Talk:Gun control/Archive 8

Article format and sections
Not that I want to deter any of the spirited discussion regarding specific topics, but I'd like to start a conversation regarding the overall format of the article. Currently we have:
 * Lead
 * 1 Terminology and context
 * 2 History
 * 2.1 Japan of the Shogunate
 * 2.2 United States
 * 2.3 Australia
 * 2.4 Nazi disarmament of German Jews
 * 3 Studies, debate, and opinions
 * 4 3D printing
 * 5 See also
 * 6 References
 * 7 External links
 * 8 Further reading

I'd like to propose the following sections and order. Subsections have their own discussions, this is just for the sake of article cleanup and organization:
 * Lead
 * 1 Terminology and context
 * 2 Legal/Legislative basis (Magna Charta, Blackstone, 2nd Amendment, worldwide gun laws, etc.)
 * 2 Opinions, beliefs, and factions (the main sides of the debate and/or an explanation of the continuum they represent)
 * 3 Studies and debate (why they believe what they believe)
 * 3 History
 * 3.1 Peace time (legislation, rulings, and SCOTUS)
 * 3.2 War time
 * 3.3 Association with Totalitarianism
 * 4 Implications of firearm development
 * 4.1 Firearm evolution (firesticks to match/flint/caplocks to cartridge guns to machines guns/assault weapons)
 * 4.2 [Related development] or some other/better title (smokeless powder, self contained metallic cartridge, changeable magazines, etc.)
 * 4.3 3D printing
 * 5 See also
 * 6 References
 * 7 External links
 * 8 Further reading

And before anyone asks, yes, these sections are based on the references that we already have or that we know exist in related articles. Your (constructive) thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Would you consider working on this version in your sandbox so we could see what it might shape up to? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd be happy to, but I think I'm considered (regardless of my efforts or intentions to be neutral) one of the "pro-gun nuts". It might better if someone "more neutral" took a stab at it assuming the format makes sense to others. Any takers? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's like shoving your hand in a meat grinder. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, "Association with Totalitarianism" is a problem, isn't it. Let us not presuppose that there is such a connection. To give examples of totalitarian regimes banning guns (or something like that--"exercising rules on gun ownership" is more accurate) is no more valid than giving examples of non-totalitarian regimes banning guns, and including the former while excluding the latter (a long, long list) is lending UNDUE weight to an issue that we know is contentious--indeed, is fodder for propaganda. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the title. "Restrictions on gun ownership for political purposes" would seem NPOV and apt for the cites given.  Non-totalitarian regimes properly sourced as having controls for "political purposes" (I suggest disarming political opponents would generally fall into that category) would be then added with appropriate reliable sourcing.  As long as all which use the controls for political purposes are allowed, there ought be no problems.  Collect (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect, it almost sounds as if you're agreeing with me at least partly! Keep up the good work--you'll go far! Drmies (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I never choose my opinions on the basis of what someone else thinks -- you will find grumpy Andy noting this peculiarity of mine -- my positions, as best I can, are based on policies and guidelines the community establishes. I am, if anything, consistent in how I treat the rules, though I suspect some others make up their minds on the basis of what their friends think.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmies and Collect, that's brilliant analysis, thank you! I'll stand by my original sections "Peace" and "War time" and leave it at that. All of the historical subjects we've been discussing fall under one or the other sub-topic and with better context. And with any luck will keep them brief, but accurate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure "peace" and "wartime" will work -- the Nazis were sorta at peace but definitely preparing for war in 1938, so dealing with that as a dichotomy is gonna be tough.  Your system would require them in both sections, I fear.  Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I picked those terms for a couple of reasons. One, they are fairly clear delineations IMO to the average reader (yes, people can debate specific dates, but I'd argue that most people understand even historically "when war time is imminent", "war is happening", and "war time is over") and, Two, its a loosely chronological schema that provides a framework far less determined by opinion and less likely to be obfuscated (whoo hoo, don't get to use that one often) by WP:UNDUE sections. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree in principle with changing the format of the article, but I think an important prerequisite is to decide on the scope of the article, and to provide some sort of coherence. It seems to be accepted that "gun control" is a different thing from "gun legislation" or "gun politics", but there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what "gun control" actually is, or how it is distinguished from the other two concepts. The History section illustrates this perfectly. "Australia" deals with the reaction to two crimes involving guns, in 1996 and 2002; "United States" deals with 19th-century laws aimed specifically at slaves, then at blacks, before moving on to 20th-century laws that regulated certain kinds of gun or certain kinds of people, without providing much by way of rationale; "Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms", well, we know what that deals with; "Bolshevik Russia" (now deleted) talked about the fact that the Tsarists allowed revolutionaries to get guns, but the Bolsheviks made sure that counter-revolutionaries couldn't; and "Japan of the Shogunate" talks about the jealousy of 17th-century samurai! I can't see any connection whatever between these, apart from the similarity between American oppression of blacks and Nazi oppression of Jews. Simply changing the subsection headings to "Wartime", "Peacetime" and (Whatever you decide the third will be) will not give us a coherent history of gun control, or even a coherent definition. In fact, even if you decided to (and you were able to) make this an article about all these different concepts, I don't think it's appropriate to have a History section at all, because such a nebulous concept doesn't have a history. Better to have
 * Forms of "gun control"
 * Control for prevention of crime
 * Control for prevention of revolution or counter-revolution
 * Control for oppression of minorities
 * Control for protection of elites

etc., and use the Australian, Russian, American, German and Japanese cases to illustrate these. When we've sorted these issues out in our heads, maybe we can better decide what other section headings to have. Scolaire (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Scolaire, excellent suggestion and I find those perfect additions to either the "Terminology and context" section or possibly the proposed "Opinions, beliefs, and factions" section. Please also see my reply to Collect above which take your analysis into consideration as well. But I do not find the history of this topic to be nebulous, its varied and complex, but it indicates two causalities. An event happens which triggers a reaction, or, there is a pre-emptory action to accomplish a certain outcome. You've already given examples of both. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that all of these directions is probably better than the current version, which could merit inclusion and consolidation of the disputed content in a way that gives it appropriate weight compared to other uses of gun control, and correctly attributes historical facts vs opinions regarding those facts. Between the 3? choices I think the generic "Gun control for political purposes" is probably the best. The more narrow groupings above I think will be subject to contention over how to characterize the policies correctly. The war vs peace thing I think does not provide a lot of value in its organization, and would prevent the grouping of the jewish issue with the US jim crow issue, which I think are good compliments for each other (and would possibly allow for condensation (improving the WP:WEIGHT) of the content since much of the argument regarding the two sets of policies is similar and from similar sources). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Gaijin (Welcome back!), so if not War/Peace, then "Gun control for political purposes" along with...?? Alternatively, what do you think of my "causality" delineation: An event happens which triggers a reaction, or, there is a pre-emptory action to accomplish a certain outcome. Both involve "control", but separate them by their intentions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think political purposes, vs crime & accident prevention perhaps as the obvious alternative. Obviously there could be conflict even with these two broad categories but most historical things will be easy to drop in one bucket or the other at this point. (Certainly even the opossers above would not argue that the nazi gun laws were for cime/violence/accident protection?) For modern issues where there is live debate, we can place the arguments of each side in the appropriate section (with appropriate WP:DUE weight of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, so maybe...
 * Lead
 * 1 Terminology and context
 * 2 Legal/Legislative basis (Magna Charta, Blackstone, 2nd Amendment, worldwide gun laws, etc.)
 * 3 Opinions, beliefs, and factions (the main sides of the debate and/or an explanation of the continuum they represent)
 * 4 Studies and debate (why they believe what they believe)
 * 5 Implementation Causes (not in any particular order)
 * 5.1 Crime prevention
 * 5.2 Political purposes
 * 5.3 Safety and consumer protection
 * 5.3 Other (revenue, ecological, etc.)
 * 6 History
 * 7 Implications of firearm development
 * 7.1 Firearm evolution (firesticks to match/flint/caplocks to cartridge guns to machines guns/assault weapons)
 * 7.2 [Related development] or some other/better title (smokeless powder, self contained metallic cartridge, changeable magazines, etc.)
 * 7.3 3D printing
 * 8 See also
 * 9 References
 * 10 External links
 * 8 Further reading

? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For #5 I would say "uses", perhaps, but not "causes". Gun control, however we decide to define it, is not "caused"; it is implemented by somebody for some purpose.
 * I still can't see how you're going to write the History of gun control. "Gun control first arose in the 17th century when Japanese samurai whinged about the downgrading of swordfighting, developed into a slavery mechanism in 19th-century America, served as a medium for exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany, and emerged as an insidious tactic to infringe the civil right to bear arms / a policy for reducing epidemic levels of gun crime in late 20th-century America and Australia"? I could write a section on arms control in Ireland during the Home Rule Crisis, 1912-14. It would be impeccably referenced, completely in line with current Irish historiography, and add another layer of utter confusion onto an already utterly confusing narrative. Better to integrate the historical material into the discussion of the varieties and uses of gun control. Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even better wording... As for the history, I'd like to not be mired in the various rhetoric that's been tossed about. We can craft a couple of basic paragraphs explaining that its been used as a political tool as well as reactionary means over the decades, centuries, or whatever using the uncontentious examples of the lot. I'm not trying to provide an outlet for every claim. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree with such a section if it could be fully inclusive as to time and place and it could be fully sourced from scholarly works that deal with the history of gun control as such. The state of the article at present strongly suggests to me that that will not be doable. Scolaire (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with that it is likely impossible to write such a history in a coherent fashion from the available sources. It might be possible to write a history of this US debate on gun control and the use of (instrumentalisation of) history and holocaust imagery, etc, within it, but I think that that is all. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the whole article should be about this US debate on gun control and the instrumentalisation of history and holocaust imagery etc. within it. Everything else that's in it at the moment is just for show, to pretend that this is some global historical subject when in fact pretty well all the editors are interested in just this one thing. Scolaire (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've repeatedly made the same suggestion: except that we already have an article on that subject: Gun politics in the United States. There is no need for another article on the same debate, though expansion may be an option, if proper sourcing from academic literature discussing the subject of the U.S. gun debate as a wholecan be found to avoid the WP:OR issues the article is currently burdened with. Given the subject matter, I'm sure such sources exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I presume the implementation of that suggestion would require a RFC on an article merge/delete? FiachraByrne (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Although it might theoretically fall under one of the headings, to me it seems to give short basic straightforward coverage of significant instances of gun control. This would probably be best done by countries. And when there is significant history, that would usually fall best under the country.  North8000  (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The way it "falls under the country" at the moment, you mean? Because I thought the idea was to improve the article. Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That sort of implies the "under the country" is bad, but I don't know why such would be.  Either way, that would be just one way to organize it.  But I would think that straightforward coverage of  significant instances of gun control would be central to the article.  North8000  (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See my two posts above for what I think about the current "under the country" format. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Was this article ever any good?
I don't have time to trawl through the page history, and I don't mean to insult any of the main editors, but was this article ever any good? It's terrible right now, so maybe the best thing is to just commence a complete rewrite or put it up for deletion.--MONGO 18:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of good people have tried to make this article good but it's always been two steps forwards three steps back. There is a lot of passion around this topic and there has been a lot of creative destruction.  We see this in the recent talks over recent deletions.  It's like that for almost all the edits - painful.  I will say that Gaijin42 has been very willing to adjust to the changing winds and people have worked hard to add good content which is not necessarily un-contentious.  Which is why I sometimes am a bit overzealous at protecting those hard fought additions against summary deletion by one editor.  I've always been of the mind that this should be a "short beefy" article vs a long contentious one but it's been hard getting there. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd come up with a new informal outline and skip over how individual countries handle gun control...maybe even just use modern legislation such as those enacted since the end of WWII and title the article that way...Gun Control since the end of the WWII....suggesting this since that will eliminate the ongoing disagreements with what the Nazis did or didn't do....etc.--MONGO 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the era of mass production of guns is the logical demarcation -- allowing the laws against blacks having guns etc. would certainly be of interest to the reader. Until good guns were mass-produced, there was no real call for "gun control" = Colt put an end to that. Collect (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Collect, for once more confirming that on the issue of firearms regulation, few U.S. contributors are capable of thinking beyond the borders of their own narrow nationalistic concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a straightforward comment and idea. Are the insults really necessary?  North8000  (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an insult, it was an observation - one that is self-evidently true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? You personally observed a representative sample of "U.S. contributors" (I would be interested in how large your sample was and what method you used to identify nationality) and, using some sort of magic test that appears to be unavailable to anyone else, managed to determine what they are "capable of thinking beyond" -- something that psychologists and neuroscientists have trouble ascertaining in a clinical setting? And yet you, and you alone, are able to not only derive these deep psychological insights from a few words posted on a talk page, but to go further and determine that these rather insulting insights are "self-evidently true"? Alas, Wikipedia policy forbids me from writing down what I am thinking right now, so instead I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. And yes, if I haven't made this clear. I do consider "Few U.S. contributors are capable of thinking beyond the borders of their own narrow nationalistic concerns" to be an insult. I would also note that I am still not taking sides concerning your content dispute; whether someone is rude and insulting has very little to do with whether they are right. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The 'sample size' is that which can be found on this talk page, and its archives. I suggest that if you have the stomach for it, you read it - and then decide for yourself whether I am right. The evidence seems clear enough to me. THis is supposed to be an article with an international perspective. It is utterly dominated by the U.S. discourse on firearms - as clear an example of systematic bias as can be found anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It does read like a very parochial debate and this is reflected in at least some of the article content. The US is an outlier in terms of gun ownership and is certainly very distinct in terms of its political discourse on gun rights and control. This is perhaps most evident when attempts have been made to transplant this discourse to other settings which seems to have resulted in a certain degree of incongruity and incoherence (e.g. the Brasil referendum on gun regulation). To frame the issue of gun control in an international context in terms of the internal US debate is to introduce a major distortion and editors should be mindful of this. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Utterly dominated by the U.S. discourse on firearms - as clear an example of systematic bias as can be found anywhere on Wikipedia" is acceptable and helpful.
 * "It does read like a very parochial debate and this is reflected in at least some of the article content." and "To frame the issue of gun control in an international context in terms of the internal US debate is to introduce a major distortion and editors should be mindful of this" is acceptable and helpful.
 * "Few U.S. contributors are capable of thinking beyond the borders of their own narrow nationalistic concerns" is not acceptable and is not helpful. This isn't about whether there is a systematic bias. It is about using insulting and demeaning language that requires diagnosing someone's capabilities and motivations based on some talk page comments and then defending the clear insult as "just an observation". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay....well...how many disparate but interrelated articles do we have on this matter? Was this the father article from which POV forks were branched from or is it the other way around? The only related article of similarity I have worked on was Gun violence in the United States. I'm thinking the best way forward if the article has to exist is to simply document what the legislative history is and avoid discussion in the article about whether that legislation is good or bad, etc. I recognize we would like to make correlations between things, but how else do we achieve NPOV in such a hot topic?--MONGO 20:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The recently-renamed Gun politics article pretty much covers the same scope as this article, including sections on arguments and on laws by country. &mdash; goethean 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control according to Merriam Webster is defined as, "laws that control how guns are sold and used and who can own them". The term Gun politics is not in the dictionary, therefor is a much newer term or one that does not merit inclusion yet. The accepted term for discussing the laws that control how guns are sold and used is gun control. In some world I can see gun politics as being a broader term but in reality it's a narrower concept because "gun politics" is just the process that you go to enact gun control. Gun control is the accepted term that encompasses these types of laws.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will make this addition for the newcomers who might not know, gun control has recently since 2013 become a bad word within the communities of people who are for well, "gun control." There appears to be a rebranding effort to try to substitute "gun control" with "gun safety" or "gun politics."  The onslaught to remove "gun control" from the wiki is political.  It's the same battle that goes on with "assault weapon" vs "assault rifle".  These kinds of things are very common in the world of politics.  Both sides are trying to paint their efforts in the best light they can.  The article is sadly stuck in the middle of a vast battleground --- hence the quality issues.  Now, the sad reality for better or for worse gun control is the term that is in the dictionary and gun politics is not because gun control is the accepted term for these things.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I don't care if its at gun politics or gun control, but there should only be one main article. And the gun politics article is currently far superior to this article. &mdash; goethean 22:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily of that mind. Climate change and global warming are sibling articles and there are few in the community advocating that we fold them into one today.  This is a big space to cover.  Gun control is a clear concept that is found in the dictionary while "gun politics" is a new term created by renaming an article. My argument is that gun control should be a "short beefy" article that describes the concept and maybe a bit of the general history of the concept without getting too contentious.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Global warming is a subset of climate change. Gun control and gun politics are very nearly synonymous, certainly enough so not to justify two largely over-lapping articles. Having two articles in the same scope simply encourages POV forking which is exactly what we have here: Gun politics in Germany and then here we have the American right-wing version of gun politics in Germany. It's nonsense. &mdash; goethean 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For an international article, "firearm regulation" would be a better title. Certainly, to talk about gun politics in Ireland is just bizarre. I have yet to read a substantive reason why the content of this article should not be merged or deleted when the topic receives adequate and more neutral coverage elsewhere in WP. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Though I'd suggest that 'Regulation of firearms' might be a possible neutral alternative for an international article. Though of course this has been rejected out of hand in the past - I suspect possibly because 'gun control' is the U.S. buzzword, and this article naturally finds itself amongst the first few Google hits, whereas the oddly-named 'gun politics' is well out of the way of searches. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The Oxford dictionary also lists gun control as, "laws that restrict the sale and use of guns", so it's not just an American thing or buzz word. It's the accepted term in the English language. I'm all for cleaning the article up or reshaping it in a logical fashion.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's the accepted term in the English language". Prove it. With a source that actually says so - dictionaries define words or phrases. They rarely tell us which possible alternative is more commonly used. THe source you cite certainly doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did prove it. Gun control is in the dictionaries both English and British English and I gave the definitions. Your compound words and the words proposed by others are not in the dictionaries.  Gun control is the term. Sorry. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gun control I could probably live with, I guess. Gun politics makes no sense in other national settings and really, outside of the US and some other countries, "Regulation of firearms" or similar should be preferred. For the record the OED entry on "gun control" states: orig. and chiefly U.S. The statutory regulation of the licensing and use of firearms; an instance or aspect of this. (Now the usual sense.) Although there was a movement in the United States in the 1930s to regulate firearms, we have found no evidence that the term gun control was used. The use of the phrase became widespread in the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy (22 November 1963). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs a rationale for existing at all, at this point. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The term itself I'm sure has a rich history that should be in the article under an term origins section. I'm not certain but I imagine it will date back to the culture wars of the 60s or 70s, don't know how it came to mainstream use and into the dictionaries but that's the kind of stuff that is un contentious and merits inclusion.  It's the accepted term for the regulation of firearms today. We should not contort ourselves to find another substitute without substantial rationale.  If we do, we look biased. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a rich tapestry ... As the OED indicates, and it traces the first usage of the term (1964  Sat. Evening Post 1 Feb. 12/1 'In framing gun-control laws we must think carefully about the constitutional aspects'), "gun control" is a phrase that originates from and is chiefly used in the US. It is most appropriate for use in a US context and probably not a for an article which should be addressing an international perspective on the topic of firearm regulation. Such an article would have a significantly different content to the current iteration of this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the content of such an international article of firearm regulation is apparently already in the article List of gun laws and policies by country. How is it intended that this article will differ? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gun control" is the most common and notable name for government regulation of ownership and use of firearms. It's a big, wp:notable topic. And "regulation" is clearly not a synonym with "politics". It really isn't that complicated.  North8000  (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In order to legitimise this forking of the topic, you need to provide a source that explains why the subject matter needs to be subdivided in this way. Without such a source, the forking is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * since gun control is the core term, others are forks. This is the core term found in dictionaries, common vernacular, google, newspaper articles.  It's WP notable and merits inclusion. It's also a term of historical importance in and of itself. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there something about the phrase 'provide a source' that you find difficult to comprehend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, nice try.  Trying to say that someone is supposed to full a ridiculous gauntlet (find a source that has addressed wikipedia article organization and naming question, and when there is zero basis in policy requiring such such  (e.g. in wp:ver, wp:nor) if they don't fulfill that quest then your opinion stands by default.   Nice try.  North8000  (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2013 (UTCrules byu
 * Well, you're kinda saying the same thing -- that in the absence of RS, your opinion stands by default. &mdash; goethean 04:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I never asked for one or said that one was required. The reasons why I didn't and don't are the same two reasons given in my previous post.  North8000  (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have a working definition of Gun Control: according to the OED it is a term used "originally and chiefly in the US", which "became widespread in the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy". Surely that's what this article should be about: the debate in the US over the last fifty years. As such it would be a subset (NOT a POV fork) of Gun politics in the United States, which is a rather unwieldy article with lots of history and other stuff. It would overlap considerably with Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, and that, perhaps, is an article that could be usefully merged with this one. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Also, I agree with Fiachra that in general, "Gun politics in..." articles should be renamed "Regulation of firearms in..." Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gun politics", while it may be arguably logically sound as a title just sounds like a poor choice of words for the title. North8000  (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Law Journal as "unreliable"
The key thing is that Harcourt is the source of the idea that Halbrook is unreliable on this issue. Deeper in his piece, however, Harcourt ackowledges Halbrooks basic facts. It is his overall conclusions he disagrees with. In his paper he says essentially "Yes, the Nazis disarmed and killed the jews but Hitler was actually pro-gun for the average German." He then explains why. He is in this argument suggesting that the pro-gun argument using the Hitler/Nazi policies won't wash.

My point here is that we have a ref from:

Are we really having a debate about whether this law review article is an "unreliable source"? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * a specialist lawyer,
 * PhD,
 * former academic,
 * who has written broadly on the subject
 * writes frequent academic peer reviewed articles (7 in recent years I found)
 * won before SCOTUS on the issues being discussed,
 * whose main critic ackowledges he got the basics right,
 * writing in an academic peer-reviewed journal


 * No, we're trying to explain to you why the Holocaust has nothing to do with gun control. Which is what you just explained. Which is why the section on the Holocaust is inappropriate to this article. &mdash; goethean 23:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You repeating your argument over and over again without giving it any backing is not explaining or debate, especially when your opponent has said something new. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No this has been about (or was supposed to be about) the tag "unreliable source" put on a law review article. Apparently you have been talking about something else. Why don't you agree that the law review ref is RS and we can start a new section on the larger issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As a reminder "This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced, but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement." The tagged ref is being used to support the statement: "Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all." This law review article is in fact reliable for this bare recitation of historical fact. Unless there is disagreement I will remove this tag for this statement.  Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly, after my above conversation, the next thing that needs to happen is that all of the references need to be examined to see if they are as fraudulent as the one I just removed. &mdash; goethean 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether the sources are reliable but what weight should be assigned to the opinions expressed in them and, also a matter of weight, how important the 1938 act is to the overall subject. For example, the 2003. ‘Special Provisions for Shot Gun Certificates.’ in the Local Government (Firearms Control) Regulations of Pitcairn Island may be interesting, but not necessarily important enough to include.  TFD (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That may be a question. Lets resolve this specific little tiny gnomic question and everyone can get back to the vast delete/not-delete section debate. This small matter can be resolved if people will show good faith. Whether the entire subject should be removed is a different matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I notice that both TFD and goethean strongly believe that this section should not be in the article but neither expressed the thought that the law review was in fact unreliable for the specific bare historical fact. Given that, does anyone disagree with the removal of the tag (as opposed to the section)? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I had said earlier that it was rs. That means, assuming we used the source, we can assume the facts are accurate, unless proved otherwise.  TFD (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, excellent. Somehow I missed that. Its good to get agreement on this most difficult of articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Note. It has now come to light that, contrary to claims above, the journal in question is not peer reviewed - see the thread below: AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Law journals and peer review
According to Washington and Lee University School of Law's Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking system, of over 1000 law journals in the US only about 150 of them are "refereed" (i.e., peer reviewed). None of the law journal sources cited in this article are peer reviewed (as of 20:04, 19 December 2013). Use law journal sources with caution. E.g., Always check the author's affiliations for conflicts of interest or lack of scholarly standing, etc. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  That's an old fight, probably has no place here - Let's be careful we don't impose an improper mental model/framework here. The Process for the acceptance of papers for publication in law journals is very different from those of the scientific community. They are not synonymous. See law review.  The fact that most law reviews are not peer reviewed in the same manner as say  climate change articles for the journal nature, in no manner means that law journals are without rigor or that any paper makes it in is without substantial review.  Law journals have their own rigorous process- arcane as some might think, it is there.  And yes an important part of the process is that it is student driven....that's not a detractor....example #6 Ranked Michigan law review is not peer reviewed and is student driven.  A lot of the reviewing of a paper can involve very laborious and tedious research into a case history for an article.....work well suited for a student learning the ropes but well beneath a peer scholar...something peer review just can't accomplish. Value is created through the rigorous, supervised verification process and less from just having another peer look at the argument being offered. Also, many journals forbid double submission.....once you submit once a paper, you can't resubmit it somewhere else if it is rejected. To those familiar with the scientific method and the very warped consensus paradigm that has evolved there recently, you'll probably be led by the above to immediately disqualify all law journals for inclusion in the wiki.  This would be a grave error.  Law journals and their process are the accepted process in the field today.  While I applaud the good faith work of @ArtifexMayhem, it. Might not be relevant here.  It's a very different field governed by very different rules.  Now, the field, like all fields is evolving.  Some law journals are adopting the per review process, however, there is no valid rationale for us to give more weight to one versus another.  Like all academic writings, we should use caution here and not be sloppy in how we boil this down. It's too soon to tell whether the peer review consensus model will grab hold here or not.  This thing that @ArtifexMayhem offers, seems logical on the surface but is in reality is very dangerous. We should be very careful here.  The humanities vs science war has been going on for centuries and that's a rumble we don't want to pile onto to this poor little article.  This poor little article is in desperate need of a bit of water, maybe some fertilizer and some tender loving care, and it does not need two 1,200lb Kodiak bears to come have a rumble on top of it.  For the love of god.  -Justanonymous (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary the review model favoured by North American law periodicals is highly relevant to an assessment of their reliability in areas that lie outside the law, such as complex historical events. Halbrook's interpretation of Nazi history remains unevaluated by anyone with expertise in the subject. He is uncited in the relevant literature on the holocaust where his thesis has had no impact whatsoever. The focus and influence of his publications cited in this WP "Gun control" article extend to the US gun debate almost exclusively. If you actually look at the citations for Halbrook's  it returns 35 citations with some false positives. Leaving aside the false positives, none of these citations are from authors who publish on the history of the holocaust; almost all of them are from participants in the US gun control debate (Kopel; Harcourt; Kates; Spitzer; Alonso; Springwood; Horwitz); and the vast majority are  US law review publications. His articles such as the above are relevant only to the US gun control debate and do not speak to an international context. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, Justanonymous, we can't just ignore the issue. It was explicitly claimed in the title of a thread above that the journal in question was peer reviewed. If the discussion over its supposed reliability was based on misinformation (deliberate or otherwise), we will at minimum have to discuss again whether the source merits inclusion - and it may well be necessary to look further at other sources, to check whether other misreporting of the status of sources has gone on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it was peer reviewed per the standards of the field, that is what I meant. no, your argument has been refuted above. Peer review as used in science is not relevant here.  It was peer reviewed per the standards of this professional and academic community.  The journal is pristine, in the standard manner and custom for this field. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * and be careful, this is a huge can of worms. If these journals are not acceptable then all others that don't fit your flawed understanding of the field won't be acceptable either and worse, they won't be acceptable anywhere in wikipedia. Since the vast majority of academic law journals are not peer reviewed in the limited manner you propose -- in the course of carrying out that crusade, you're going to bump into far bigger fish than I. I'm just trying to help you here.  In short, you won't be able to keep out this entire class of academic content once the big guys show up....and this will go before arbitration. WP:Competence.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You state that "it was peer reviewed per the standards of the field". Can you cite a source for that assertion? It seems to run entirely to what ArtifexMayhem writes above - and you cannot possibly both be right. As for your supposed 'can of worms', since WP:RS has never asserted either that 'all peer reviewed articles are reliable' or 'no non-peer-reviewed articles are reliable' there is no can, and no worms. What matters here is that the thread above asserted that the journal was peer-reviewed, and argued that this was evidence of reliability. Any assertion of reliability based on questionable evidence must necessarily itself be questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've said what I've needed to say and I've clarified what needed to be clarified. I don't feel a need to further rehash. I'll let others weigh in and I'm sure it'll be resolved in due course.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have said it - but I see no reason why what you say should be seen as of any significance, given that you have failed to provide any evidence to back it up. Without evidence that the source in question was subject to any review process, its claims to reliability are clearly on even shakier grounds - though I think that FiachraByrne's point above about the lack of citations for the source beyond the narrow confines of the U.S. 'gun control' debate is already quite sufficient to suggest that we shouldn't be using it as any sort of source for statements of fact about Nazi Germany. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Andy, I make no claims on the actual source's suitability for use here.  I defend legal journals as WP:RS sources when used carefully and I caution against us attempting to discard legal journals as not being WP:RS.  I leave it to others to defend whether this content should be used here.  I merely defend that the fact that it comes from a journal makes it credible.  Making it into a legal journal makes it academically rigorous because it has been through that process and it's categorically unqualified to attack the journal simply because it's student driven.  Student driven is the norm in this field.  I leave it to more specialized minds to defend the actual content or whether to decide if it needs to go elsewhere.  I just don't want it to be arbitrary and definitely not POV deleted.  It needs to be discussed civilly here.  Reach consensus and we can do whatever is needed.  Until then, I resist forceful deletion.  I know you want it gone and so does goethean and there are others that want it here.  I'm simply refuting the argument that because the journal doesn't use the process of another entirely different set of disciplines that it is not academically rigorous -- it is.  -Justanonymous (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, this thread to me is only about whether student driven legal journals are worthy of WP:RS. Yes they are, that is the gold standard.  Regarding the broader question on what content to have in the article -- Andy -- recommend you guys do that in a separate thread so we don't pollute what this is about.  Student driven legal journals is the norm and they are just fine.  I've said my peace on that. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. This thread isn't about hypothetical questions. It is about the sources cited in this article - any discussion of anything else doesn't belong on this talk page. And no, you don't get to state what is or isn't a 'gold standard' regarding sources. As WP:RS makes entirely clear, there is no such thing as a 'gold standard' for sourcing. All sources have to be considered on their merits - and since no evidence whatsoever has been offered that the Halbrook article in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law has been subject to any form of review, despite claims to the contrary in an earlier thread, its appropriateness as a source is entirely open to question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that that they were saying that wp:rs is held to be the gold standard by wikipedia.  North8000  (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Biased, "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Here, even if the Halbrook article is biased, it is perfectly fine as a source for the statement that, "Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish."  Or are Halbrook's footnotes phony? I'm no great fan of the argument he made to SCOTUS in McDonald v. Chicago (substantive due process), and I'm all for skepticism, but he seems to be citing rock-solid sources on this particular point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIASED goes on to say, "'While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.'" So, is Halbrook a a reliable source in this context? I would say no, because, Our article currently suggests, has put forth by Halbrook, that gun control allowed "the Nazis [to murder] millions of unarmed people". That is a very strong claim that requires very strong sourcing. Halbrook's interpretation of primary sources is not even close. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) he is not a historian,
 * 2) he is not a recognized expert on "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews",
 * 3) his paper was published in a journal that is not peer reviewed, and
 * 4) by is own admission, the topic "has never been the subject of a comprehensive account in the legal literature", and that "Although [the topic] does not appear to be the subject of any historical study, numerous excellent studies have been published on armed Jewish resistance in the Nazi-occupied countries" (Halbrook 2000 at 484).
 * That is indeed a very strong claim. Where is it suggested in the present article?  I search in vain for the phrase "millions of unarmed people".  Is any Wikipedia article guilty of that suggestion, if it mentions Hitler's disarmament of the Jews?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

At the wp:RSN they also apply the missing criteria which is expertise, reliability and objectivity with respect to the items which cited it and I think that we should do the same here. For a clarity-via-extremeness illustration of the point, if Rush Limbaugh or an op ed columnist at the New York Times said "The President gave a speech in Atlanta on December 20th", most would consider either of them to be reliable on that fact. (even though either could be technically knocked out)   But if they said that the speech was "to appeal for bi-partisanship" or "a political move to vilify the Republicans for not giving the Democrats their extreme tax and spend way under the guise of an appeal to bi-partisanship" most would not consider either of them to be reliable sources to support putting those statements in as fact. As a minimum, either would need to be attributed, and those would probably only be a (primary) source for what their own opinions are. I think that the same applies for covering mere instances of gun control vs. drawing conclusions from those instances.  North8000  (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

References to Japanese section
If contributors will not see sense and delete this section, could they at least reference it properly? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While I don't condone the section I do have the refs for it already templated. I'll add them shortly. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ps. I also have all the law review sources templated and will add them in a bit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ta. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove duplication notice
A duplication notice was inserted here, on 18 December. The notice was directed at a small section of the article which was titled "Nazi disarmament of German Jews" — a section which was alleged to duplicate another Wikipedia article titled "Gun politics in Germany" that includes a section titled "The 1938 German Weapons Act". The relevant material in the other article states:

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law....[U]nder the new law....Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]....On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[6][7]

The relevant material in the present article when the notice was inserted (on 18 December) stated:

Nazi disarmament of German Jews Main article: Gun politics in Germany

Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish,[20][page needed][21][page needed][22][23][page needed] and were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population.[22][page needed][23][page needed][24][25][page needed][26][page needed][27][page needed][28][page needed] The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 relaxed gun control requirements for the general population, but prohibited manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[29] During the initial reports of events that would later be called Kristallnacht on November 9 and 10, 1938, the Police President of Berlin had announced that police activity in the preceding few weeks had disarmed the entire Jewish population of Berlin by confiscating 2,569 of their hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.[30] Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[23][unreliable source?][29]

The relevant material in the present article now (on 21 December) states:

Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms Main article: Gun politics in Germany

Gun regulations were among the anti-Semitic laws, regulations, and acts of civil violence enacted by the Nazi regime against Germans whom it considered Jewish,[20][21][22] and were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 relaxed gun control requirements for the general population, but prohibited ownership, possesion, sale, and manufacturing of firearms and ammunition by Jews.[28] During the initial reports of events that would later be called Kristallnacht on November 9 and 10, 1938, the Police President of Berlin had announced that police activity in the preceding few weeks had disarmed the entire Jewish population of Berlin by confiscating 2,569 of their hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.[29][30] Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all.[22][28]

First off, I think the duplication notice probably should have been inserted down in the relevant section, but (be that as it may), the section header has changed so the Notice is obsolete. Moreover, according to 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." That is the case here, so I suggest removing the duplication notice, which in any event is obsolete (due to the new section header) and misplaced (it should have been at the top of the section instead of the top of the article). Also, I suggest the link to main be changed to a seealso, since this article is not summarizing that one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC).


 * The Nazi section violates the policy against content forks. Please do not remove the duplication template. The articles are not on distinct and separate topics, they are two POVs of the same topic. &mdash; goethean 19:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You inserted the Notice, and I am happy to discuss it. You have not addressed the fact that the Notice refers to a nonexistent section, and that the notice belongs in a section, if at all. Also, I never said the topics were separate. They are related topics. Moreover, this article emphasizes the "control" aspect, whereas the other article is about German gun law regulation as well as deregulation. Are there particular facts that you dispute in the present section? Are you saying that this article should not mention Nazis at all?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that no source whatsoever has ever been put forward to suggest that firearms regulation under the Nazis is seen as of any significance to a general discussion of the subject beyond the narrow confines of sections of the U.S. gun lobby, no, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, except possibly (neutrally presented, and with due weight) in a historical discussion of firearms regulation in Germany, and in an article on the U.S. 'gun control' debate - again with due weight, clearly indicated as as a minority perspective, and with no suggestion that this issue is seen as of any significance by mainstream historians. Anything beyond that violates WP:WEIGHT. This is supposed to be an international overview of the subject - not a platform for fringe material from one particular perspective from one particular country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that it would be fine for this article to have subsections on Japan, Australia, and the U.S. while verboten to mention Germany, that would call for an undue weight tag in the section, not a notice at the top complaining about POV forks and mentioning a nonexistent section of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Duplication" between articles is immensely common and accepted in Wikipedia. To start with, the summary when there are sub articles, and also articles commonly overlap. I have not yet to track down and review the claimed policy basis for implying that is a problem that needs to be fixed.  North8000  (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The claimed policy is at Content forking. This is not a question of whether we have a policy -- we do -- or whether what we are discussing is a fork -- it is -- but rather of whether this particular fork is described in Content forking or in Content forking. I have no position on that question. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that we have any kind of content forking here. Both articles mention the Nazis taking weapons from Jews, but that doesn't seem like a duplication of scope.  Per WP:Overlap, articles may need to be merged if there's a large overlap.  Here, the overlap is small.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is clearly a fork of the oddly-named 'gun politics' article. No reliable source has ever been offered to explain why issues regarding the regulation of firearms should be subdivided into 'politics' and 'control' - (though I'm sure there will be plenty more WP:OR to 'justify' this arbitrary division - the archives are full of it), and furthermore it is a POV-fork in that while supposedly presenting an international perspective, it in fact presents the viewpoint of sections of the U.S. gun lobby. POV-forks are of course forbidden by Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no Gun politics article. What article are you referring to?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am referring to that article which was named 'gun politics' until 5 days ago, when - without any consultation whatsoever, and without notifying anyone - Gaijin42 evidently moved it to List of gun laws and policies by country. Note that this is all that Gaijin42 has done. The the lede still starts by defining (without a source), what 'gun politics' is, though since the name change it is entirely unclear why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead paragraph of that article was superfluous and have removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that that template should even exist, much less get used. Except for special cases where more specific templates are available (e.g. POV fork) it is implying policy / guideline "rules" that do not exist. There is no policy or guideline that per se prohibits duplication of an item in two different articles. In fact, such is common, accepted, and often essential for coverage of the topic of a particular article. Of course, this is not the place to delete/modify a template, but templates are not policy or guidelines, and this is the place to discuss whether to put a (misleading) statement such as that at the beginning of / top level of the article. I think that it should not be placed there, and doubly so prior to any consensus to do so.  North8000  (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion about the existence of the template, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A good roadmap
Put in the straightforward significant neutral factual material as information.

The heavily slanted sources should have the heavily slanted material put in attributed as being from an advocacy source, identified as such, and preferably in an "arguments" or "opinions" section.

And lets stop trying to put the latter in as the former.  North8000  (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Which material are you referring to as 'heavily slanted', and on what grounds? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, it's super easy -- the material that we disagree over. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "I don't like it" isn't grounds for exclusion. You have claimed that the source is unreliable, but refused to raise the matter at WP:RSN. You have claimed that the source is 'biased', but offered no evidence beyond a cherry-picked quotation, and your own opinions - clearly shaped by your self-evident opposition to gun control. You have claimed that it is unreliable both because it is 'independent', and because it receives funding from multiple governments. You have claimed that "Government funding is very suspect" - on which grounds, if accepted, almost every academic source on Wikipedia would have to be excluded as a source. Frankly, your arguments are both contradictory and tendentious, and should you persist in repeating them - rather than raising the matter at WP:RSN as has repeatedly been suggested - I shall raise your behaviour at WP:ANI, and ask that sanctions be taken against you. This article has been WP:OWNed by the U.S. gun lobby for far too long, and I see no reason whatsoever why such a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies should be allowed to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, from an editor behavior standpoint, that rant, threat, mis-characterizaion-into-false-accusations, inventing-bad-faith, attempting to deprecate and intimidate an editor through villainizaiton is I think the worst thing I've seen on this whole page. Let's talk about content and content issues.  North8000  (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything I wrote can be demonstrated in the content of this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed! North8000. I tire of this behavior.  Andy, "I don't like it" isn't grounds for exclusion but neither can "I like it" be grounds for inclusion.  We all know that this is a contentious article.  Bringing a partisan thinktank viewpoint into the article is going to have it challenged....be it some Geneva based pseudoscientific pro-gun control thing or the NRA so let's just not do it.  We also can't just go crying to ANI or RSN or some other acryonym soup Wikiforum that someone stole my marbles.  We have to be grown-ups. It's a tough article so let's demonstrate some good faith and try to bring only the best.  Eurpean based nonpeer reviewed, POV slanted think-tanks that don't know the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine are hardly the top of the list.  We can do better.  By the way, if I bring an NRA article into the forum -- I can expect it to be rightfully challenged.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that amongst your many facile objections to the Small Arms Survey, you appear to be objecting to it as being "Eurpean based". I would respectably point out the U.S.A. is not the centre of the universe. Get a clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutrality says we represent ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Not just the ones you like. Not all points except pro gun activists. It is a notable pov, it should be included. You have previously admitted that this opinion is presented in reliable sources. That is the end of the discussion. ALL POVS from RSs should be included. " We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased" "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" &mdash; goethean 15:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Goethean. that's what North is saying.  If we want to use smallarms survey, we need to state what the group is and their viewpoint and then WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and BALANCE puts the onus on the editor to find the competing viewpoint and add that viewpoint.  Here the viewpoint of a partisan thinktank was added as gospel.  Very wrong.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There are areas where policies/guidelines do not provide enough guidance, which is why articles on topics representing a real-world contest are generally eternal messes/grief. And a common phenomena (NOT) speaking about anything here) is to wililawyer wp:ver, wp:nor, wp:npov, wp:rs etc.  to try to POV an article by gaming in biased material as "fact" in the voice of Wikipedia.  Again, I'm NOT speaking about anything at this article.   But my suggested roadmap, (which is consistent with policy but which is not policy) suggests a way to avoid all of that eternal grief in our case here.  Maybe this article can be an exception to "articles on topics representing a real-world contest are generally eternal messes/grief"   Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the repeated refusal of those objecting to the use of the Small Arms Survey to bring the matter to WP:RSN, one can only legitimately conclude that they do not do so as it is self-evident that the source is reliable. Accordingly, unless and until they do raise it at WP:RSN, it seems entirely right and proper to ignore such objections. The choice is theirs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only partially about the source's biases. It's also about the generalizations made and the attribution style.  It's not NPOV the way it's written.  Let's edit a version and get an NPOV presentation.  In good faith please work with us below.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)