Talk:Gun control/Archive 5

Gun control in Bolshevist Russia sourced entirely to Russian sources
Per WP:NOENG, I hereby request that an English translation of the relevant portions of the Russian sources used in the "Gun control in Bolshevist Russia" section. If this is not provided within seven days, I will remove the material from the article. &mdash; goethean 18:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOENG:
 * When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not use machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.

&mdash; goethean 18:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it looks like these are random website with no claim to reliability. &mdash; goethean 18:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I work with several russians, I will ask for a translation. However, to address goethean's assertion, at a minimum Kommersant would be a reliable source. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that gun control laws in the Soviet Union were different from any other country in Europe and certainly not a tight as in the UK. There was no law that said only Communist Party members could own firearms and the laws were enforced through the ordinary not political police, and often in a haphazard manner. Again this is the argumentum ad hitlerum.  "You support gun control?  Guess who else supported it?  The Commies!"  TFD (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the "antik-lawyer" is a convenience link to a scholarly article. http://www.kreml.ru/ru/science/conferences/2008/historicalArm/thesis/ShelkovnikovaED/ This author has had multiple articles published regarding gun laws in Russia, including "National Hunting" a russian magazine. http://www.journalhunt.ru/arhiv-nomerov/2008-god/dekabr/article_628.html

Finally, you are misapplying NOENG, which is merely referring to quoting sources in the machine translation section. As we are not using quotes, that portion is not applicable. In the cite section, you may request a quote for validation, but the machine translation is quite clear, so I think you are attempting to wikilawyer, however, I will still obtain a human translation for you. @TFD, again, nobody is making any arguments about modern support of gun control - but your attempt to whitewash all historical misuses of gun control is massively hypocritical. Shall we delete the section on australia, because it is there to show how well gun control works?Gaijin42 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that these sections are partisan arguments and garbage history. &mdash; goethean 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * your point is pov and or. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can read a "Bing" translation of "Historic weapons in Museum and private collections" here. It says that the Communists seized antique weapons.  (You should btw use articles as sources, not abstracts.)  Presumably they let them keep their recent models.  TFD (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I used to convenience link to the entire article in the actual cite, which addresses the point made in the article directly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation provided Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot find anything about the December 10, 1918 decree "On the Surrender of Weapons" by the Sovnarkom of the RSFSR in any sources about gun control or Russian history. The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT - if no one outside the set on individuals writing on this discussion page do not think something is important, it would be tendentious for us to push it into the article.  TFD (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry for the horribile cyrillic mangled URLS) The russian wikipedia site lists this in the history of weapons laws. Really not surprising that something that happened 100 years ago, in a time/place where censorship and suppression of information and dissent was the rule,and those that disagreed with the plan were likely summarily executed, is difficult to find information on... WP:BIAS.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8B Here is a second translation of the relevant points currently cited, done by a friend of mine. Here you go. I have to say I was impressed with the machine translation. It was very close in essence.
 * http://www.referat-sochinenie.ru/list/gosudarstvo_i_pravo_yurisprudenciya/ugolovno_pravovoi_analiz_nezakonnogo_priobreteniya_peredachi_sbyta_hraneniya_perevozki_ili_nosheniya.html
 * http://ngkub.ru/news/xcxvvaa
 * http://guner.ru/razreshitelnaya-sistema-v-rossii/
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=fCMiQx-VYRoC&pg=RA1-PA63&dq=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p-_BUZrBFYHQiwL_54GQBQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%D0%9E%20%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%20%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22%201918&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=KjUfAQAAMAAJ&q=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&dq=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p-_BUZrBFYHQiwL_54GQBQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ
 * http://books.google.com/books?ei=p-_BUZrBFYHQiwL_54GQBQ&id=WzjKAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&q=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22#search_anchor
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Ah8IAQAAIAAJ&q=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&dq=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p-_BUZrBFYHQiwL_54GQBQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCA
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ox86AQAAIAAJ&q=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&dq=%22%D0%9E+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22+1918&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zvHBUff0Aqj4igL264CwCg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgK

It wasn’t until December 10, 1918 that a decree "On the surrender of weapons" was signed binding "all people and all institutions of civil authorities to hand over all serviceable and unserviceable rifles, machine guns and revolvers of all systems, ammunition and swords of any type." What made this decree truly revolutionary was that it did not apply to members of the Communist Party. A special memorandum which was released alongside the decree allowed members of the RCP (b) – Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) – retain their existing rifles and revolvers. and After the October Revolution of 1917, the position of the collectors of ancient weapons changed radically – the famed SNK RSFSR Decree dated December 10, 1918 "On the surrender of weapons." In accordance with RCP (b) Committee’s stipulations, only members of the party could avoid their weapons being seized, but even they were allowed to keep no more than one rifle and one revolver per person. The right to possession of arms, and thus now secret and carefully concealed collection of them, took on a class and party affiliation. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your first link is to a wiki that is referenced to the antik article. Can you provide a link to the actual decree?  As I said, no books I have found about either gun control or Russia mention the decree.  The echo chamber says that the decree was issued in October, but that could be due to the different calendars.  Can you provide a link to the actual decree?  It seems odd to use an article about antique rifles in modern Russia as a source for gun laws in 1918.  TFD (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The antique gun collection article is reviewing the entire history of gun control in Russia/USSR, so seems a perfect source?

Another site giving an overview of russian gun laws, bringing up the 1918 decree http://bestreferat.su/Gosudarstvo-i-pravo/Ugolovno-pravovoy-analiz-nezakonnogo-priobreteniya-peredachi-sbyta-hraneniya-perevozki-ili-nosheniya-oruzhiya-ego-osnovnyh-chastey-boepripasov-vzryvchatyh-veschestv-i-vzryvnyh-ustroystv/#_ftnref3

I am finding a few dates, oct 24, 1919, dec 10 1918, oct 10 1918.

This is not the decree itself, but a few subsequent decree that refers to and modifies the first. I am looking for the original decree. (Ive found several places quoting it, but noe that hve just the decree yet)However, as we prefer secondary sources to primary, I am not sure that is a requirement.
 * http://www.ussrdoc.com/ussrdoc_communizm/ussr_2369.htm
 * http://www.libussr.ru/doc_ussr/ussr_721.htm

I think this source has the decree, listed as oct 24 1919 http://books.google.com/books?id=cSsOAQAAIAAJ&q=%22%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5,+%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5+%D1%83%D1%87%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%22&dq=%22%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5+%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5,+%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5+%D1%83%D1%87%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQbCUfDCEeOrjAK6uYGwAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

Here is another Decleration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People, from Jan 3, which was incorporated into the 1918 constitution (where it is listed as 2.g), where II.5 declares "In the interest of full power for the working masses and eliminate any possibility of restoration of the power of the exploiters decreed arms workers, education of the socialist Red Army of workers and peasants and complete disarmament of the propertied classes." Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/DEKRET/declarat.htm
 * http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnst1918.htm#1


 * Also this biography of lenin (link is to search result to see google translate!) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8E+%D0%BA+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83+%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0+%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D0%BE+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22&rlz=1C1OPRB_enUS508US508&oq=%22%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8E+%D0%BA+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83+%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0+%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D0%BE+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22&aqs=chrome.0.57j62.2106j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%22%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8E+%D0%BA+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83+%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0+%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85+%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2+%D0%BE+%D1%81%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%8F%22&safe=off&rlz=1C1OPRB_enUS508US508&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=Yw3CUY6IEYOKjAL4_4DADw&ved=0CA4Q_AUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48175248,d.cGE&fp=4a7a399b28464a68&biw=1920&bih=976

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And another article from kommersant.ru (one of the bigger russian newspapers), generally about the confiscation of arms by the revolution http://www.kommersant.ru/pda/power.html?id=1412254 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An article from russian gun magazine "Kalishnikov". The relevant portion is on page "43" (really page 3?), just to the upper left of the first photograph. (the 1918 date is a nice search term to get there) http://www.kalashnikov.ru/upload/medialibrary/fde/042_051.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your source quotes the decree:

"In order to combat the illegal possession of weapons, with the careless and inept handling, the Council of people's commissars decreed:

1. store and use firearms only by persons who by the nature of service is set to weapons (war, consisting of parts of the troops, police, etc.), as well as the persons to whom this right is granted by orders of the Council of people's commissars.

4. to prosecute and detain immediately, banning imprisonment for not less than six months upon conviction, persons guilty of committing the following acts:

a) possession of firearms without a legal right to it, even if the store did not have a criminal purpose ... "

There is nothing that says only Communists or all Communists may own firearms. How is this in any way noteworthy? It provides a minimum sentence for illegal possession of a firearm of six months, in Canada it is 3 years.

TFD (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As quoted by several of the secondary sources (again, superior to primary source original research), there was an accompanying rule excluding party members from the restriction. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, if secondary sources erroneously report something in a primary source then we go with the primary source. Usually that is no problem, because we have more than one reliable secondary source.  That is why btw that we should use sources that are actually about the subject.  TFD (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe you are 100% incorrect on primary vs secondary sources. Further, they are not in conflict. The secondary sources say that the primary source was supplemented by an additional rule. therefore, the fact that the primary source does not include that rule is in no way contradictory to the secondary source! However, per your second statement, we do have multiple reliable secondary sources, like the two newspaper articles discussing russian gun control laws, and the magazine article specifically discussing confiscation of arms during the revolution? "Account and Control, State control of the arms trade in the years of Soviet power". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason you are having trouble finding sources for the views you want to include is that they are fringe. Policy says they should be excluded.  It is a lot easier to just put in what mainstream sources say.  TFD (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I must have missed it where I was complaining about not finding sources. I think i've found quite a few. There are no views I am trying to include. Just facts, and these are not fringe facts. Nobody is disputing this. How many sources do you think there need to be to back two factual sentences with no opinions stated? Any issue I may have with source has much more to do with finding something that happened 100 years ago, where sources are in russian, and from the most heavily censored and memory-hole prone government in history. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So why do we mention that owning weapons without a permit was illegal post WWI Russia when it was illegal in over 100 other countries at the time and still is. I believe it was also illegal in tsarist Russia. It is only relevant if we want to draw a connection between communism and gun control. TFD (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The RfC above has got nowhere: I propose it be closed as no consensus, and a second one opened.
Given the confused wording and other problems with the RfC above, it seems to me that the failure to arrive at a clear consensus was inevitable. Accordingly, I propose that it be formally closed as no consensus, and a new RfC be run which directly addresses the issue of whether this article is a content fork of the our other article on the regulation of access to firearms at an international level: Gun politics. The RfC above will need to be formally closed (by a neutral admin, I would suggest), and while we are waiting, we can discuss the possible wording of the RfC. This is my preliminary proposal regarding wording:


 * ''Is there sufficient material available from reliable sources to demonstrate that the topic covered in this article ('Gun control' at an international level) differs significantly enough from the topic of the Gun politics article to justify two separate articles?

This gets to the heart of the issue of whether this is a fork of the other article or not, and ensures that the debate revolves around policy and sources, rather than getting dragged into side arguments. Either this article is a fork or it isn't, and ultimately it comes down to a simple yes or no. I am of course open to suggestions regarding the wording - I'll ask though that people use this thread to discuss the wording of the RfC, rather than presenting arguments one way or another as to what the answer is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to closing the RFC at this time, especially by an involved person. The survey section is nearly unanimous, and the threaded discussion involves only a small minority of those commenting (most of which were previously involved). At a minimum we should allow the RFC to run to 30 days (as recommended by an uninvolved admin already), and it should be closed by someone uninvolved. To gain a large consensus, I have just today notified additional articles of this RFC. I do not object to your question being posed as a second RFC. The first RFC refers to what content is appropriate, yours refers to the correct location of that (and other) content, they are not mutually exclusive. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I proposed that the RfC be closed by a neutral admin (The thread title should probably have been clearer - I've struck out the 'no consensus' part). If you honestly think it is going to be closed as anything other than 'no consensus', I don't have any strong objections to it continuing - this will in any case allow further time to discuss the wording of my proposed RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The survey section is nearly unanimous
 * That's because you asked deliberately misleading, irrelevant, and manipulative questions that guaranteed the outcome that you wanted. "Did Nazis take guns away from Jews" is not the question, never has been the question, and you know it. It's a garbage RFC from beginning to end and you know it. &mdash; goethean 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If German gun control is to be included in the article, then at least get your facts straight: after the first world war, a total ban on gun ownership came into effect. In 1928 the ban was partially lifted, and the nazi laws in 1938 removed all restrictions on possession of munition, rifles and shotguns, leaving only restrictions on handguns in place. The rules for Jewish people didn't differ substantially from for example the American Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Both consider foreign nationals as "prohibited persons", and Jewish people had lost their German citizenship with the 1935 Nuremberg laws. Only two things changed for Jews in 1938: they couldn't produce weapons or ammo, and they weren't allowed to own truncheons and similar objects. Basically, they had about the same rights as illegal aliens in the US. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Another thought on the articles...
Forgive me if this has been said, but if so, it needs to be said again. If the title of this article was "Gun control in the United States" (currently a redirect), I doubt we would be having this discussion/debate/meandering conversation. My opinion is that the article would have been merged into Gun politics in the United States.

That said, maybe the solution is to break apart this article in a manner similar to the "Gun Politics" series of articles and merge that information into the respective articles. Since the concept of "gun control" (which is a subset of concept of "arms control") is a component of the subject of "gun politics", wouldn't each gun politics article be better served by the inclusion of its respective "gun control" information? Just a thought... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the complete failure of the article to actually present an international perspective on the issue, you may well be right. Any US-only articles on the subject of the regulation of firearms must of course comply with WP:NPOV policy - which would entail that the minority viewpoint portrayed in this article is clearly indicated as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe as sub / more specialized articles, but "Gun control" as such is the most wp:notable of all of the possibilities and titles discussed on this page. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone For or Against an RfC of this premise, break up the article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Against. "Gun Control" is eminently wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * North, no argument (from me) whatsoever that the concept of "Gun Control" is notable, but doesn't that put us back at "square one"? I'm in favor of clearing out ALL the clutter and reducing this article to a discussion of the concept (more of a definition article) and remove the debate altogether. It would seem IMO that much (if not most or all) of the debatable and/or controversial material in this article should be moved to the respective country based Gun Politics articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I also feel that this article needs a substantial "See also" section along with copious Wikilinks and "Main article" links in order to properly address the breadth and depth of this issue. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No to merge. The separation of the two articles allows, imo, for more in-depth non-POV citations and writing, than would be the case if the two were merged. I like that in one instance, you might get the more-liberal viewpoint, where things aren't so watered-down by wiki NPOV rules. And vice versa. So for instance, in Gun Control, you are more likely to see the conservative POV with regard to 'right to bear arms' properly addressed. Not sure either of the articles are quite there yet, but that would be my preferred 'wish', hence my support for not merging. 10stone5 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That is precisely why we don't allow article forking. Two articles representing the same subject from different perspectives are POV-forks, each inherently lacking in balance. Individual articles are supposed to give neutral presentation of all significant differing perspectives. Incidentally, you seem to be describing this solely from the perspective of the US-based debate. This is supposed to be an article describing the topic worldwide, and the debate takes very different forms elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The "same subject" is your (IMHO wrong) assertion, not what they said. The "failure" to cover can refer to what would happen if we were to merge articles that are on different topics. North8000 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no point in arguing with you. You have completely failed to provide even the slightest evidence to back that assertion up: and since you have failed to do so, this article should be merged with the other one, per policy on content forks. If you wish to argue that a merge is improper, you will need to provide direct verifiable evidence that 'gun politics' and 'gun control' are different topics when discussed on an international level - the supposed scope of this article. Note that this will obviously rule out such dubious tactics as using Google to 'count' the number of times phrases such as 'gun control' are used - this would have no bearing whatsoever on usage when other languages are used to discuss the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so what would be so bad in moving this article to Gun control in the United States and making it US focused? This provides a definable focus for the content and paves the way for other country or region specific articles. In my opinion Gun control in the United States is a subset of the topic of Gun politics in the United States, but I concede the point that it deserves its own article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then where would cases of gun control elsewhere and at other times be covered? North8000 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we make this one country specific, it stands to reason that either other articles could be created or appropriate sections added to the respective "Gun Politics" pages. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no need to have separate articles on Gun control in the US and Gun politics in the US. They cover the same topic. This discussion is ludicrous.&mdash; goethean 15:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion, the RfC, is whether to separate Gun Control and Gun Politics, not the US subsets. Again I say No to Merge for reasons that are more subtle than A.T.G. (above) was able to pick up on. There are reasons for article forking, and reasons for not having an article fork. The basis for this RfC, IMO, is that these articles fall in the former, not the later category. Again, you'd get gummed up, overly watered down article(s) with a merge. So something like yesterday's ruling in Ill. to allow concealed carry, becoming the 50th state to do so, could potentially be carried in the Gun Politics article. It's a lose for the Gun Control advocates, so no need to double cite under Gun Control, no need to bend over backwards softening your language in order to make gun control advocates happy. 10stone5 (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you appear to be arguing once again in favour of POV forking - which is against policy. If you wish to propose that the policy be changed, you are welcome to do so - but you can't change the policy here, and unless and until the policy is changed, content forks aren't permitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, as I'm about to point out now for a third time, I do not agree this is a clear case of article forking. 10stone5 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In which case, can you please provide a reliable source which indicates that this article on the regulation of access to firearms covers another topic from our other article on the regulation of access to firearms? People keep saying that there are two different topics, but never actually explaining what the difference is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

prove they are the same. politics != control in any other context. Gun control is one aspect of gun politics as multiple sources have been shown above. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a stab at this, see the new section... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC
As it is clear we are at a stalemate in this discussion, to avoid escalations and another possible edit war, I am going to create an RFC, and try to draw in relevant groups to get a wider consensus.

TL;DR Summary : Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Full RFC questions, broken out to keep transcluded RFC small.

Some of the items in this RFC are worded slightly convolutedly, this is so that it is easy to answer in a support all/oppose all fashion, however support/objection to some items but not others is of course perfectly allowed. I have attempted to bold where that is the case to avoid confusion.

In an attempt to get a wide consensus, the following wikiprojects were neutrally notified of this RFC Politics ,Politics/Fascism ‎ ,Military history ‎ ,European history ‎ ,Law ‎,History ‎,Notability/Noticeboard ‎ ,Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ‎ ,Firearms ‎,Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ ,Fringe theories/Noticeboard. As a neutral admin has said a larger consensus needs to be developed on this RFC, i have neutrally notified several articles related to the topics at hand here, including some articles related to gun laws, nazi germany, bolshevik russia, and totalitarianism.


 * 1) Did totalitarian governments pass legislation or implement policies to confiscate guns (ie, this is not fictional made up history)
 * 2) Was doing so not coincidental (ie, They built roads/schools too!) but an action intended to help suppress resistance to their regime or eliminate undesirables
 * 3) Germany confiscating the weapons of Jews and other "untrustworthy" people (while simultaneously relaxing restrictions on trustworthy Germans)
 * 4) Russia confiscating the weapons  during the revolution (per The 1918 constitution (google trans) "In the interest of full power for the working masses and eliminate any possibility of restoration of the power of the exploiters decreed arms workers, education of the Socialist Red Army of workers and peasants and complete disarmament of the propertied classes"
 * 5) Other examples (if properly sourced)
 * 6) Can such legislation/confiscation can objectively be described as instances of Gun Control (Some have argued that only restrictions implemented by democratically elected governments, and applied in a non-discriminatory manner  and for "good ends" meet the definition of gun control)
 * 7) * Another phrasing : Is gun control a tool which can be used for good or bad purposes, or does the definition exclude bad purposes
 * 8) Are these instances of gun control (assuming #3) notable as part of the overall history of gun control (either individually or collectively as  "Use of gun control by totalitarian governments" )
 * 9) Are these items discussed by multiple sources (albeit controversial and opinionated  sources)
 * 10) Are these sources  presumed to be reliable or not WP:FRINGE unless shown/argued on a case by case basis  (It has been argued that by definition, the only people discussing these facts are fringe unreliable sources)
 * 11) * Is it the case that no sources disagree with the fundamental assertions of #1 & #2 - (though many sources disagree with the implications of those assertions (below)).
 * 12) ** There is significant debate about the importance of these facts within the historical context - IE would jews or kulaks having more access to guns made a difference
 * 13) Because  people use fact A to make argument B, where B is very controversial/fringy, Is it false that' A by definition is controversial/fringy?
 * 14) * many/most of those sources go on to use these facts in even more controversial arguments
 * 15) * regarding modern gun control, as a slippery slope to more totalitarian governments etc
 * 16) * attempting to to compare modern gun control proponents to nazis/communists
 * 17) Do These facts (and possibly even the more controversial opinions) meet WP:WEIGHT/WP:IRS for inclusion in the article etc.
 * 18) * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered
 * 19) * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * 20) ** Halbrook, Hemmenway, Zelman, NRA, Kozinski, etc
 * 21) * Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject

Point of order: The "survey" consistes of six questions. It is not possible to support or oppose a question, only to answer "yes" or "no". It would make more sense to create a sub-section for each question, in which participants can answer "yes" or "no", giving their reasons for that answer to that question, and a general discussion below. A "yes to all" subsection could be added at the top in place of "support all". Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Requests_for_comment Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?", and does not give guidance on multiple points/questions. However, if you think we should break the survey section into a survey for each point I'm fine with that.  As nobody has answered in the "split" section, I will work on doing so.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey
To make closing easier, do not include debate in the survey section,, just a !vote and a brief reason

Support All

 * support all as nominator Obviously.
 * Support  Per Dictionary.com, gun control is: "Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms", per Websters gun control is: "Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns".   These are obviously that and significant examples of that. Wording details can be discussed & worked out. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all per gun control Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support after looking at sources; and it's just common sense that any government that has laws against guns is practicing gun control. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 17:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. This looks like the broad, non-POV definition & historical scope the page should have.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The direction these questions propose for the page will lead to a more encyclopedic and less biased article. I also reject the claim that this RfC is misleading or inappropriately worded. It looks neutrally-worded to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all per sources and common sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all. Restricting guns is one of the key parts in having a totalitarian government. It's generally hard to crack down on a heavily armed population. That doesn't, in itself, make restricting guns a bad thing, any more than Hitler being a vegetarian makes vegetarianism a bad thing. --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support all. I don't understand how this could be in question. Thefoolofemmaus (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Government regulation of X is control of X. I don't see how this is even debatable. Laws that regulate a product are a form of control over that product. The fact that "gun control" is the preferred term by people that advocate for these regulations should weigh heavily against implying there's some problem with that obvious conclusion. 07:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what it is you think you are supporting? You weren't asked about 'preferred terms' here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

*Support. It's my pleasure to support this outstanding and well-thought out proposal. I have observed the rising star of Gaijin42 for some time, and I am prepared to say that this is his best proposal yet. Zipvox (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness, striking the !vote of this user who was blocked for stalking and hounding me, as this is a clearly sarcastic and WP:POINTed !vote. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ZV was one ugly case. What can you do with people like that? 2NewEvolution1 (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons already outlined earlier. ROG5728 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: per all described above! Prabash.  Akmeemana   01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - doesn't seem sketchy to me at all. Red Slash 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Did totalitarian governments pass legislation or implement policies to confiscate guns?

 * Some did. So do almost all non-'totalitarian' governments. There are very few countries with no forms of legislation restricting access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it purposeful (not coincidental)?

 * Perception is ambiguous here, and causes me reservations about supporting all. Many gun control measures have alternative rationale and unintended (or unstated) consequences. Some consider specification of a privileged class as an acceptable alternative to identification of the targeted class. Gun control exemptions for security personnel, for example, effectively disarm the poor; because only the wealthy can afford bodyguards. Gun control exemptions for police are, at best, a form of job protection encouraging taxpayers to support higher wages for individuals providing a level of protection citizens can no longer provide for themselves. At worst, exemption of police from reasonable public safety regulations can build the foundation for a totalitarian regime.Thewellman (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A meaningless question. Legislation is usually passed for a reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Can such legislation/confiscation can objectively be described as instances of Gun Control?

 * No, not within the context of this article. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, given a broad definition & historical scope, which the page should have.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. And so can any other legislation relating to the access of firearms passed by any other government. Another meaningless question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes,of course Per Dictionary.com, gun control is: "Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms",   Per Websters gun control is: "Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns".  Such legislation /confiscation obviously is that. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. North8000 appears to be !voting twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes in the same way that having laws against homicide can be described as "homicide control" or traffic laws can be described as "vehicle control". The real question is if that is how reliable sources describe it. And by reliable sources I would suggest not spending too much time looking at sources affiliated with the American gun lobby - although that obviously that is a viewpoint that needs to be mentioned and allotted its weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, "gun control" as used in modern public policy discussions refers to the policy of controlling the number and strength of guns in a country for the purposes of reducing violence. To conflate that with the Nazi policy of taking all guns from a persecuted minority in the service of genocide is not correct. If this article was combined with "gun politics", then I could see it fitting there, but not here. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Are these notable?

 * Are what notable? Laws regulating access to firearms? Certainly. That is why we have an article on the subject. It isn't however a justification for having two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Yes A no brainer. And far more wp:notable than gun politics, and a different topic, with only some overlap.  North8000 (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. North8000 appears to be !voting twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Because people use fact A to make argument B, where B is very controversial/fringy, IS IT __FALSE__ THAT that' A by definition is controversial/fringy?

 * No, it is true to the extent that it is not relevant outside the context of B. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument that there is a link between government regulating access to firearms (something most, if not all, governments do) and moves towards totalitarianism is undoubtedly fringe, if looked at from a global perspective, as this article purports to do. It is also almost certainly fringe if looked at from a US perspective - though that would be an issue for an article on regulation of firearms in a US context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is false to claim that that follows from the premise or that it is such by definition.  Only careful logicians will be able to answer this. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. North8000 appears to be !voting twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is inclusion of these facts/opinions within policy?
No. A minority viewpoint, from a particular national perspective, is being given grossly undue weight in an article purporting to give a global perspective. WP:NPOV is violated. And it will be violated regardless of how many people vote 'support' above - one cannot vote to ignore policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly yes They certainly fall within the topic. The certainly are significant both in a RW respect and also with respect to coverage in suitable source. (wp:weight, wp:npov). And the topic (gun control) meets wp:notability about a million times over. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. North8000 appears to be !voting twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Neutral gun control or sources include these sources as one of their opposing viewpoints  p52  p15,  p15,, as well as the plethora of POV sources. Some of these sources have been cited by multiple supreme court rulings etc. That other portions of gun control history are not adequately covered is a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and is cause to add/improve those sections, not delete/prevent this contentGaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help if you just listed and described 3 or 4 WP:RS that call these gun control and dispense with (or at least present in light of refs) most of the other discussion. If people get down to those links, they aren't likely to follow them cause they're too burned out from everything above. It seems to me it should be an easy yes if lots of sources have described it as that. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the above is complicated, but it is an attempt to resolve the numerous revolving objections which have been raised to this content. rarely is anyone coming out directly and saying "This is gun control", "This is not gun control", but they are often describing these actions in the context of gun control. All of the refs below are either already in the article or under various talk page discussion threads
 * Salon article, arguing AGAINST the more controversial arguments saying things like "The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. ... These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).".
 * Stephen Halbrook (gun rights lawyer, multiple publications, cited by the Supreme Court multiple times) (entire article pretty much) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bernard Harcourt arguing AGAINST Halbrook, in another academic journal
 * Lethal Laws, (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) Simkin, Zelman, Rice - Entire book dedicated to the more controversial topic, using historical totalitarian "gun control" as evidence.
 * OF GENOCIDE AND DISARMAMENT, Northwestern Journal of Criminal Law (1995), discussing previous source.
 * Circuit court judge Kozinski dissenting in Silveira v Locklear, a major gun control case (The majority opinion was shortly overruled later in Heller) "All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations"
 * Courts Law and Justice, a law textbook In the section "Foreign examples of gun control" - "The Nasis extended these laws when they came to power by specifically forbidding Jews from owning guns or other weapons and by exempting [Nazi party...]] from the the countries restrictive gun control laws. [...] [Stalin] and [Mao] are also reported to have disarmed their political opponents through strict gun control laws and mass confiscations[...]"

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your sources say that fringe elements in the U.S. misrepresent the gun laws of nazi Germany in order to advance their argument against gun control. TFD (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are declaring them as fringe, not the (other) sources, and that sources (vehemently) disagree with each other is not cause to exclude one per the policies linked directly above. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a number of things are muddled up here. First of all, the question isn't (or shouldn't be) what the dictionary definition of gun control is, but what the main thrust of this article is. Secondly, the question isn't (or shouldn't be) about "good" v "bad" gun control, but control of guns to prevent crime v control of guns to curtail opposition to the state. From reading the whole article, it appears to have been conceived and developed as an article on the control of guns for the prevention of crime in modern society. What happened in Germany in the 1930s is out of place in such an article. If the "Nazi" and "Soviet Russia" arguments are ones that are used in the American debate, then they belong in the section on the debate, not in the History section. If there is a current or recent debate in Germany and the "Nazi" argument was used there, then the fact that it was used can also be stated in the section on the debate. But just throwing them all in like a smorgasbord makes for a poor article. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I like your alternative to "good vs bad", as it is a much better description of the two "classes" of gun control. However, attempting to restrict this article to only one of those classes is not neutrality. The Nazis also practiced Euthenasia, and that article lists their use, as well as modern palliative instances (the right to die etc) side by side. All aspects of a tool should be described. There is a highly notable debate about gun control in the public, and to exclude a major part of its history is a disservice, particularly when that history is used as a major debating point in the modern "good (sorry!)" debate. Regarding moving it to the arguments section, We originally had an "associations with authoritarian governments" section in the arguments area, but some editors insisted on gutting all of the actual arguments claiming that the speakers were fringe and unworthy of inclusion. The current state is in effect a compromise to boil down to just objective facts regarding history.  Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Per your !vote above, while I agree that the two classes exist, what sourcing etc indicates that the term "Gun Control" refers only to one of those classes? How is exclding this article to one class within policy? (I could see two forks one for each class, with a high level summary and disambiguation, but making the primary article completely exclude a major part of the history seems out of line). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a malformed RfC, and thus invalid. It seems to be asking contributors to make determinations of facts (i.e. "Did totalitarian governments pass legislation or implement policies to confiscate guns?"). It is not up to contributors to make such determinations. Instead, we should be asking whether the article is reflecting with due weight the opinions of relevant reliable sources on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are somewhat correct, but it is very cumbersome to state something like "Is it the consensus that reliable sources say that [...]" before every question. Before one can decide on if a fact is due/undue in an article, one must first decide if it is in fact sourced/reliable/verifiable. This is true for every fact in wikipedia. The early questions are an attempt to determine consensus on that. However, if you think some question should be reworded or clarified, I am entirely open to that. Per WP:YESPOV "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. ". The questions were to determine consensus on if #1 and #2 fall into that category. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that makes no sense - since an RfC is needed, it seems self-evident to me that the answers can't be 'uncontested and uncontroversial'. And no, changing the questions in an ongoing RfC isn't appropriate. The whole thing is a convoluted mess anyway, and I think that people are going to have a great deal of trouble understanding what is being asked. Requests for comment says to "Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct" - instead we have a whole series of different questions, with little indication of what content is under dispute, and no indication of which sources are being used regarding the content. Frankly, I'd scrap the lot, and then ask for an uninvolved and neutral volunteer to come up with a new RfC that outside contributors can understand and give meaningful responses to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I appreciate your point, and if this devolves too far I will go in that direction (But can one in fact scrap an RFC once significant contribution has been made? ). So far you are the only one to raise this objection, and several un-involved editors have been able to successfully contribute to the RFC. I think facts can be contested or uncontested simultaneously within different populations. (Say the effectiveness of Homeopathy within the alternative medicine community vs the medical community (or editors on those topics thereof)) Within the local population of regular editors of this article, certainly it was contested. The RFC was to determine the consensus from the wider community. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Gaijin42: When you talk about neutrality, I presume you are referring to WP:NPOV. That does not say that if you have an article about one thing (e.g. gun control for crime prevention) it must also deal with its opposite (gun control to curtail opposition). It only says that whatever the article does deal with, it must deal with in a balanced manner. If it were decided that this article was to deal with both, then it should deal with both equally and separately. There would need to be separate sections on "History of gun control to curtail crime" and "History of gun control to curtail opposition" – not becase of neutrality, but just to save the article from being a dog's dinner. All I have said is that at the moment the article appears to be primarily about the one thing. You will note by my !votes that I would prefer it to continue that way. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Scolaire I am certainly not opposed to the two sections, but that seems like a later discussion of "how should it be included" to be resolved after "if it should be included", and it seems like you have issues with the first, but have objected to the second. Regarding the neutrality policy "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". By focusing only on one class, it is my assertion that it is giving undue weight to that aspect. Doing so in essence makes this article a POV Fork of the overall gun control topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." But NPOV does not say (and how could it?) what the subject of an article is to be. It is for the editors to decide by consensus what the subject of this article is to be. I have stated my view and you have stated yours. But neither of us has special authority and neither of us has a veto. I don't buy the POV fork argument. Gun control for the purpose of of crime prevention is a notable topic, and worthy of an article of its own. Of itself it has different points of view that can, and should under policy, be given due weight. Perhaps you should close this RfC and open a new one with the simple question: what should this article deal with? Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Scolaire You have stipulated above that gun control consists of these two subclasses. How could restricting an article named after the entire topic to only one subclass not be a pov fork? "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. " Certainly others are accusing "my side" of the same thing, but we are not saying they shouldn't include content about "as crime prevention" in any way. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠"control of guns to prevent crime v control of guns to curtail opposition to the state" That presupposes control of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens has any impact on crime or use of guns by criminals, which is prima facie unlikely & unproven at best.
 * ♠That said, the objectives of the law don't make it any less "gun control". Moreover, the objective of reducing crime has direct political implications, so it's not neutral in any case.
 * ♠"attempting to restrict this article to only one of those classes is not neutrality" It certainly is not. Nor is it truthful to the historical record. That supporters of gun control as an (alleged) anti-crime measure disapprove of the connection is insufficient reason to exclude past examples of other uses.
 * ♠"does not say that if you have an article about one thing...it must also deal with its opposite" As I understand it, however, the NPOV & balance requirements mean arguments against which deal with the opposite must be included, & we're back where we started.
 * ♠The proposition there be two pages IMO is a non-starter, since I expect most of both pages to be the same content, & this seems to invite POV in a way a more general page disallows (or discourages).
 * ♠I'm finding myself in agreement with Gaijin42. A page titled "Gun Control" that deals only with its alleged benefits to reduce crime is a POV fork. I'd suggest it violates NPOV from the start, since it presupposes a conclusion (gun control reduces crime) & then attempts to close out arguments against as off-topic.  TREK philer   any time you're ready, Uhura  21:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A concern
I think we're at risk of cherry-picking here. I think it is clear that some sources will show that some totalitarian governments confiscated weapons from much of the population in one way or another; but other totalitarian governments wanted to arm more citizens. Picking examples of one side without showing the other... hmm. We might as well devote half of the moustache article to lengthy prose discussing Hitler and Stalin's preferred facial hair; you know what that means about moustaches, don't you, readers? bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @bobrayner Certainly totalitarian governments armed some citizens. As stated in both the existing sections, we are (or have been depending on the current state of the article) quite clear that they attempted to disarm those that were being oppressed, while at the same time further arming the oppressors. That in no way invalidates that it was used as a tool of that oppression. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Framing gun control like that - at length - is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article definitely needs material on other countries with gun control laws, but rather than complain it's not there, as the editor does below, people should put it in. (I would if I were more interested in the topic.) I'd be interested in seeing what gun laws of Venezuela are. Or those under Fidel Castro or Spain under Franco, just for starters. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Include" Although I think we should include something in the moustache article to reflect Bobrayner's concerns, I also think that readers of the gun control article should be able to read what authoritarian governments have done in regard to gun control. Let the reader make up their own mind. If one were to compare the U.S. government with totalitarian regimes there are many things that would be similar and many things that would be different. But I want to read all of the similarities and differences myself. When I go to the gun control article, I want to read everything here, I don't want to have to go to "gun politics in Germany" to read it. (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This RFC is misleading and inappropriately worded
The wording of the RFC is incredibly misleading to the point that it is very, very difficult to assume good faith. User:Gaijin42 has used highly deceptive wording in order to manipulate the results of this RFC. The misleading RFC should be withdrawn. The question is not and has never been whether the Nazis took guns away from Jews, and User:Gaijin42 knows very, very well that this is not the question and never has been the question. The real questions are: I will not be participating in this sad joke of an RFC. User:Gaijin42 should be warned for wasting the community's time by creating an obviously misleading, deceptive, and highly POV RFC. &mdash; goethean 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the 'Nazi disarmament of German Jews' subsection constitute a POV fork of Gun politics in Germany?
 * Is this entire article a POV fork of Gun politics? If not, why does it exist separately from Gun politics? What is the substantive topical difference?
 * Should a contentious, partisan version of history (i.e., placing a highly partisan section on Nazi disarmament of the Jews in an article on gun control in order to argue by association against gun control) be in the History section, or the "Opinions" section?
 * Does the section give UNDUE weight to partisan, fringe, unreliable sources?
 * Why does this article's history section provide such an obviously misleading, partisan, highly POV version of history (i.e., only Nazi Germany and "Bolshevist Russia" are covered in detail)? How can this violation of the NPOV policy be corrected?


 * To me the RFC looks pretty neutrally worded. Yours is clearly not.   And your complaint is that the RFC should like like yours but doesn't.  North8000 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition to North's reply, I would specifically object to your 3rd point and say "Thats a major reason for my RFC", to determine consensus on if this is a partisan view of history, or objective fact. (Which certainly is then later used as a partisan argument). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the remainder of what Goethean says above, I must admit that I can see the logic of the assertion that we don't need an article on Gun control as well as one on Gun politics. If there are legitimate reasons for having two articles, I'd be interested to see them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrumpIs it your assertion that gun politics and gun control are by definition the same thing? There are many many books written on "Gun Control", and many written on "Gun Politics". Certainly they are closely related topics, with a good deal of overlap, but I have been asked for sources many times to prove that "gun legislation" is in fact "gun control", and I would ask for the same level of diligence regarding goethean's assertion. Further, if the two topics are merged, it does not substantially change the debate at hand about if the sections under discussion are appropriate or not, regardless of the larger venue.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course legislation is control - this is precisely what such legislation is for. If that is the only argument for separate articles, I can see no reason whatsoever not to merge immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump If you read back in the archives of this article, you will find many people attempting to argue that mere legislation is not sufficient to label as "control" (and several other threads in the archive) I don't object to a merge overall, but I would object to a merge that conveniently drops this content without conclusion of the consensus buildingGaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting a link to your own arguments doesn't prove them correct. And as for 'consensus', I cannot see one - instead I see a few people 'supporting' something that the rest of us either can't understand, or don't actually see as relevant. This RfC is going to resolve precisely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't posting them to show them correct or to show historical consensus, merely showing that some had made arguments that gun legislation and confiscation is not necessarily "gun control"Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, because we already have a Gun politics in Germany article which covers much of the material which you have strived so mightily to keep here. &mdash; goethean 18:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Im more than happy to go back to an overall "Associations with Authoritariansim" as we had before or "As a tool of oppression" (as suggested by Scolaire) to cover all of the relevant issues together. I still posit that the factual use of it under those (any) circumstances is separate from that factual use being used as an argument today. In order to evaluate the argument, one must first be able to determine the factual-ness (or not) of the evidence used in the argument. Somewhat separately, the "Politics" article appears to be a disambig/branch page to politics/control around the world, and not an overall discussion of the topic(s). I believe both types of content have value, but perhaps the current "Gun Politics" article should be renamed to "Gun Politics around the world", and focusing purely on "current state" in its summaries. (Individual country articles can certainly include the historical states as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's weird, because you've been arguing furiously and at great length for weeks now against such a move, providing all kinds of reasons. We should now disregard all of those reams of argumentation from you and North8000? &mdash; goethean 19:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I dispute that this is a POV fork. I disagree (but am open to discussions and consensus) that politics and control are by definition the same topic, but that is a different discussion entirely. (if the two topics should be merged (or are if they are or are not the same topic)).  Setting the disputed content completely aside, I think there is valuable content in the "high level" content of this article just discussing gun control in general, which is not in the politics article, and I further think that at a minimum "Gun politics" and "gun politics around the world" should be different articles (Which could mean that we just rename this one to "Gun Control and Gun Politics" or some such, and the current politics to "around the world". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, User:Goethean, let me answer your questions:
 * Does the 'Nazi disarmament of German Jews' subsection constitute a POV fork of Gun politics in Germany? No.
 * Is this entire article a POV fork of Gun politics? If not, why does it exist separately from Gun politics? What is the substantive topical difference? No. With the exception of the section about the United States, most of the Gun politics article only lists laws restricting gun ownership.  The gun control talks about those laws as a policy.
 * Should a contentious, partisan version of history (i.e., placing a highly partisan section on Nazi disarmament of the Jews in an article on gun control in order to argue by association against gun control) be in the History section, or the "Opinions" section? There's nothing partisan about it. If you don't want to look like a Nazi, don't espouse policies implemented by Nazis.
 * Does the section give UNDUE weight to partisan, fringe, unreliable sources? Not at all. I was surprised to find the majority of sources are from academic journals.
 * Why does this article's history section provide such an obviously misleading, partisan, highly POV version of history (i.e., only Nazi Germany and "Bolshevist Russia" are covered in detail)? How can this violation of the NPOV policy be corrected? I disagree with your characterization. Certainly a wider view of the issue is needed. Fascist and Communist governments are well-known for big-government overreaches like gun control.  It's not surprising that Hitler and Stalin are mentioned in that discussion.
 * In my limited experience, there's going to have to be some compromise to make this article stable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing partisan about it. If you don't want to look like a Nazi, don't espouse policies implemented by Nazis.
 * Don't look now, but you are proving my point, which is that this page only treats Nazi and Russian gun laws in order to act as a guilt by association argument, one which you just articulated. &mdash; goethean 19:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly. My comments are neither syllogism nor ad hominem.  Any government that seeks to control gun ownership seeks totalitarian control over a reactionary public.  The proponents of gun control can't refute that argument so they claim "guilt by association."  Just tell us that you think Hitler got a few things right and the rest of us will enjoy our liberty.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the article should include sections on Nazi Germany and Bolshevist Russia, because gun control (no matter where or when) is just like the Nazi disarmament of the Jews. &mdash; goethean 20:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally when you say what what somebody "said" after they just said it, it's something very different than what they actually said. People can read what Chris troutman actually said for themselves, and it's only one post up. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are things called logical inferences and propositions which logically follow from other propositions. People engaged in discussion sometimes ask for clarification about what another person is attempting to communicate. &mdash; goethean 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, some people restate to seek clarification / confirm their understanding by asking if there restatement was correct. Those are generally framed as asking and include a question mark.  Others do it in different way to attempt to make the previous speaker or what they said look bad. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your need to prevent User:Chris troutman from saying something which is damaging to your agenda on gun control. &mdash; goethean 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the biggest valid complaint is there isn't more on other countries. So put it in!
 * Also, there's no doubt that government laws and policy of gun control are different from gun politics: the views and activities of different special interests which would be the subject of that frame those laws and policies. There is more than enough material for two articles.
 * Finally, the main reason Nazi disarmament of Jews is too long is WP:Undue quoting of Bernard Harcourt. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The article is currently in violation of WP:UNDUE. &mdash; goethean 22:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs tweaking, like history should be in chrono order or it should be by nations and do chrono order within them. And editors should add more material on other countries. But these are issues that can be fixed.
 * However, generally speaking, I find that when one has to spend so much time dealing with attacks on minor edits, or removing plain disruptive material, it often sucks up immense energy that could be used to expand the article. But I guess that's what disruptive editing is about - attack attack attack little stuff so you can disrupt adding more content to correct WP:Undue problems. I'm way behind on a number of articles because of dealing with that strategy. Not having studied this article much, just dropped by a couple times, can't say if that is true for this article. '' CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 23:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, it is outrageous that you should come to this forum, never having edited the article, and launch into a personal attack on user:goethean. Please strike through your remarks. If you wish to participate here, prepare yourself to contribute in a respectful and effective manner by reviewing the history of the article, the issues, and the talk page. SPECIFICO talk  23:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More outrageous than CarolMooreDC's personal attack is her bizarre and perverse suggestion that the way to deal with excessive undue fringe material is to remove the ameliorating material. &mdash; goethean 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion re the interaction between CarolMooreDC and SPECIFICO is way off in right field. It has absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. Sadly, the interaction between them spills out onto article talk pages, as evidenced above (and below). If these two editors would accept and adhere to an WP:IBAN editing here and elsewhere would be much less frustrating! – S. Rich (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing
Responding to both Specifico (who I have a lot of respect for) and Goethean (who I consider to be someone who just endlessly brawls/ throws punches) I used to butt heads a lot with CarolMoore but that has changed...I have an immense amount of respect for her. She does an immense amount of quality article building and also is a stickler that material comes straight from quality sources. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I noticed this RfC posted on a noticeboard. Second, don't infer a personal attack where there is none, especially since I'm unfamiliar with who has been editing what here. It's just frustrating to see complaints about lack of more material from more sources when constant nitpicking at articles and talk page discussion disrupts the ability to improve article by adding all the kind of material that people are complaining is not in here. Third, the Nazis have been accused of so many crimes, I can't believe someone is arguing against mentioning one of them here. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Has WP:NOTFORUM been abolished in the last few hours? This RfC is a joke, and frankly I think that the level of 'discussion' here is a disgrace to Wikipedia. A few contributors need to remember that this is an international project, and that articles don't need to be built around the paranoid fantasies of sections of the US right wing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the RFC is to develop consensus on those very issues. By assuming that your opinion is clearly the right one and tthat no discussion is needed because the action is obvious... does not mesh well with the spirit, methods, or policies of wwikipedia. In regards to your specific objections, even if one assumes they are paranoid opinions, they are highly notable paranoid opinions that are documented in multitudinous reliable sources (which are not required to be neutral or objective), and deserving of coverage. Further, the facts themselves are uncontested - merely their importance. (snark)Why are you so afraid that someone might read these facts? If they are irrelevant, readers will easily discard them. On the other hand if not... gasp! the ramifications are too worrisome to think of, surely the information must be repressed.(/snark) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since it is self-evident that this article is a de facto POV-fork of the gun politics article, maintained as a means to promote a US-centric and fringe viewpoint on what should properly be a global outlook on the topic, it seems to me that the only appropriate course is to propose that it be deleted. I shall be looking into this in the next few days, and then proceeding accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be an improvement. bobrayner (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am confused by the repeated accusation that this is a POV fork, since the presumably "source fork" article also discusses Gun_politics (Which does not frankly make sense in that article, since while there is an argument that Authoritarianism is associated with gun control, I am not aware that that argument extends to the mere concept of gun politics. I also note that the information has raised no controversy in that article. Regardless if these two articles should be merged, that has no bearing on if this information is appropriate or not under whatever venue is discussing the topic of gun control - and that is the purpose of this RFC. If you are saying you are going to propose the article be deleted, I would advise that that will likely result in a speedy closure of the AFD, per "Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course."Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion that this article be deleted is not made as an attempt to game the system - it is made on the basis that Wikipedia doesn't need two articles on the same subject, one of which is clearly written from the perspectives of a section of US right wing politics. If such material needs to be covered, it should be done in the appropriate place - in an article on gun control/politics within the US. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TNT SPECIFICO  talk
 * I was asked to comment in the RfC via the Feedback Request Service. My reaction to the RfC was pretty similar to the one Goethan describes, and I also shares the thoughts by Goethan and AndyTheGrump about the article itself. Gun control is a natural part of gun policies and this article probably should be merged into that (or deleted, if stuff in this article is already covered in the politics article). The article, as it now stands is frankly quite absurd and some of the most fringe thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Other options

 * I thought this went to WP:DRN. In fact I think that's where I noticed how confused the wording already is in categories. Category:Gun politics, having under it Category:Firearm laws; Category:United States gun laws by state; Category:United States firearms law, etc. And this one is in Category:Unassessed Firearms articles!!
 * Re: fork, I am starting to understand that point.
 * But why not change name to Gun control and authoritarianism and make it the main article of Gun_Politics and add more examples??
 * Another thought. "Gun control" obviously is a term used by advocates who are against many or most gun laws just like Right to keep and bear arms is. It's in Category:American phraseology. So that's one possible approach. I also see there is Category:Gun rights advocates for individuals, but is there an article on the groups? If there isn't some of material here might be relevant there. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 03:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any such article would clearly have to make its scope clear - which is to say as a discourse confined largely to US politics. It may come as a shock to some on this talk page, but the idea that there is some sort of connection between limiting access to firearms and handing over power to a totalitarian state simply doesn't enter into debate of the issues in much of the world. This to me is at the core of what I see wrong with this article - it isn't presenting a worldwide perspective of the issue, or even a US-centric one. Instead it is presenting the viewpoint of a section of US politics on 'worldwide gun control history', with little regard for the fact that this is supposed to be an international project, and as such, this viewpoint is only one of many. To put it bluntly, US political debates should be discussed in US-related articles, rather than in articles purporting to present an international perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's more than that. This association between gun control in the US representative democracy and pogroms, totalitarian decrees, and other actions of dictatorships is fringe. There's clear policy on how fringe is to be treated here, and instead of a policy-based resolution we are in a filibuster by a few who are advocates of the fringe theory, as defined.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it is fringe within US politics or not is beside the point, as far as any article purporting to present an international perspective - it certainly isn't mainstream internationally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there's an anti-gun control/2nd Amendment movement in the rest of the world, there's definitely one here, it needs an article showing history, relations and strength and views of different groups, and the arguments they make, including about authoritarian govts outlawing guns, which is hardly a fringe argument. See this yahoo news article. All I can say is that those who care about this issue should get busy and write the article that needs writing. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 06:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CarolMooreDC, you need to remember that for the rest of us, your 'here' is our 'there' - this is a US issue, and needs to be discussed in an article on US gun control/politics. Not in one purporting to show a world view, but actually showing one particular US viewpoint on the world. And yes, this idea that the regulation of firearms is a route to totalitarianism is very much a fringe viewpoint elsewhere - not least because as the article you link demonstrates, there simply isn't the historical evidence to support it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing terms like "promoting a view point" or "making a connection with" or saying that it is a route to something else applied to the all of the article content. To me basic coverage of core material looks pretty simple. First, "Gun control" is wp:notable about a zillion times over, (and, as a sidebar, much more so than "gun politics" and a different topic, albeit with some overlap) so IMO the existence of the article is a no-brainer. Second, I think that here are some pretty neutral definitions of "Gun control":
 * Per Dictionary.com, gun control is: "Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms"
 * Per Websters gun control is: "Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns".

Straigtforward factual coverage of significant historical instances of the above certainly falls under that. And if it doesn't draw inferences, express opinions on that it is just straightforward coverage. Material that draws inferences, expresses opinions on that, provide analysis that etc. could be considered opinion material. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The subject of the regulation of firearms is clearly notable - nobody has suggested otherwise. The problem however is that we have two articles on the subject. One attempts at least to present a balanced worldview, while the other is clearly constructed to make a specific statement on the subject from a particular US perspective. That is not Wikipedia's purpose. If opponents of gun control wish to campaign on the issue, they are perfectly entitled to do so, just not on Wikipedia. That isn't what it is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You just repeated what I was talking about. You are conflating basic coverage of instances of gun control with opinion type material. Actually I don't know what you are saying.  Are you saying that if the article contains opinion type material it would be deleted?    Or are you saying that consider basic straightforward coverage of prominent instances of gun control is also a problem?   I don't agree with either, but we should at least have some clarity.  North8000 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Nazi material was originally entered into the article under the "Arguments" sections and titled "Association with authoritarianism". It was clearly intended as an argument. In March, it was moved to "History" by User:ROG2728. That move violated NPOV. Edit wars have ensued since. Every time that I have tried to fix this issue, I have been reverted by North8000 or Gaijin42 or ROG5728. &mdash; goethean 15:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@CarolMooreDC Regarding gun control being a loaded term (something along the lines of pro-life/pro-choice I assume you mean?) I think you are very incorrect.
 * Several newspaper reports, collected and hosted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
 * From the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (Again mainly newspaper reports)
 * Other media/news stories
 * our category "Gun control advocates"
 * Obama : "We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions." and "Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill"
 * Bloomberg "This isn’t about gun control. It’s about crime control."
 * Chuck schumer "Those of us who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms."
 * Chris rock : "Gun control? I think we need bullet control. Every bullet should cost $5000"
 * Thomas Friedman "In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control "
 * Bernard Schafer "Never think I'm worried about losing sales by speaking out for human rights + gun control. I'd rather be broke than corrupt"
 * Bill Clinton (During 82 gubernatorial campaign) "I am in support of the NRA position on gun control. "Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control.",
 * Harvey Weinstein : "If we dont get gun control laws in this country, we are full of beans. [...] its time to put up or shut up about gun control for both parties"
 * Juan Williams "I support gun control",
 * Democratic "Make america safe" from manifesto "A new agenda for the new decade" : Goals for 2010 - "Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures."

Regarding it being a US only term (Certainly it is an english term)
 * UK
 * AU     (Pro gun control group) http://guncontrol.org.au/category/gun-issues/,

And finally, being a fork of gun politics. Gun politics is a much wider topic (though certainly closely related) covering such things as Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gun Control (obviously)
 * Hunting restrictions (Rifle vs slug, # of rounds allowed loaded, etc)
 * Bullet restrictions (recent efforts to ban lead bullets as a pollution issue, etc)
 * Carry (Open Carry, Concealed Carry, Constitutional Carry, No carry, Shall issue, May issue, No issue)
 * Gun free zones
 * Self defense laws (Not exclusively guns)(castle law, stand your ground law, other self defense/justifiable deadly force law)
 * Gun free zones
 * Safety features (smart guns, gun locks)
 * Training requirements/practices
 * Storage requirements
 * Gun range licensing
 * Police carrying guns (vs UK bobbies etc)
 * Use of deadly force by police/military


 * Can you cite a source for the assertion that "Gun politics is a much wider topic" than gun control? Can you cite a source for your assertion that 'gun politics' covers all the topics you list? It seems to me that you are engaging in original research in order to justify two separate topics. Unless we can find a single source that (a) asserts that 'gun control' and 'gun 'politics' are two different things, and (b) tells us the scope of each, we shouldn't be splitting topics in this way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The requirement is wp:notability, not having to find a source that has compared and contrasted the scope of the two words. Second, if it were required, one could argue the same in the other direction. Where is your source that says that they are one and the same.   North8000 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Precisely, As there are numerous books written about the independent topic of gun control, the burden of proof lies with you to show that they should be merged. Otherwise you yourself are using original research to declare the two topics to be the same. As your logic appears to be "Gun control is gun legislation and legislation is politics", many/all of those other topics are also legislation, and therefore also politics. However : Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The gun in politics" Primarily a discussion of the IRA and terrorism
 * "American government and politics - discussing trigger locks, waiting periods, gun violence, gun rights, etc
 * "Open Fire : Understanding global gun cultures - gun control, Israeli perpetrated firearm deaths of palestinian children, IRA peace process,
 * "Boundary violations Gun politics in the Doctors office" regarding doctors asking about gun ownership for safety issues
 * Gun Politics: The Diffusion of Small Arms and Light Weapons in Southeast Asia
 * Race fear and firearms, the roles of demographics and guilt assaugement in the creation of a political partition
 * Should physicians routinely inquire about guns? (Miguel Faria, editor in chief "Medical Sentinel") (Western journal of medicine, arguing that such questions are invasion of the political spectrum into medicine)
 * "I don't dial 911" British journal of criminology, "In what sense does American pro-gun sentiment constitute a ‘politics’? I use in-depth interviews with 60 male gun carriers to propose that pro-gun politics not only involve claims to the state, but also centre on particular understandings about the proper role of the state, particularly public law enforcement. I argue that, within the contemporary US context of neo-liberalism (particularly the War on Crime), guns are a complex response to police failure amid anxieties regarding crime and insecurity. Specifically, guns serve as political tools used to critique the state’s power to police. Most of the time, gun advocates articulate guns as a response to the police’s inability to protect citizens; however, they sometimes also describe guns as a response to the police’s propensity to violate. I identify two sets of pro-gun, police-suspicious beliefs that emerge along racialized, masculine lines, which I denote ‘neo-liberal gun politics’ and ‘neo-radical gun politics’. I explain these political beliefs as responses to the state’s power to police by showing how neo-liberal ideology alongside the War on Crime has shaped American perceptions of public law enforcement."
 * Several articles regarding the politics of CDC funding and gun violence/harm
 * http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=3505
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-rappaport-clark/get-the-lead-out_b_3436064.html
 * http://www.kcet.org/news/stories/bill-aims-to-get-lead-out-of-ammo.html
 * lawfare, where justice meets peace " What went wrong? Why is it that post-independent Uganda has known no peace at all for so long? What triggered the endemic gun politics of Uganda and its blood-soaked history? ..."
 * "Pennsylvania self-defense bill appears dead", Pittsburgh live "The so-called "stand your ground" legislation, hailed by gun advocates, is an ... " Gun politics is an extremely emotional and personal issue for a cohort of voters"
 * "Women and guns" This could be a pivotal year for gun politics [...] One big issue is [allowing firearms in cars on company property]. Another issue brady sights is the introduction of so-called stand your ground laws.
 * "Gun politics can change, they have before". gun control, trigger locks
 * "Reconsidering law and policy debates" - microstamped guns,
 * Congressional record senate v 155 p5 pp 5526 - microsotamping


 * Gaijin42, it is you that is asserting that 'gun control' and 'gun politics' are two different subjects - and it is you that has to provide the necessary sources to demonstrate this - which will require finding sources that actually describe the difference. Cherry-picking material that uses two different ways to describe the same thing isn't the way to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe we are at a stalemate on this particular sub-issue, as we both think the onus lies on the other to provide a source validating their interpretation of the terms. I have provided some sources (which you have accused of being cherry picked) - you have provided none. I freely stipulate that gun control is largely a sub-topic of gun politics, but a highly notable one. Are you also proposing that we merge gun politics into just politics because it is a sub-topic? I have asked for input from OR/N and requested that they comment here. At a higher level (ignoring this particular debate) your logic would dictate that before creation of any article, the creator prove that the term used is not synonymous with some other article title. Clearly that is not the process we use in wikipedia. The default state is that the new article is allowed, and a merge/delete discussion takes place if someone thinks the creation was inappropriate. You are certainly free to propose such actions, but the argument lies on you to prove your case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would add to this: Because view proposed by Gaijin42 is a WP:FRINGE view, the sources need to show that these are considered two distinct terms by mainstream sources. SPECIFICO  talk  17:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't get to just declare things as fringe by fiat. The fringe noticeboard has been notified of this topic and they are free to drop in and give an opinion. Determining the truth or not of your statement is a major purpose of the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea that there is any direct linkage between the regulation of firearms and a move towards totalitarianism us undoubtedly a fringe viewpoint when considered globally. This article presents the viewpoint - and it purports to be an article with a global perspective. This makes it fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, regardless of the merits of the view, there can be no doubt that it is an opinion held by a very small minority even among Americans. Unlike other minority views which are widely recognized as plausible or otherwise valid, this one is not even on the map for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  Hence, the fringe policy applies, even if Gaijin's view is correct and will one day be recognized and accepted by the mainstream.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does not present that view. Here is a hypothetical chain of logic.

1 The nazis/communists passed legislation and restricted guns (fact) -> 2 Doing so was gun control (fact?) -> 3 Doing so was done in an aid to their oppression (opinion, but not really controversial, and even agreed to by those that disagree later) -> 4 There is a association between totalitarian regimes and gun control (opinion getting controversial, but not really fringy) -> 5 (reverse) There is an association between gun control and totalitarian regimes (opinion much more fringy) -> 6 All gun control is done by totalitarian regimes or cause democracies to become totalitarian regimes (opinion, very fringy).

The end of that chain is certainly fringy, but because it is so does not mean you get to declare the beginning of that chain fringy. Certainly at #5 you have entered the realm of "all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs, my cat is a dog". But #1-#3 are not under dispute (Harcourt explicitly says #3). #4 is more controversial, I don't think very. If you went around and asked historians "what are common elements of totalitarian regimes or the laws they pass" attempting to suppress resistance is certainly going to be on the list, and gun control is a very common way of doing that. (Again, that does not mean that ALL gun control is at attempt to do so, which is where #5/6 comes into play again)

You disagree with #5/6. certainly. So do I. But it doesn't mean that 1-4 arent notable and well documented. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The nazis/communists passed legislation and restricted guns". Hang on? All Nazis? All communists? Where is the source for this? Right from the start you are making sweeping generalisations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sigh. Seriously? Shorthand during an ongoing discussion does not need to be cited and qualified. We both know what we are talking about. Of course in article text it would be attributed to "The Nazi government" or to specific politicians/laws or whatever. Don't thrown up needless barriers to collaboration. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are making sweeping generalisations in order to argue that a viewpoint isn't fringe. This is invalid, and I'm perfectly entitled to point it out. Frankly, it is ridiculous to compare the actions carried out by the Bolsheviks in 1918 with those carried out by the Nazis in 1938 anyway - no serious historian would do so. This is a fringe argument, unsupported by any academic credibility, and as such only merits discussion in an article covering the specific discourse where it is encountered - in US domestic politics. It has nothing to do with the wider topic of the regulation of firearms as a worldwide phenomenon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've done my RfC reply to best of ability. Good luck on untangling this semantic ball of string.... Signing off. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This thread keeps hopping all over the place. Including to straw men (talking about arguable assertions such as gun control leading to totalitarianism) and then falsely inferring that the straw men are relevant to the more basic items such as basic coverage of prominent instance of gun control in the gun control article. Also, the folks saying that there needs to be "sourcing of difference" in order to not merge have it backwards on two levels. Besides the obvious one, 99.9999999  % of pairs of items are different, sameness is the assertion. And sources do not go around stating pairs of dissimilar items. If I say that a 747 jet is the same as an elephant, I'm the one that has to prove it. If I tell you that they will be considered to be the the same thing unless you can find sourcing otherwise, that would be backwards. Further, there isn't going to be a source that addresses the question that a 747 is different than an elephant, or all of the other trillions of pairs of things. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is any of that supposed to make sense? We have two articles discussing worldwide legislation concerning the regulation of firearms. What is the difference between the topics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that we certainly have some overlap now, but that I would see the future of the Gun Control article as an overview of the topic in general, with the current Gun Politics article becoming Gun Politics by Country or something, and showing the details on a per country basis (with breakout articles for the countries with extensive content). The "politics" article isn't really global, its each country individually - there is a difference. This article would obviously have some crossover from the other, as globally relevant debates about effectiveness (or not) or gun rights as a fundamental civil right (or not), or any other high level concept, would often be referring to individual countries. Under that scenario the nazi/bolshevik content would be condensed into some sort of "Totalitarian government use of gun control" heading. I do not strongly object to this being in an opinion/argument section, as long as the fact of the history is stated as fact, and only the relevance of those facts is couched as argument. I have written up a more extensive compromise proposal here Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The history of gun control in Germany is covered at Gun politics in Germany. No need for a special totalitarian gun control section or article. WP:POVFORK. &mdash; goethean 19:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That history is relevant to more than Germany. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. &mdash; goethean 19:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin-- The Nazis and Bolsheviks "passed legislation" ?? -- that's beyond fringe, more like the little hairs of mold that grow on a week old biscuit. I am speechless. You must be correct, cause I can't think of anything to say. I'm on to other pursuits. Best of luck with your theories. SPECIFICO talk  19:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In has little relevance to Germany or even German gun control legislation. Its only relevance is as a dishonest argument by extreme pro-gun advocates in the U.S., according to your sources.  19:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If only a few good men(?) like Mitch McConnell had been in the Reichstag in the 1930's. Mitch and the boys would never have let Nazi Gun Control come to the floor for a vote.  I'm sure of it.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hitler was allowed to rule by decree after all the parties except the Social Democrats voted in favor of the Enabling Act of 1933. Communist deputies would have voted against it except they had all been arrested.  Which of the two parties do you think Mitch McConnell would have belonged to?  The 1938 regulation of course was never voted on in the Reichstag, because Hitler had been allowed to rule by decree.  TFD (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole section of Arguments at Gun politics, including Gun_politics, further proving that the present article is completely superfluous, other than as yet another outlet to broadcast highly POV anti-gun control talking points. &mdash; goethean 15:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:RELART "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So far you have provided no evidence that the subject of one of our articles on the regulation of access to firearms is any different from the subject of our other article on the regulation of access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So far you have provided no evidence that the subject "gun control" is synonymous with "gun politics", and I have provided multiple sources to the contrary.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have provided no source which asserts that "gun control" is a different subject from "gun politics" - as is clear from the lede of the articles, both are about the regulation of access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That "sourcing of difference" is backwards.  Can you find a source that says that a 747 jet is not the same thing as an elephant?  No.   So, shall I merge those two articles? North8000 (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See false analogy, a logical fallacy. &mdash; goethean 01:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Both articles are clearly about the regulation of access to firearms, and unless a source can be provided which demonstrates that there are two different sub-topics, as covered by the two articles, one will have to be deleted, regardless of nonsensical 'arguments' put forward by those who wish otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

why don't you go read the exiting gun politics article, and note that it covers many topics and not just gun control. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So you accept that 'gun control' is already covered in the other article? Good, we are getting somewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:RELART. gun control is a notable enough stand alone topic for its own article. The bulk of the control content in that article should be merged here. The "by country" content should be spun off into a "Gun control by country" article, and an overview of all aspects of gun politics should remain in the other article. This would result in a small gun control summary in that article. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLITTINGGaijin42 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not yet provided evidence that 'gun control' and 'gun politics' are two different subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUE. Is it your position that all aspects of gun politics are gun control? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'WP:BLUE'? Utter bollocks. I can see no point in wasting my time debating with people incapable of logical discussion. I shall be proposing that this article be deleted as the blatant POV-fork of the Gun Politics article it clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

excellent complete avoidance of the question. Is it your position that all aspects of gun politics are gun control? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my position that since no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this article on the regulation of access to firearms covers a different subject from our other article on the regulation of access to firearms, we should only have one article on the subject - and that since it it is an international subject, it should be written from an international perspective - as the 'gun politics' article is - rather than from the narrow perspective of the US pro-gun lobby, as this one is. Which is what I shall be arguing at the AfD. If you wish to oppose deletion, you will need to come up with real arguments, rather than bullshit and bluster - so I suggest that you start looking for the sources I have requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the basics. "Gun control" by that name has immense coverage in sources, and meets wp:notabilty many times over. The standard is suitable coverage of the topic, NOT sourcing that compares it to a different Wikipedia article topic. (the attempted contortions saying that the latter it required are just that)    Second "control" is not synonymous with "politics".. As one of hundreds of examples where they are not the same, control can arise from an authoritarian state where there is no "politics" or political process for arriving at it. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merely repeating the same non-arguments is pointless. You have provided no evidence that the two articles cover different topics. Facile arguments about the semantics of the article titles cannot alter the fact that the subject matter is the same in both cases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one repeating the same incorrect attempt to place a condition. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If evidence cannot be provided that this article covers a different subject that the other one, one of the articles will have to go. Wikipedia policy forbids POV-forks, regardless of how they are entitled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is pointless on both sides - Andy - if you think deletion is appropriate, stop talking about nominating it, and nominate it. Otherwise, let us work on improving this article. North, I suggest we disengage and stop feeding him. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea that a wp:RS is going to compare two Wikipedia titles is silly, and trying to say that such an implausible comparison in wp:rs's is the requirement for existence of the articles is an incredible reach and has no basis in policies and guidelines. Time to continue to build a quality, wp:npov article. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, (which was initially declined since the RfC was not open the required 30 days) this RfC is closed as no consensus. While the "survey" seems to indicate near unanimous support, the threaded discussion shows that there is a no agreement between the participants of this discussion. I would highly recommend that this RfC be reopened and allowed to run the entire 30 days. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the realy question that should be asked is whether gun regulation is considered a characteristic of totalitarian regimes as opposed to non-totalitarian ones. Clearly it is not. Totalitarian states also legislate against theft, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to make an argument suggesting that regulating theft is a characteristic of totalitarian regimes. There is an implicit logical fallacy in the argument. That underlies this entire RfC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)