Talk:Gun control/Archive 9

Is Parker authoritative??
I see a Geneva survey from Sara Parker being used in the article @ Regulation of Civilian firearms. In reading the article, I found this quote, "At the US state level, the majority of jurisdictions have adopted the so-called ‘Castle doctrine’, also known as ‘Stand your ground’ laws." It's very clear that our friends in Geneva don't understand the basics of US law if they are saying that castle doctrine and stand your ground are synonymous. Also the editors are making very broad generalities from a very limited survey. Ie, the us and Yemen are exceptional in the world......but the survey was not about the world but rather a handful of countries, and the methodology for selection of those is not clearly articulated. If they get castle doctrine wrong and their methodology is not clear, what else is wrong!? This is is not like any academic paper, I've ever read. I'm not sure this goes in the right direction-Justanonymous (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a peer-reviewed, Cambridge University Press, mulit-authored survey that takes an international perspective on the topic of small arms and small arms regulation. Can you suggest a better, more authoritative source for an article on gun control from an international perspective? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to them it's, "an independent research project." So no peer review of any kind is visible -- within any field.....where are you seeing that?  Cambridge University Press is just the publisher but they don't vouche for the quality of the content except by association.  This hasn't gone through any kind of peer review or other kind of rigorous process outside of perhaps an editing process from what we can see (no scientific peer review or legal or otherwise) This is akin to a book at best....a limited book with visible errors to this editor.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, I just went to their website http://www.smallarmssurvey.org and I find this in their goal:

This isn't peer reviewed. This is pro-gun control stuff. I'd be just as guilty if I went and lifted content out of the NRA and NAG websites and used it liberally here under the auspices of "peer review" of which there has been none apparently, since it's an "independent project." Sorry guys that's gotta go. Unless you're all ok with other editors going to the NRA websites and getting their "peer reviewed" ahem ahem content. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So, sources published by Cambridge University Press are not WP:RS because of some perceived bias (i.e., "This is pro-gun control stuff") but articles written by attorneys for the National Rifle Association and published by student edited non-peer reviewed law journals are WP:RS? Even when said attorney has no credentials for the field they are writing in (e.g., history)? Have I got this right or am I missing something? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Justanonymous seems to have been rather selective in his quotation from the website - how about this bit:
 * ''Contributing Partners
 * ''Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and by sustained contributions from the Governments of Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Survey is also grateful for past and current project support received from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States, as well as from different United Nations agencies, programmes, and institutes.
 * I'd say it would be utterly ridiculous to call this an unreliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it's pro gun control and that is clearly their goal regardless of what pro gun control regimes fund them or why?? Government funding is very suspect. I don't buy the whole appeal to authority argument you make Andy.  Also they have errors and we're misciting them.  Beyond that artifex is  missing something.  Cambridge university press is simply a publisher.  They don't do peer reviews or anything like that that I'm aware of and they don't require that their authors have an NPOV on a subject....they just print the books.  I have a bible from cambridge! In this case cambridge university press published a book by a pro gun control "independent project"....that should be as radioactive as us citing a pro life book written by Glenn beck or a pro gun rights book funded by the nra. By contrast, Michigan law review is a high reputation legal journal that goes through the rigors of what is accepted for peer review in their field.  Now, you do a disservice by your marginalizing of "student driven"  portion.  student driven just means that the students go and do the tedious research to verify the submitters claims and legal history.....some smaller schools who don't have enough students so have to use a weaker traditional peer review process....because they don't have the manpower! Student driven, drives quality especially bright students....that's why 90% of law journals including the top ones are student driven!!  Why am I having to explain these basic things? Twice now.  If you don't know how these fields work,  just don't edit. Not being disrespectful here, it's just hard to get editors up to speed on these basics and I explained it already in a separate thread. -Justanonymous (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No,, you do not need to "explain these basic things" to me. You do, however, need to support your assertions with actual sources. You have made wide variety of claims concerning peer review and law journals, , but you have yet to supply any sources to support your claims. You have been provided with information on the actual peer review status of most US law journals, and still you persist.
 * Whether or not you believe I "know how these fields work" is immaterial. Sources tell the tale, and on the issue of law journals and peer review the sources simply do not support you claims,
 * However, because reliability is always based on a combination of factors, this does not mean that law journal articles can never be used as reliable sources–and to the best of my knowledge, no editor here has made that claim., in a previous discussion concerning the use of Halbrook, summed it up nicely:
 * It is imperative that you understand the functions, meanings, and interrelations of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.
 * The explanations you have given in defense of your removal sourced material are examples of tendentious editing and indicative of a battle ground mentality. This must stop. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Ps. I do my very best to avoid addressing other editors in the first person and I apologize for not avoiding it here.
 * also just because you won a Grant from the US at some point, does not mean the US endorses you or your findings. Same for the UK.  There are a ton of grants given. And all so they can get castle doctrine and stand your ground wrong!!  Money poorly spent.  Maybe that's why we didn't renew.  The group is marginally a thinktank. But if you want this, I can bring "the heritage foundation". They have a senator.....surely that has to be WP:RS!-Justanonymous (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is imperative that you understand the functions, meanings, and interrelations of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.
 * The explanations you have given in defense of your removal sourced material are examples of tendentious editing and indicative of a battle ground mentality. This must stop. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Ps. I do my very best to avoid addressing other editors in the first person and I apologize for not avoiding it here.
 * also just because you won a Grant from the US at some point, does not mean the US endorses you or your findings. Same for the UK.  There are a ton of grants given. And all so they can get castle doctrine and stand your ground wrong!!  Money poorly spent.  Maybe that's why we didn't renew.  The group is marginally a thinktank. But if you want this, I can bring "the heritage foundation". They have a senator.....surely that has to be WP:RS!-Justanonymous (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Small Arms Survey is an internationally-recognised and authoritative source on the subject matter of this article - in fact I'd suggest that you would be hard put to find a better one. If you really want to argue that we shouldn't use it as a source, I suggest that you raise the matter at WP:RSN - but before you do, do a little research on the organisation, before you make a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * let's see what others think. I'm sure we can get consensus here.  I hate those other forums makes us look like we can't solve any problems here.   And I'll read up more on this think tank.  It didn't pass the quick sniff test but I could be wrong. Appreciate the patience.  But let's not make it out to be something it's not. It's not peer reviewed and it's not objective. They have an agenda.  I suspect some of their content will be WP:RS. And some will blatantly be not.  We also should not make generalizations beyond the cited material.....if the sample is 15 countries that they took, we can't generalize it to, the majority of the world.  We can't say that the us is exceptional just because in their contrived sample only the US and Yemen acknowldge human rights.  We have to be discrete.  In any case, we're in no hurry let's we what others say.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. If you won't take the 'Small Arms Survey' to WP:RSN, I will - I see no reason whatsoever why an internationally-recognised source with the finest credentials should be rejected on the flimsy grounds you have offered so far, and I see no reason to waste further time here - there has been endless stonewalling already on this article, and I see no reason to allow it to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Cambridge university press is simply a publisher. They don't do peer reviews or anything like that that I'm aware of and they don't require that their authors have an NPOV on a subject....they just print the books." See "reliable sources":  "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."  The only thing you have right is that they do not require their authors have an NPOV on a subject.  But that shows your lack of understanding of academic research.  TFD (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per talk page consensus I've reinserted the deleted material. I think I'd have to suggest that there may be competencies issues at play here. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion which appears to be the argument. The material is heavily slanted.  North8000  (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's been no specific argument presented against the inclusion of the article content derived from this source. The source itself is impeccable and the conclusions it presents are derived from an empirical study of the issues. There is no more appropriate source to use for the construction of an article whose subject is gun control from an international perspective. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the sources were checked and did not support the statements made. If the editors had stuck to the scope of the statement and attributed it correctly we might have been fine.  They could've said, "According to the smallarmssurvey, a gun control thinktank, they find that within the scope of their study of 11 countries they found that only two believe in inalienable rights"  Instead they cited it as fact and said something like, "the US and Yemen are exceptional in the world".....but the smallarmssurvey only deals with a handful of countries in their survey.  It's beyond the scope of the study to make the leap from the scope of the study to the entire world based on this work....and then to present that whole thing as fact without any attribution is purely POV push editing.  It's a contentious article so we can't come and just do it this way.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A simple question for Justanonymous
Which of the data cited to the Small Arms Survey in the section you have deleted are you suggesting is unreliable? And on what grounds are you suggesting that the data being cited is unreliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * that content was not deleted, it was moved to small arms article where it belongs. It might be too slanted for there it it's definitely wrong here. This article is about gun control not gun proliferation. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of gun control is to limit the availability of firearms. The source is about as on-topic as one could get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others thinks. We have a small arms article that is in dire need of content and I thought that content belonged there as it deals with the distribution of small arms around the world.  Now, I will say that the content could be biased.  It'll require some careful analysis.  Some of the worst content that comes from partisan think tanks are statistics, because they look solid on the surface  but they generally don't release their methodologies completely and they wind up not standing up scrutiny (both pro and against gun control partisan stats are like that).  If these guys don't know the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine, the confidence level in them doing stats is very doubtful.  But, we can discuss on the small arms page.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tendentious bullshit. You have refused to raise the source at WP:RSN. Either do so, or drop it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The content got moved to the small arms article. This article is about gun control not proliferation of small arms. I'm not going to go cry to mamma.  We can solve it here. It might take a week or two.  Be patient.  Most editors aren't on here 24/7.  Give it time, we're in no hurry.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "This article is about gun control not proliferation of small arms". I have to suggest that if this comment isn't grounds for a block on the grounds of tendentiousness, it is one on the grounds of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The section would be better if it had a seealso at the top to the "small arms" article, and if it would be focussed more on how gun control affects prevalence of small arms among civilians. I am not aware that gun control in any country is directed at reducing the number of small arms possessed by law enforcement agencies and armed forces, so I'm mystified by why those stats are presented here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'The term "gun control" means any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms.' Weapons procurement, sale, disposal and use by law enforcement agencies and military forces are subject to national and international regulation. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Good faith forum to edit the content that was found contentious
This is the content that I removed. Can we rework to find consensus and re-incorporate:

Specific issues:
 * We're stating these things as facts when they are the opinion of a thinktank
 * The study's scope was only about 11 countries so we can't from that deduce the composition of the entire world

Can we work to fix these things so we can re-add. Maybe:

I'd be ok with something like the above. It's just that the way it was inserted before, the content from a pro small arms control think-tank makes generalities that are not supported by the data. I need to go count the countries in the survey....it might be a few more or less than 11 but it certainly did not encompass the world. Thoughts? I hope this demonstrates good faith in attempting to improve the article. Again, we're in no hurry so let's see what people think. We don't have to solve this today. Give it a week? and then we can decide if this merits inclusion once we get consensus? -Justanonymous (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. You don't get to dismiss an internationally-recognised source like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And keep in mind that this content is much better sourced than your Nazi material, which you insist has to be kept in the article, despite the fact that it violates WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. You want to improve the article? Get rid of the Nazi garbage. &mdash; goethean 17:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have Nazi material??? You must have me confused with someone else.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Some legitimate points here, I think, in terms of the representation of the study and findings in the first version I inserted into the article. The suggested text by, however, misrepresents the sample (28 countries & 42 jurisdictions in total over 5 continents and not 11 countries). One would have to precise, also, in determining what the authors conclude from their sample and otherwise. I've included details of the sample in a revised wording for the section as I think that properly informs the reader. I'm less sure about whether the study should be attributed intext- although for the moment I've referenced and wikilinked the Small Arms Survey in an explanatory note - so I'd be interested in any valid consideration on that point. Merry Christmas/food festival/consumer orgy/bleak nothingness/whatever to everyone. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you much for the consideration and good faith. I think the section is more neutral now after this last modification. Merry Xmas.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Votes
Second Version is Stronger -- I'm not dismissing Andy -- I'm proposing we correct the attribution and replace the unsupported general statements with supported statements and improve the article. Let's see what others think.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTVOTE. And until you take this to WP:RSN, nothing more needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that AndyTheGrump has refused to discuss the matter on how to improve the article in the talk and intends instead with his cohorts to edit war as evidenced by edits on the actual page. I see this as bad faith and blatant violation of WP:BRD. I will have no part in an edit war and I don't intend to spill 15,000k in edits on some forum that will likely reach no-consensus.  Have at it.  Merry Christmas. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A source meeting the "floor" of wp:rs is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. There's only space in the article for about 1 millionth of the relevant material meeting that criteria, so (contrary to what seems to be the main argument) meeting it is a requirement for inclusion, not entitlement to be in the 1 millionth that actually gets in.   North8000  (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If something is to be removed, it should not be material sourced to the most authoritative source in the article. It should be your Nazi garbage. &mdash; goethean 19:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your adjectives aside, although I'm in favor of straightforward coverage of significant instances of gun control (e.g. Nazi Germany), I'm neutral on some of the related stuff, I did not put it in so I don't know where you get the "my" from. Either way, my last post was not an argument against inclusion (that is elsewhere), it was saying the main argument used for inclusion is not valid.  North8000  (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nazi garbage needs to be removed. You have failed to produce a single mainstream historian who considers the Holocaust to be an important instance of gun control. The inclusion of this material is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It must be removed immediately. &mdash; goethean 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to start debating you on the non-existent policies that you are inventing. By the standard that you just claimed, 99% of Wikipedia would be erased.  North8000  (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * False. Most of Wikipedia is not partisan horseshit forced into articles by partisans who sit on it and gloat at real Wikipedia contributors. There is a gigantic turd which you have placed in the middle of the article. Discussing anything else while that turd sits there is pointless. &mdash; goethean 20:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to carry on / continue a discussion down on that level.  North8000  (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. You're not going to discuss the material, you're just going to edit war when I remove it. Now it is your material. You are the one inserting this garbage into the article. You are the one violating Wikipedia policy. Take some responsibility for your actions. You need to defend keeping this garbage in the article, or you need to stop edit warring over it. &mdash; goethean 13:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I undid your mass blanking of the whole area under discussion. This was from a process standpoint; if I started editing it instead of merely reverting the blanking, I would be guilty of what you did which is trying to make it my preferred way (which would be different than the current) by aggressive editing instead of resolving at talk.  North8000  (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First you say that it's not your material; then you say that you won't discuss it; then you revert my removal of it; then you claim that it is under discussion. What you are communicating is that you don't care about Wikipedia process or policy, but only care about getting your way on the article. The material must be removed. Your reverting of my removal is a flagrant, blatant voilation of Wikipedia policy. I have no problem getting blocked for enforcing Wikipedia policy. If an admin wants to take your side, against Wikipedia policy and block me, that is fine with me. &mdash; goethean 14:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The second version is tendentious. It attempts to discredit the facts reported by the "Small Arms Survey", not smallarmsgroup.org, btw.  The expression "Geneva based thinktank" reminds me of what the mayor of Toronto said when Aaron Brown of CNN asked him why he thought the WHO was wrong to advise people not to travel there during the SARS epidemic.  "They don't know what they're talking about. I don't know who this group is. I've never heard of them before. I had never seen them before. Who did they talk to? They haven't even been to Toronto. They're located somewhere in Geneva."   It is an ad hominem/ argument.  We might as well say it is part of the New World Order.  TFD (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ??????-Justanonymous (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Mikhail Kalashnikov obit
Mikhail Kalashnikov is dead. NYT obit by C. J. Chivers. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's odd, because this figure is actually relevant to the topic of the article ... FiachraByrne (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Article format and sections, continuation
So we now have as of the most recent series of edits...


 * Lead
 * 1 Terminology and context
 * 2 Global distribution of small arms
 * 3 Regulation of civilian firearms
 * 4 Studies, debate, and opinions
 * 5 3D printing
 * 6 History
 * 6.1 Japan of the Shogunate
 * 6.2 United States
 * 6.3 Australia
 * 6.4 Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms
 * 7 See also
 * 8 Notes
 * 9 References
 * 10 Bibliography
 * 11 External links

...and there is a proposal for...


 * 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 (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
 * 11 Further reading

Is there a merger of the two that makes sense and mitigates or meters the controversial content? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless you can point to an academic general source discussing firearms regulation from an international perspective which indicates its significance, much of the proposed material appears to me to be off-topic. Personally, I think we need to avoid going into peripheral topics, and if anything to remove some existing sections, rather than editing more. The 3D printing section for instance seems out of place, and we have as yet to be shown sources which actually demonstrate that any of the specific 'history' sections are considered central to the debate by anyone beyond a specific minority (in worldwide terms) lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I'm saying this, but to some extent I agree with you Andy... :) I am in favor of eliminating "off-topic" subjects, but how do we decide what "is" and "is not"? I was hoping that discussion of the article sections would accomplish User:Scolaire's suggestion of determining the scope of the article. If we can come up with a good outline, it should facilitate content sourcing and placement that is clinical and balanced. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Scolaire was suggesting that it is premature to decide what your section headings are going to be before you know what the scope of the article is. If it was me, I would hold a straw poll in which the only question would be, "what is gun control and what is the article about?" I would ask respondents to be reasonably brief while indicating as best they could what they saw as the whole scope of the article. Probably there would be divergent views on what it is and what it covers, but working on establishing a consensus about what the article is about seems to me a prerequisite of establishing a consensus about how it might be laid out. Scolaire (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a proper discussion/straw poll of the article subject and scope would be a very useful exercise for everyone. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never conducted a straw poll, anyone care to edify me? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like this but I'd ask a somewhat more open-ended question or questions initially such as that which Scolaire suggests above. I might also ask for source-based arguments in relation to scope. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally I would agree on a source-based criteria, but that's how this is going to devolve quickly. We can all find sources on the subject of gun control that clearly are pushing a viewpoint. IMO what is needed is for us to review sources and come up with an outline and format that distills the major viewpoints into a digestible article. Assuming that's possible... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The kind of straw poll I'm talking about, sourcing doesn't come into it. Scope and content are two completely distinct and unrelated issues. You have to agree what the scope will be before you can even think about content, and it's only content that has to be source-based. My suggested question above was simply what participants think the article is / should be about. Only when we have that nailed down can we know whether we need sources for Shogunate Japan or whatever. Besides, we would want the maximum input: people should be free to say "gun control is about how to grip a pistol properly" or any such thing, and they won't have that freedom if there's going to be people shouting at them demanding reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK . If no-one else does, I'll initiate a straw poll along the lines you've indicated above in the next few days when, hopefully, I'll have a little time. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The History section would need a subsection on Europe in the post-WW2 period as well, and possibly one on Canada. All the overviews I have looked at describe strict "Gun control" as characteristic of European style liberal democracies. They dedicate a lot more time to comparing US to Canada and Europe than to mentioning Nazi germany (several of them do not mention NAzi germany at all). The article needs to describe how gun laws have developed in Europe and Canada.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you list the sources you're referring to here ? FiachraByrne (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

One tiny piece of the recent back-and-forth
Wikipedia souring/source policies place source requirements for the presence of material. The policy places (sourcing and sorcability) conditions on the presence of the material, not on the presence of sources. So it is incorrect and baseless to claim a policy justification for removal of sources. (The IMO invalid claim against the source being a separate question)   North8000  (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sincerely attempting to parse your comment, but it makes no sense. Sources which are unreliable can be removed per WP:RS. Material which is poorly sourced can be removed per WP:V. The material under discussion violates WP:NPOV and must be removed. Additionally, Halbrook is unreliable and should not have been used as a source, and should be removed. &mdash; goethean 16:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with your third sentence, and what follows that is beyond the mini-scope here. So what's left here is your second sentence.  The first half of your second sentence is ambiguous, (meaning of "unreliable") but that is also not germane in this mini-topic. So what remains is the second half of your second sentence which is germane here but vague. (precise meaning of "can be removed per WP:RS")     Let's take a hypothetical, where the statement is "XYZ", and consensus is that "A" is a very high grade source which is sufficient to support XYZ, and consensus is that "B" does not meet that high standard and that "B" is not sufficient to support XYZ.
 * If XYZ is challenged, and sourced only by "B", policy supports the removal of XYZ, (and the cite of "B" for it would no longer have a purpose/home and of course be removed, although the source might be used elsewhere in the article.) So the cite went because XYZ went; not because policy supported removal of the cite.
 * If XYZ is source by both "A" and "B" policy does NOT mandate or support the removal of the "B" cite.
 * In short, policy placed conditions (involving "A" & "B") for the presence of XYZ, not for the presence of "A" and "B".  North8000  (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter hogwash. If a source either (a) doesn't support the statement it is being cited for, or (b) isn't considered reliable regarding the statement it is being cited for, citing it has no legitimate purpose, and can only mislead readers. Misleading readers certainly isn't supported by policy. Obviously. 20:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered your question. Your response changes the subject and bears no relation to it, and (if one includes the already-extant / implicit claim that it shows that policy supports removal of the cite/source) has obfuscating faulty logic in the whole new area.  North8000  (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

FTFY

 * The section about Nazis has nothing to do with gun control. It's only been linked to the topic by pro-gun extremists who liken reasonable restrictions on nuclear hand grenades to Nazis disarming and murdering part of the population. MilesMoney (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with the mini-topic here, so I'll not respond here.  North8000  (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the time of my post this was inserted into the previous section. Afterwards a new section header was placed over it.  North8000  (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Current warring would remove legitimacy from the results if it temporarily stands
There are a large amount of current material and sourcing that is under discussion which was blanked by Goethen and re-blanked by someone. If such blanking were to stand even temporarily, it would remove legitimacy from whatever (temporarily) emerges from it thus delaying any actual resolution. Can't we have a more civilized process?  North8000  (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not blanking to remove content that is currently under discussion and which there is no consensus fits into this article. I was very surprised to the the content in the article given that the RfC is about whether there are grounds for including any of it in the first place. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * there was consensus here about a year ago. Look at the archives.  Not my content but some editors agreed that it belonged.  There is blanking and edit warring on the page right now and has been since Andy and Goethean showed up.  I'm refuse to edit war.  This'll get sorted out when the normal editors get back from vacation or when an admin starts blocking editors.  North....I'll help clean up later after the barfight.....as usual. Justanonymous (talk)20:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There has never been 'consensus' regarding this article. What has occurred, on and off, is that the supporters of the NPOV-violating pro-gun propaganda have driven off any contributors actually interested in creating an informative and neutral encyclopaedic treatment of the subject by tag-teaming, tendentious and circular stonewalling talk page 'discussions', and the periodic holding of bogus NPOV-violating 'RFCs' clearly intended to rally supporters rather than encourage any outside input. Sadly for them (but not for Wikipedia), it seems to have backfired this time, and we actually have a significant number of experienced contributors from beyond the U.S. gun lobby willing and able to knock the article into credible shape. As for what happens next, I very much doubt that such new contributors are going to stand back and have the article return to the dreadful state it was in before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Christmas day warring to blank long-standing material which is under discussion is clearly problematic. It also de-legitimizes itself, your shrill and nasty attacks aside.  North8000  (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed. We need to use the talk vs edit war on the article. If an editor is unwilling to discuss edits on the talk, they should not edit these contentious articles.   Bottom Line, it's christmas in the US and some people are just taking advantage but it's not constructive to blow up the article without regard to policy just to make a point its not helpful.  -Justanonymous (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And when you can't defend your edits, call your opponents "shrill and nasty". &mdash; goethean 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)