complained many many times, but the complaints fall on silent (or even worse, hostile) ears. The reverts preserve the consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * POV pushing: Disagree. Complained frequently: Agree. Complaints fell on silent/hostile ears: Disagree. Reverts necessary, preserve consensus: Disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)