Talk:Nazi gun control argument/Archive 2

RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note.
The issue is whether the hatnote is improper in its current form. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read Requests for comment, particularly the section entitled 'Statement should be neutral and brief'. Your statement is neither neutral, nor brief, and accordingly this RfC is malformed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What? You consider a 226 word statement asserting that existing content is 'tendentious material' to be 'neutral and brief'? Your understanding of the word 'neutral' clearly differs from mine... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my comment on the issue. "RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note." is my neutral statement. If the format isn't proper at the moment, I will be working towards a fix. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to put a very brief statement of the issue immediately after the big yellow box.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How's that? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of fixing it. Please adjust however you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing other people's posts is contrary to policy, and it still fails to explain in neutral terms what the issue is, and what the options are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to point out proper format, sorry if anything went amiss. None of the statements setting up the RFC are mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please copy an exact copy of the "current form" you were referring to at the time you posed the RfC, and notify those who've responded, so that we're sure that we're all talking about the same thing. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please copy an exact copy of the "current form" you were referring to at the time you posed the RfC, and notify those who've responded, so that we're sure that we're all talking about the same thing. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: Although it is not clear from the edit summaries, this RfC was started at 22:27, 7 April 2015, at which time the hatnote read (and had read for less than 72 hours):

Prior to the current series of changes to the hat note, which started at 12:12, 5 April 2015, the hate note read (and had read for months - since at least May 2014):

It is nigh impossible for an uninvolved person to sort out what the respondents to this RfC were referring to when they commented below (23:16, 7 April 2015 through 10:58, 19 April 2015). --Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  is the version that was referred to as current before this in my comments. Everyone except possibly User:Sitush who joined the discussion around the time IP 99.242.108.55 altered it, would have seen the version in question on the article. Everyone who contributed here saw the same current version until that point, so no other notifications are necessary. notification: — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses

 * Proposal/Support (from above) First of all the hat note is used improperly in this article per WP:TRHAT- it is tendentious material: having a tendency; written with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one; implicitly or explicitly slanted. Even if it is not considered that, it would fall under WP:LEGITHAT, not belonging in the hat note. Beyond that, I think the information expressed in the hat is already given due weight (if not overly so) in the article. I would propose to change the language in the hat note to  OR perhaps more appropriately simply  . The hat note is not the place for a disclaimer, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Stating that the theory (an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true) is "unproven" adds no benefit to the reader as theories are not fact, they are ideas. It is expressed clearly in the article that this is a highly criticized theory for several reasons, with two sentences in the lead and half the article (one of the two sections). The hat note in its current form is improper and is unnecessary. — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 23:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update After much discussion, I fully support "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." per Anything and Scolaire below. I might suggest changing "claim" to "theory", but that's not a sticking point. Secondly, I would support an altogether removal of the hat note as a last resort (if that gains more consensus than the initial). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would the following be better? "This article is about a widely-rejected theory according to which the Holocaust might have been prevented if the Jews had not been disarmed. For...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it would still be an improper use of the hat note. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't support your brief version ("For the history of German gun laws see Gun legislation in Germany") because the reader would be competely mystified about why this article isn't part of the history of German gun laws.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also be okay with the removal of the hat note completely. I do think it is related because people may want to see what the German gun laws were, since claims about them being related to something else are being made in this theory. Maybe it would be better in a related article section. I seriously doubt anyone could confuse this theory for the German Gun laws of the past, as theory is in the article title itself. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. The guideline WP:LEGITHAT seems pretty clear that "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself."  But perhaps there is an exception somewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The hatnote explains what this article is about - a pseudohistorical partisan theory - and directs readers looking for the actual history of firearms regulation in Germany to the relevant article. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While it may do that, it is violates WP:LEGITHAT (perhaps even WP:TRHAT) making it an improper use of a hat note and against policy. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, no it isn't, and please sign your posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can state that, however unless you know of a policy I am unaware of, or would like to clarify, it is an infringement. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Merely asserting that it violates policy doesn't make it so - it is up to you to demonstrate the fact, rather than merely asserting it, and then demanding that others prove you wrong. And I'd like to know how a hatnote could distinguish topics without describing them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do demonstrate that above at length citing policy. You express your opinions about it, citing no policy. WP:Hatnote is clear what a hat note is and is not. If I can clarify anything more for you, let me know. — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am under no obligation to cite policies the hatnote doesn't violate. And you have yet to explain how a hatnote can distinguish between topics without describing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By that line of thinking, which complies with WP:NPOV and WP:TRHAT (which the current version does not), would be acceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it too, by having a description in the hat note AND having it filled with partisan unnecessary language. It is a theory and by the very definition does not need proven (theory NOT scientific theory). The view that it is not mainstream is expressed in the lead, and in 1 (an entire section) of the 2 sections of the article, it is undue in the hat note because of that in itself and specifically per the WP:TRHAT and/or WP:LEGITHAT policies (whichever way you view it). If that isn't demonstrated and clear to you, then to quote you AndyTheGrump, "Your understanding of the word...clearly differs from mine." — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion that the language is partisan. In my opinion, it accurately describes the subject matter of this article - a fringe theory about firearms regulation in Nazi Germany concocted for the purpose of influencing the gun debate in the United States. Though 'theory' is actually stretching it rather, since it isn't so much a theory as outright misrepresentation of the facts, combined with inherently unverifiable (actually meaningless) assertions regarding how things might have been different had they been different. That is what the article is about - and a hatnote distinguishing this article from our historical one needs to state what the subject is. Evidently you are under a misapprehension common amongst new contributors - that WP:NPOV policy somehow dictates that we give 'equal weight' to both sides when discussing controversial topics. We don't, when one is fringe partisan propagandising, and the other is the position adopted by the academic mainstream. Articles reflect the academic consensus, and the consensus on this topic is clear enough. Accordingly, that is what the hatnote should describe, if it is to accurately summarise what the article is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hatnote the governing policy of hat notes, is at odds with the language (whether it is partisan or not is an opinion). Though it may possibly be true, it does not belong there. "Unproven" is redundant to theory AND "a small minority of scholars" does not belong there per WP:LEGITHAT (on the assumption it does not fall under WP:TRHAT looking at it from what I take to be your point of view). I understand that WP:NPOV doesn't give opinions equal weight. With this being an article on the theory itself (not a section in a larger topic) an impatial tone is necessary. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So your position is that a hatnote which accurately describes the content of the article is a violation of policy? Interesting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Hatnote isn't a policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Guideline", my point remains the same however. My position is that a hat note should follow the guideline. While the theory may be used as partisan propaganda, it doesn't necessarily discredit the theory as a whole. Who agrees with it or not is irrelevant really, as this is a theory. If the article were under its former name "Nazi gun control", then there would be a lot more issue and ground to stand on with the description. This is not WP:PSCI, because as I stated before this is not a scientific theory, it is Counterfactual history (an idea). — Godsy (TALK CONT )


 * Nope. You don't get to Wikilawyer around the requirement that this article complies with WP:NPOV policy - which requires that partisan fringe viewpoints be described as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of its "WP:FRINGELEVEL", the place to express that is not in the hat note, per the guideline. And this article complies with the WP:NPOV policy that requires more weight be given to certain views over others (if not overly so in some respects). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV policy applies everywhere - including hatnotes, obviously. Your argument that the hatnote should misrepresent the article content is a novel one (at least as far as I'm aware), but not one that seems likely to convince anyone, I'd have thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We differ in the idea of what would misrepresent the article content. I never stated the WP:NPOV policy did not apply. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Regardless of its "WP:FRINGELEVEL", the place to express that is not in the hat note". That clearly reads to me like a proposal that we ignore the self-evident fringe nature of this so-called 'theory' when we summarise it in the hatnote. Something that you have repeatedly argued. In direct contravention of WP:NPOV policy. Per policy, the hatnote must describe the article as written - not another one that you'd clearly prefer to have in its place. If you want to argue for changes in the article body, feel free to do so (but not in this thread, it is confusing enough already). Meanwhile, the hatnote will, per both WP:NPOV policy and common sense, tell our readers what the article is actually about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This idea is covered specifically in WP:LEGITHAT. The hat note is not the place to express extra info about the mainstream prevailing opinion (or to be redundant). I'm not expressing an opinion on the articles content at this time (nor should you assume what it would be). And the current hat note does not accurately describe the article in the its current state. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT )


 * Comment Sorry that I have not read all the discussion. I notice that similar articles, such as Moon landing conspiracy theories do not have hatnotes.  It would seem odd to have one for that article because it would seem to give legitimacy to a fringe view and wonder if it is necessary here.  TFD (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that notion, I don't think it is necessary. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting comment, TFD. Seems to me that the hatnote here could at least be shortened, because it is large and obtrusive.  For example: "This article is about an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." A hatnote on an article like this isn't completely unprecedented (e.g. see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories). Perhaps we could imitate that one instead of shortening the present hatnote: "For the prevailing historical account of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany".  That would clue the reader in to the fact that this article is not part of any prevailing historical account.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be the opposite of an improvement. I'm not going to even address unproven, because it is redundant to theory. "This article is about a theory supported by a small minority of scholars". It is already quite clear that this is not fact, merely a "theory" by the title. This would be in the spirit of a disclaimer, which Wikipedia does not have per WP:NODISCLAIMERS. "This article is about a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes . For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." That would be a concise and clear hat note (though I'm trending toward the view one may not be necessary). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Such proposals are often based on wild claims about archaeological finds, cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, and narrative accounts that seem to be about trans-oceanic voyages.
 * Claims of contact other than the Norse settlement of Greenland and the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement in Newfoundland are generally controversial and considered debatable. These claims are often based on circumstantial or ambiguous evidence. The scientific responses to such pre-Columbian contact claims range from dealing with it in peer-reviewed publications to outright dismissal as fringe science or pseudoarcheology."
 * Those are direct quotes from the article you cited and these are the hat notes- "For the prevailing model(s) describing the geographic origins and early migrations of humans in the Americas see Settlement of the Americas." "For more details on Native American genetic heritage, see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas." Now that serves a purpose, directing readers to the prevailing models of the topic. Nazi gun control theory redirects to another topic, not so closely related (and with the use of unnecessary language and rhetoric). I would also like to point out that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories is a scientific theory, while this article is not, therefore it's not held to the same standards.
 * Now I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I can see the idea that linking to German gun laws could create a false sense of validity for the theory. While I think that it simply directs readers to the other article, I can follow that other line of thinking to a certain point., perhaps that would be acceptable. — Godsy  (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that last suggestion does not give the reader any idea why this article is not a historical account. Try this: "This article is about a widely-rejected [or controversial] theory.  For a mainstream history, see Gun legislation in Germany."  That seems entirely concise and accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of theory- "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" covers that, renders those phrasings redundant, and adds the notion of unnecessary potential bias to the language you're suggesting. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that definition from? Here is the lead definition at dictionary.com: "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster — an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events; an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true; the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.
 * From your source a "guess or conjecture" is also a possible definition. The second definition is also close to that "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
 * What I take from it is a separation between theory and scientific theory. I don't see this being touted as scientific theory, more as an idea. On an note unrelated to this rfc I think a section in the article about what the theory says/is titled "Overview" or something may be due (that is if this idea is even rigidly defined).
 * P.S. Einstein's theory was scientific and so is that (the scientific theory) form of use. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would personally suggest this: "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control laws had a measurable impact in facilitating the Holocaust.  For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany."  184.162.103.228 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The hatnote reminds me of the quote from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Imagine a hatnote at "Moon landing conspiracy theories" saying, "Contrary to what CONSPIRACY THEORISTS  believe, MAN REALLY DID LAND ON THE MOON!!!  For the true story of what REALLY happened, see "Moon landings.""  That approach makes the reader doubt the official story.  TFD (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the comments immediately above by TFD and IP 184, perhaps this would be an improvement: ""This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." That's shorter (24 words compared to the present 36), but seems just as informative, and seems to address the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be an improvement, and I would be okay with that. I might suggest "This article is about the claim that the Nazi's used gun control to facilitate the Holocaust. For the History of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." (claim could be swapped with idea or theory, but wouldn't have to be). That would read better. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can say that the apostrophe is a very bad idea. Not Nazi-bad, but still.  Also, I'd really like to shorten the hat by at least a third, because such length as we have now is overdoing it.  Let's see what Andy and others think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "This article is about the claim that gun control was used to facilitate the holocaust. For the History of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." Attempt at a shorter version per Anything's request, but I'm still okay with the other per Anything's reply to TFD and 184.162.103.228. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 23:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because it's the "Nazi gun control theory", therefore it is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." Accurate and concise. Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this version. Just reading the title, I thought the article was about what Nazis thought about gun control, so I would argue we need a hatnote. However, commenting on the content of the article ("unproved", for intance) does not belong in a hatnote. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this version, the only change I would suggest is changing " claim " to " theory " so it would conform with the title of the article. If the article were named "Nazi Gun Control Claim", "claim" would be appropriate. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 03:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to match the title, and a different word ("claim") actually gives the reader more info than simply repeating what's in the title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While that may or may not be true, as I've stated on certain wordings above, the hat note is not the place. I do however think even with "claim" in it, this version is a vast improvement over the current hat note. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support User:Scolaire's proposal, along with the change to theory put forward by User:Happysquirrel. The current hatnote wording is tendentious and clearly not NPOV. JamesBay (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean myself, I don't believe Happysquirrell has advocated that. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 23:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support Scolaire's proposal as a second choice - after simply restoring the original hatnote (below). Lightbreather (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Changed my vote. See below. Lightbreather (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support Scolaire's proposal per WP:LEGITHAT, as a first choice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for supporting "my" proposal. But in fact all I did was to support Anythingyouwant's proposal :-) Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was merely anticipating your opinion. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Improper The current hatnote is improper in that it's summary is neither short nor neutral. I would propose a hatnote similar to.
 * This article is about a theory relating the Third Reich's gun control laws to their oppression of minorities. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany.
 * While that would be an improvement over the current hat note, I would question using the term Third Reich over Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is perhaps more common and identifiable to the average reader. Also, I don't like using "relating the", it makes for an odd sentence. It reminds me of the concept of WP:REFERS, which I don't always agree with, but do in this case. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE - This proposal jumped the gun. If there is any RfC to be considered first, it is this: We need a consensus on whether or not the Nazi gun control theory is a fringe theory. That is the question, and I wish I'd seen that clearly sooner. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't got a clue what I am supposed to be commenting on regarding this RfC because it appears to be malformed. However, this comment by me below explains my position. Basically, there should be no hatnote. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Restore original hatnote

 * Support as proposer. Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Time moves on, and the original is rarely the best. If it was about a fringe theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes, it should be titled "Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes gun law theory". It's not. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've made my position overly clear above. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 21:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with your assessment of the subject of the article. However, it does not belong in the hatnote, which is just there to redirect people who may be at the wrong place. Discussions of the validity of the theory belong in the body of the article. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 21:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, why have a hat note, just work it into the article see WP:CRITICISM. It's not like this article is an alternate name to the article Gun legislation in Germany.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * note: I came across this RfC via Requests for comment/History and geography. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think this article should have a hatnote, when I saw the title I assumed it was to do with gun legislation not the actual contents. However the hatnote needs to be neutral I make a suggestion above. SPACKlick (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Every single hatnote that has replaced the "original" hatnote has been more compliant with policy, especially WP:LEGITHAT.  So, I join the very clear and blindingly obvious consensus not to restore the "original" hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There should be no hatnote. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Another Proposal
On a completely different take, and using some of what User:AndyTheGrump has been saying about argument versus theory, here is my suggestion:
 * This article is about the argument in US gun debates. For the history of German gun laws see Gun legislation in Germany.

Basically, this doesn't have us trying to explain the theory in the hatnote. It helps those who think that the article is about what Nazis thought about gun control. I am basing myself on how, in hatnotes for people, it says things like "This article is about the Italian actress, for the American boxer see Y", rather than "This article is about the popular/unpopular italian actress who played in WYZ, for the American boxer see X". This also incorporates what a lot of people have been saying about how it should be clear this is a US idea, and the context of how and why it is used. Plus it is very short. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 12:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment We would probably need to have a corresponding note at Gun legislation in Germany because dabs work both ways. I really do not see the point of all this. We might as well have an animated GIF showing a red flashing light. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that a hatnote is not needed as a disclaimer, nor would such be proper. However, because the title Nazi gun control theory could be read (and certainly was by me at first) as refering to theories held by Nazis regarding gun control, I think we do need a hatnote, just to reduce that confusion. Also, I don't believe we need a hatnote pointing here on German gun laws because the odds of someone winding up there while looking for this article are slim. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 17:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Conditional support if the original is not restored; Happy Squirrel's proposal is better than the last Godsy-preferred version: This article is about an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany. Lightbreather (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Syntax, capitalization, redundancy in lead
The lead sentence says: "The Nazi gun control theory is a counterfactual history that gun control was a significant component of the Third Reich's plans and that its victims, especially Jews, could have more effectively resisted if they had been armed or better armed." I don't think it is proper syntax to say that the theory in question is a history of some sort. I suggest this: "The Nazi gun control theory is a counterfactual historical claim that gun control was a significant component of the Third Reich's plans and that its victims, especially Jews, could have more effectively resisted if they had been armed or better armed."

In the next sentence, why capitalize "Gun Politics"? It's not a proper noun, is it?

The last sentence of the lead looks redundant in view of the preceding sentence, so I suggest deleting the last sentence. It sounds weasels anyway ("The theory has little support in the perceived majority of historiography, legal, and political science scholarship.").Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SAY, claim would not be a good choice. The first sentence a whole has issues (I think it could reasonably be split into two sentences). Looking at the definition of Counterfactual history, within the first lead paragraph of that article, I personally see no issue with it.


 * Fixed the capitalization.


 * I agree with you about the last sentence of the lead. Removed it for the time being and linked to this discussion. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Counterfactual historical idea" would be much better syntax than "counterfactual history". The latter is defined as a form of history, and no one is saying that this particular theory is a form of history.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Idea is bit redundant, as all counterfactual histories would be ideas. How about "The Nazi gun control theory is a counterfactual history stating that gun control was a significant component..."? — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "counterfactual histories" (plural), just like there is no such thing as "ancient histories" (plural). They both refer to a type of history.  See what I mean?  We would never say "The story of Caesar's rise and fall is an ancient history."  We could, however, say that is an ancient historical episode or an ancient historical landmark.  Much less would we ever say that "The story of Caesar's rise and fall is an ancient history that Rome was an interesting and important place and that Caesar was a great leader".  I wouldn't make a fuss about it, but it's the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point. "The Nazi gun control theory is counterfactual history. It states that gun control was..." would address both splitting it into two and the other. Not sure I care for that structure, but I think it would be an improvement. — Godsy  (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 05:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's much better syntax. One sentence paragraphs are not favored anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 06:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've merged the last sentence with the second-to-last rather than just deleting it; it can't be deleted outright because it says something subtly different (one part says that is has been dismissed by mainstream scholars, while the other says it enjoys no support; these aren't quite the same thing.) But they were easy to combine into one sentence to avoid the appearance of redundancy. --Aquillion (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comical
It's hilarious that this article exists, yet I guess it's just another indication of the horrible quality of Wikipedia articles in general. I've never heard of such a topic as "Nazi gun control theory", never seen it referred to such in any reliable sources. This entire article is WP:SYNTHESIS and a WP:COATRACK. The fact exists that the Nazis implemented forced confiscation of firearms from Jews, this is well documented. Whether or not weapons confiscation mattered or not is an unprovable hypothesis. The politically-loaded selection of sources, namely the NRA on one side of this "argument", indicated an obvious bias and intention to lead readers to draw the conclusion that "saying the Nazis disarmed the Jewish populace to prevent them from forming an armed uprising is right wing NRA propaganda." There are reliable sources, including thoroughly-researched books written by respected academics, which cover this extensively, yet all I see again and again is NRA, NRA NRA. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an article about an argument made primarily by the NRA and its supporters, and about which skeptical scholars have said quite a bit. The lead says that the argument is "dubious", "questionable", and "tendentious."  The rest of the article explains why.  Would it be better to delete the subject from Wikipedia, rather than describe it objectively?  Wikipedia is supposedly engaged in description rather than censorship.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problems are that the history of the Nazis confiscating guns from Jews is well documented (not an NRA fringe theory), and that presenting it as such is a gross misrepresentation of history. The argument that confiscating them mattered or didn't matter is debatable, but obviously the Nazis thought it was important since they confiscated them. Maybe it's the title itself that needs to change because currently, it gives the impression to readers that the Jews didn't have their guns confiscated, which is pure nonsense. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unhelpful to make disparaging comments about other editors rather than constructive criticism. Your comments btw appear contradictory:  you say you have never heard of the topic, then say is covered extensively in secondary sources.  AFAIK no one has ever defended the theory in mainstream sources, hence we treat it as a fringe theory.  TFD (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice red herring. Way to attempt to discredit me by misrepresenting what I'm saying. To deny that the Nazis confiscated weapons from private citizens, particularly Jews, (which is, again, well documented), is akin to Holocaust denial. I think Wikipedia should be ashamed for presenting these disgusting bowdlerizations of history. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that Nazis confiscated weapons. As for 'disgusting bowdlerizations of history', I suggest that you read what the Anti-Defamation League has to say on "historically inaccurate and offensive" material produced by pro-gun lobbyists misusing the memory of the Holocaust for propaganda purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nobody is denying that Nazis confiscated weapons." Yet the title and theme of the articles gives that impression from the get-go. And the rest of the article seems to make a conclusion that confiscation did not matter, in other words Wikipedia is making a judgement call to support the opinion of one set of academics over another rather than simply covering that argument and presenting the facts. I can only assume the people who authored this thing know exactly what they're doing, pushing the views of Anti-Gun propagandists. Don't worry, I have as much intention to edit this piece of garbage article as I do of punching myself in the genitals. Enjoy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that we the article makes a judgment call to support the opinion of one set of academics over another. The fact is that no academics, at least writing in academic journals, support the nazi gun theory and therefore policy requires us to give greater weight to the mainstream view.  TFD (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) The 'judgement call' has been made by those qualified to speak on the subject - academic historians of the Holocaust. None of whom give any credibility to the just-so stories of pro-gun propagandists, and few of whom have had anything to do with the U.S. gun debate at all. And Wikipedia bases article content on the appropriate qualified sources, not on lobbyists inventing just-so stories for partisan purposes concerning another subject entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tl;dr of that is "I'm right and you're wrong". Ahh, Wikipedia. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Attempted to fix the issue brought up here, of too much focus on the disarmament (which seems to not be contentious from comments above). — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 02:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional works for citation purposes
If anyone is interested in additional reliable sources:
 * Courts, Law, and Justice by William J. Chambliss (In particular, Chapter 9)
 * Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State" by Stephen P. Halbrook
 * On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars Fordham L. Rev., 2004
 * Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 2000
 * Human Rights and Gun Confiscation Quinnipiac Law Review, Vol. 26, p. 385, 2008
 * Second, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments - The Precarious Protectors of the American Gun Collector Fla. St. UL Rev., 1995
 * Gun politics: reflections on Brazil's failed gun ban referendum in the Rio de Janeiro context Open Fire: Understanding Global Gun Cultures, 2006 (Chapter 3)
 * Incrementalism, Comprehensive Rationality, and the Future of Gun Control Maryland Law Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, 2008

Though I hold little hope they will be used, some or all of these may be helpful in presenting this topic in an actually useful, informative and balanced manner. Now that I've given you tools, my conscience is clear. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The sections
Godsy, since this seems to be your article now, can you explain the purpose of the section "Background and details"? It is about the background, the Weimar/Nazi gun laws, or is it about the theory itself? Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such section anymore, right? Why do you say the article belongs to any particular editor?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's now a "Background and formation" section that includes into about the origin of the theory itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable?
I get that this is fringe, but even for fringe, is it notable? "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

The sources are adherent heavy and it doesn't look like the few articles criticizing this qualifies as extensive coverage from detractors. Who even calls it "Nazi gun control theory"? If wiki needs to cover this at all it should be squeezed into Reductio ad Hitlerum.70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems clearly notable to me. The "further reading" section has lots of sources listed on both sides. Maybe it would be worthwhile to rename the "further reading" section as something like "bibliography", and then expand it by including stuff from the footnotes (sorted into pro and con).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted by other editors here, it's an obscure argument from some gun lobbyists in the United States. It's hard to ignore that this article appears to have been created entirely to satisfy the fringe supporters who wanted it to have more space in the Gun control and Gun politics in the United States article. Growing the biblio and hunting for pro/con sources is a moot point if it isn't notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. I don't see "extensive" coverage of this and you shouldn't have to scrounge for extensive coverage if it's extensive. Further reading section doesn't have "lots of sources", it has five sources a piece, mostly opinion articles, which weirdly are used equally giving a bizarre balance on a fringe topic, but it still doesn't illustrate this is prevalent even within it's narrow debate. What is suppose to make this notable? For perspective, the notability section on Fringe provides an example of a topic that isn't notable, The theory that John Wilkes Booth did not die on April 26, 1865 according to the accepted account. Now that is still fringe, but probably way more notable than this. Lots of books and stories, pro and con, cover that like clockwork, especially on the anniversary of Lincoln's death. Why isn't this nazi gun thought experiment just a footnote in the couple relevant articles it pertains to? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As you know, a "further reading" section is not required and is not included in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. This one alone is sufficient to establish notability, but it would be much larger if we include the dozens of sources in the footnotes.  WP:N requires "Significant coverage which is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.". That seems clearly satisfied here.  Maybe 95% of Wikipedia articles have less significant coverage, judging by my frequent use of the "random article" feature.  I think the real problem with this article is that it gives attention to a subject that is not only disagreeable but that has been advanced by people who have disagreeable political views.  I certainly do not subscribe to this "Nazi gun control theory" but it seems just as worthy of neutral description as an owl on an island off the coast of Africa, or a hiking shelter high in the Alps, or a professor who wanted some students convicted of crime of which they were innocent, etc, etc, etc.  Feel free to put this article up for deletion if you disagree.  WP:N does not forbid subjects that are obscure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Having a further reading section establishes notability? Kinda seems like a circular argument, "It's on Wikipedia, must be notable enough to be on Wikipedia." I completely agree significant coverage in itself isn't what establishes notability. Random article may be some obscure event or owl or whatever, but it is of significance to history/zoology or something. I looked to the guidelines for notability under Fringe, because this isn't just obscure, it's also fringe. I think that is the real distinction between an owl and a counterhistorical opinion used rarely in US gun control debate. I'm sure some don't like the article for the subject, but I just don't see what makes it anymore notable than the non-notable example from fringe. It seems like it's just an opinion, very rarely addressed outside of the narrow political debate, and very rarely inside the narrow debate. Coverage of any backlash to it could make it notable if it had extensive coverage, but it doesn't seem like it gets much more than a few opinion articles outside the fringe community. I mean, "Nazi gun control theory" is sort of what Wikipedia has named it because it doesn't appear to get the attention necessary for it to have a name, even from its proponents. I'm a rookie and won't nominate for deletion if I'm wrong about it, but I think it's a fair point to raise. Thanks. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "further reading" section is different frok the "see also" section. The "further reading" section does not list wikipedia articles but rather lists stuff that is not on Wikipedia.  Lots of the footnotes do that too.  You're correct that a notable subject shouldn't be given a broader title than it deserves, but this Wikipedia article title seems pretty narrow; if you'd like to suggest a narrower article title then we can consider it.  Many, many, many Wikipedia articles are about a particular idea rather than a person or place or other tangible thing, even if the idea is nutty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Theory?
Why is this article calling its subject a theory? From the article, it seems more like a collection of related arguments than a coherent theory. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct this is a revenge article see the talk archives. J8079s (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying this is a "revenge article", and I've no idea what you're talking about. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are all theories coherent? See Fringe theory which indicates that a lot of theories are not particulalry coherent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's theory in the "evolution is only a theory" sense, which should not, IMHO, be used in an encyclopedia. I'd rather rename to something like "Nazi gun control argument". Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 07:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, if this article said that anything is "only a theory" then I'd oppose such language. Here, we don't say that this conjecture is only a theory, nor that it is a proven theory.  I've said before that, "I'm not wild about 'argument' in the title because it's unclear whether it refers to the argument between opponents and supporters of something, or instead refers to an argument made by one side."  I think we want the title to refer to the conjecture or theory of one side, which the present title does.  This article is not about a dispute but rather about the conjecture or theory that has prompted a dispute.  That's my take on it, anyway.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, argument is ambiguous. Conjecture, then? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with either theory or conjecture, but the latter ran into problems.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of those other meanings of conjecture (I'm not a native speaker). Thesis perhaps? Again, there may be meanings that I'm not aware of, but to me (trained in the sciences) a thesis is a single idea that is open to debate. It avoids the problem that I have with theory, which really suggests a body of coherent ideas. I simply don't see that here. I see a single argument being advanced by various groups and individuals. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't view "theory" as problematic in the title, because it is broad enough to embrace both a coherent set of ideas as well as fringe theories. I also do not object to "conjecture" or "thesis".  However, as I've indicated, "conjecture" ran into difficulties.  I suppose "thesis" might encounter difficulties as well, since it may suggest that the proposer of the thesis has not become committed to it (and instead has merely mentioned the thesis as a possibility warranting consideration).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to boldly move to "Nazis and gun control" that will leave all the options open for the body. J8079s (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not move this controversial article without prior consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SORRY its a done deal I should have waited but its no worse than it was to say the least. J8079s (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back - you had moved it to 'Nazi and gun control' which isn't even grammatical. This article is controversial, and subject to discretionary sanctions, and any move should be discussed first. Not least because your proposed title is misleading - this article isn't about firearms regulations under the Nazis, it is about the arguments put forward by Halbrook and co in the light of the U.S. firearms debate, and the response to such claims from the histographic mainstream. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Andy is correct. Any move should be widely discussed and not made without consensus. At the very least, an RM and a couple weeks if not a month to look at the issue.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Recentism
I noticed that this article traces the theory to 2011. It can be documented decades earlier. I suspect it dates to the early 1960s if not sooner, but I can definitely document it to 1972; a verbatim transcript of the Montana Constitutional Convention in March 8, 1972 (Volume V, pages 1726-1727 and 1736) have delegates discussing the Nazi gun control theory in the context of the nations of Czechoslovakia and Denmark. Any objections to adding this source to this article? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a primary source - and seems to be discussing a different issue. Halbrook's argument concerns laws passed by Nazi Germany which disarmed German Jews. Your source seems to contain nothing more than a mention in passing of what happened in occupied Denmark, and as far as I can tell Jews aren't mentioned at all. If we include every argument where someone in a debate over firearms regulation mentioned the Nazis, we'd have a rather long article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, my late uncle (USMC WWII veteran) used to make similar claims only his claim was that it was gun control in Poland in 1939 that allowed them to be conquered by the Nazis. (But that's OR, of course, even I remember his rants at every extended family gathering from the mid-1960s forward...) Basically, this article title is "Nazi gun control theory" and certainly the variants on the "Nazis took over X because of gun control"  belief structure are  over 50 years old. While it appears this article focuses at present on the Holocaust and Germany, the reality is that the counterfactual history has used many of the nations taken over by the Third Reich. I'm not taking a gun control position, but I am a person with training in history and I do like to see these sorts of things that are alleged to have happened - except that they didn't - discussed and properly debunked.  I am glad this article is here and I simply was offering a way to improve it.  But if you don't think this is useful, carry on anyway...   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The theory is that the Nazis were able to keep keep power by taking away the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That they were able to defeat nations that were not properly armed is a different subject.  TFD (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In one sense, yes, but in another, both are fake theories of things that were not accurate and used by the NRA to argue against gun control.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The argument is often made that nations need armed forces in order to deter or repel foreign invasion. That's a major reason countries have armies.  Even the U.S. government calls its armies "defense" forces.  But it is possible to have heavily armed forces while still practicing gun control over the civilian population.  TFD (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

POV tag
This page misses the point of its sources by such a wide margin that I do not see an attempt to build an encyclopedia. What I see is a pay back blog. A re-direct to where it can be dealt with in the foot notes. J8079s (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have inserted the wrong tag. What you want is the "articles for deletion" tag.  The tag that you chose requires you to suggest improvements, but you say that's futile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My assessment is pretty much the same, and prompted me to post a reference to it in a libertarian magazine comments section: Several libertarian translators have been at work on the gun laws passed as the National Socialists consolidated the power of positive christianity over Germany's democratic process. Here is one from thejewishlibertarian: http://thejewishlibertarian.co.....tallnacht/ Stephen Halbrook has published Gun Control in The Third Reich, which further develops the translations of laws passed by German and Austrian elected representatives. The panhandling Wikipedia has its own article up dismissing all claims that Jews would have been better off if they too had had guns (rather than just the official nationalsocialist police and defense forces) as tacky and speculative. Remember that. Do remember that, and the smear job on the scientists signing the Petition Project, when next you panhandle money. translator (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles must follow weight, that is they should reflect mainstream views. TFD (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian Pogroms
I know this will never make it to the article itself, due to Wikipedia's oppression of all which doesn't line up with Wikipedia's "party line" (similar to how in the Soviet Union everything that did not line up with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's official "party line" was erased), but this parallel might be interesting for somebody:

In the pre-Soviet Russia, citizens had the right to wear ANY KIND of gun (what is called "concealed weapons" now in the US). It's a well-known fact that many women in Russia had small handguns in their purses, particularly Brownings (due to its small size). There were practically no restriction to carry any weapon in Russia, whatsoever, before 1917. Handgun advertisements were in every household magazine and newspaper in Russia.

Now, read the Wikipedia article on the Jewish "pogroms" in pre-Soviet Russia. Jews there formed civil units of self-defense, armed with handguns, which were not prohibited in Russia. These units were obviously not endorsed in any way by the "anti-semitic" (as the Wikipedia claims) Russian government. On the opposite, the Wikipedia's point of view is that the Russian government facilitated atrocities against the Jews (it's a lie, but this is not the point now).

As a result, in several of the "pogroms" (according to Wikipedia, and according to the Jewish authors) there were more attackers killed by the Jewish self-defence units than there were victims of these pogroms. This was obviously thanks to the Jews having hand guns, while the attackers were mobsters, armed with sticks and stones at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.123.243 (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Projecting on to the Past
Is there any record, dating from the time or very shortly afterwards, of German Jews having said anything along the lines of: If only it hadn't been for those fiendish gun control laws, we could have taken on the Nazis? If yes, is there any serious academic literature about it? Is there any record of how many firearms were actually handed in by German Jews? Moreover, when did most of the German Jews realize that they were facing not only persecution, but systematic murder? These points, too, need to be discussed - if there are reliable sources available. Norvo (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a Wikipedia article on Jewish "pogroms" in pre-Soviet Russia, where there were no restrictions on carrying any guns whatsoever, even purchasing machine guns. Jews there formed armed self-defence units, which sometimes killed more attackers than there were Jews killed in these pogroms (again, according to the same Wikipedia article). Obviously German Jews would have protected themselves the same way Russian Jews had, had they had a chance? Why are you looking for some "academic literature", while there are examples in the actual history? Speaking of Germany, Afaik, citizens there were denied the right to wear firearms long before Hitler, ever since Weimar republic, i.e. since approx. time when German Empire ceased to exist. By the time Jewish persecution started in the 1930s, nobody in Germany had guns anyway for many years (except Nazi party members etc.).
 * It is a very common tendency, too - empires like British, Russian, German allowed their citizens to wear guns, whereas "republics" which replaced these "oppressive regimes" (or quasi-republics, like United Kingdom), do not. 108.161.123.243 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected
I've temporarily semi-protected the page to stop the mindless edit warring on the article, mostly from IP addresses. If the semi-protection does not work, we'll go to account blocks or full protection. Please continue the discussion above, or start a new one to resolve disputes. If the dispute is resolved before the protection expires, please let me know on my talk page or make a request at WP:RFPP to have the protection lifted. Kuru  (talk)  01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes
The concept behind an encyclopedia, as we all know, is to provide a synopsis of all of the most important information about whatever person, thing, place or idea each article within the encyclopedia is about. Why then does this article seem to primarily consist of attempts to ridicule the theory that the article is about, or to insult the theorists? The answer, is censorship. Censors are apparently constantly monitoring this page, and whenever anyone makes any contribution that explains the reasoning behind Nazi Gun Control Theory, or communicates the views of the theory's proponents, their contributions are immediately removed and disregarded as non-neutral, even though the whole article is heavily biased against the theory that the article is supposed to be explaining. This issue has been reported to several administrators. As a reminder, Failing to maintain a neutral point of view, by failing to include the various perspectives on the theory that the article is about, especially the views of the creators of the theory that the article is about, is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and is therefore grounds for banishment.

The following are the proposed edits that were most recently censored. More material explaining the historical context in which Nazi Gin Control policies were established are being prepared, but I would like to resolve this issue of censorship first, before we move beyond the article's introduction.

Here is a link to the diff for these proposed edits (see the column on the right) : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazi_gun_control_theory&diff=735577968&oldid=735565790

Here are the the proposed edits:

According to Nazi Gun Control theory, the gun regulations enforced by the Third Reich rendered all of the citizens of the occupied territories in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France, the opponents of the Nazi ideology within Germany, the Jewish peoples across occupied Europe, and the victims of the Holocaust weaker to such an extent that they could have more effectively resisted oppression if they had been armed or better armed. More broadly, the theory views Hitler's Gun Control policies across all of the territories occupied by Nazi forces as a strategic military tactic designed to suppress dissent/acts of civil disobedience and to either prevent or rapidly crush any and all uprisings that might be waged by the conquered peoples, even when those uprisings/acts of civil disobedience/dissent were clearly justified.

Proponents of Nazi Gun Control Theory consider Nazi Gun Control policies as having been instrumental to the expansion and maintenance of the Nazi Party's military, political and social domination within the Nazi Reich and the occupied territories (France, Poland, etc.), as well as in the concentration camps, not just in a hypothetical way that cannot be tested or proven, but in a factual way that is readily apparent in the history of the rise and fall of the Nazi regime and of other similar regimes. Nazi Gun Control can and should be compared with the conduct, strategy, intent and outcome of gun and arms control policies during earlier military occupations and/or tyrannical governments throughout history, several of which are described in greater detail below, including but not limited to Roman, Egyptian, Spanish, Japanese and British military invasions and occupations, all of which prohibited the vast majority of the people whom they conquered and ruled over against their will and by force from bearing arms, in most cases for very similar reasons. The impacts of these arms control policies on both the tyrannical governments' regimes and on those who sought independence from tyrannical governments and the restoration of their rights to freedom and self-government are very well studied and well understood by both modern and ancient military and political scientists and leaders alike. Opponents see Nazi gun control theory as "counterfactual history", which is a form of history that attempts to answer "what if" questions known as counterfactuals. Some commentators say this theory is prevalent and primarily used within U.S. gun politics. Others see Nazi Gun Control Theory as existing within a broader history of arms control policies enacted by tyrannical, imperialistic, occupying, and/or slave-holding governments, which is the view of those who originally developed the theory. Questions about its validity, and about the motives behind its inception, have been raised by scholars. Proponents in the United States have used it as part of a "security against tyranny" argument, while opponents have referred to it as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum. On the other hand, an invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a Reductio ad Hitlerum when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it, as it appears the vast majority of Americans would argue is the case with Nazi Gun Control Theory, since 65% of Americans believe that the right to bear arms is an effective guarantee of their liberty and an effective deterrent against the establishment of a tyrannical government (such as Hitler's Nazi Reich) within the United States. Various mainstream sources describe the theory as historically "dubious", "questionable", "preposterous," "tendentious", and "problematic". Various other mainstream sources consider the theory not only entirely plausible, but factual, and extremely important to the fate of human civilization, perhaps even essential to the survival of freedom and democracy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Background and formation

The Architect of Nazi Gun Control Policy, Reich Fuhrer Adolph Hitler, had this to say about his motives, intentions and strategy as it pertained to Gun Control within the Nazi Reich and the occupied territories across Europe: "'The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.'"

Few citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s (although virtually all male military age German supporters of Nazism were drafted into the Nazi army, issued a gun and given orders to strip all non-supporters of Nazism of their liberty, including their right to bear arms and their right to self defense, which would not have been possible without overwhelming force of arms). The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws. When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military. The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens. The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a lot going on here, which is one reason making a massive edit to a page is a problem, as it makes it very hard to clearly understand what changes have been made. From what I can see, a major problem is inappropriate use of sources, such as opinion surveys. Many of the added sources do not actually address the theory, and are being used to support a specific point of view, instead. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. In general, sources used here should mention this theory directly. There are a lot of other problems, as well, such as the use of editorializing language in phrases like "on the other hand". The quote from Hitler should be supported by a reliable independent source specifically linking it to this theory, otherwise it's cherry-picking. The Knox book is not substantial enough to be used in this way. context matters, and this book was edited by his son and published through either an obscure niche publisher, or a WP:SPS outfit, I can't figure out which. It's fine for citing opinions from Knox, but not for statements of fact, per WP:RS. For these and other reasons, I don't think these changes are an improvement or are even appropriate.
 * Additionally, per WP:Free speech, not everything belongs in the article, and not all challenges to contributions should meaningfully be called censorship. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 24.119.20.133: There are many many problems with this. First, it appears that you are censoring the existing article such that it fits with your personal view on the subject. You even said this as a note to one of your edits in the edit history ("Shifted focus of article away from ridiculing the theory the article is about, and towards discussing the views of the proponents of the theory and how Nazi gun control policy was similar to arms control in other nations and historical eras. ")Apart from you just providing these changes based on personal research and synthesis, you are also deleting many well-supported passages in the current article that you don't like, or are taking and rearranging them, not as to how they agree with their cited references, but how they agree with your viewpoint on the topic. Second, you are trying to move this article's viewpoint away from a world view and toward a view that fits with US gun rights politics. This completely undercuts the point of the article: assessing the validity of the possibility that Nazi Gun Control Theory--which is counterfactual history--could possibly account for the outcome of WW II,with regard to the Jewish victims of Nazi Germany. As it stands, the article does a very even-handed job of weighing the evidence for and against such a {counterfactual) theory. Your position is that there is to be no criticism or weighing of evidence and opinion about this theory, else it is ridiculing the theory or insulting the theorists. This is not an article dealing with US Gun Politics, nor is it an article that is meant to uncritically provide information about the Nazi Gun Control Theory without providing the countering criticisms of the theory that exist. I suggest that you look at the many articles about US Gun Culture and see if your additions would be of use there. 99.242.108.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason the article "insult[s] the theorists" is not "censorship" - it does in fact explain their views - but weight. We cannot present that their theory has equivalency with how mainstream writers view the subject.  Similary we cannot pretend that the moon landing was faked, Obama was born in Africa, 9/11 was an inside job, etc., have the same credibility as mainstream views.  TFD (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment removed. Flanker235 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit reverted
Drmies reverted my 03:15, 12 August 2016 edit in relation to a quote by Richard Lutz and wrote the following: "who is this? non-notable person, not cited with appropriate secondary source". I have addressed Drmies issue relating to identifying the author by noting that Lutz is the "director of the Human Rights Coalition (Australia)" rather than just asserting that he is a "human rights activist".

As to the issue of a secondary source, there is nothing on the 'Wikipedia:Citing sources' page that mandates the use of a secondary source, while much of the information in Wikipedia does not have a secondary source. If Drmies wishes to delete the comment again s/he must give a legitimate reason and obtain consensus before reverting. If not I will have an Administrator intervene and if necessary take it to Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. CodeBadger (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * While primary sources are allowed, you need to establish the weight of the opinions expressed in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Where does it state in a Wikipedia policy that one must "establish the weight of the opinions expressed in secondary sources"? I think it a little odd that you made no reference to a Wikipedia policy in relation to your assertion, so you can do me and other editors/readers the courtesy of providing it. CodeBadger (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a common and accepted position on Wikipedia, and the art of editing is knowing what to leave out. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so issues like this are established by discussion and consensus. There are several specific pages that help explain why this quote isn't appropriate, WP:DUE being the one that jumps to mind first. Another issue is that this essentially a self-published source (WP:SPS), since it's sourced to Lutz's foundation with no indication of outside editing or oversight. As I said below, I'm concerned this site doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Grayfell is unable to reference any policy or guideline to justify his or her assertion that one must "establish the weight of the opinions expressed in secondary sources", so resorts to a self-serving assertion in relation to what he or she thinks is a "common and accepted position". What a joke. Now Grayfell likens the quote by Lutz to those made by deranged extremists like those who assert that the Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks by referencing WP:DUE, such is the contempt that this editor has for other editors/readers. To make matters worse, Grayfell attempts to play the reliable sources card by asserting that the organization that published the comment by Lutz is not a reliable source. What next? A note from Grayfell's mother asserting that comment's that Grayfell does not like should be deleted from Wikipedia? Or perhaps sockpuppets agreeing with his or her position? CodeBadger (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and that quote seems too long as well. What is the Human Rights Coalition or Human Rights Coalition (Australia), also? Is that a known, established group? Otherwise naming it is no better than just saying "human rights activist". It's actually potentially worse, since it's used to imply authority. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It Seems a little odd that Grayfell wants the identity of the author revealed, but then decides that this is worse because "it's used to imply authority". Editors/readers who want to find out more about the Human Rights Coalition (Australia) can visit their website (http://hrc-australia.org/), not try to find out more via the dead links that Grayfell provided. Grayfell might like to create a Wikipedia page about this group rather than provide dead links to non-existent Wikipedia pages about this group, though I suspect that he or she would oppose the creation of such a page as it would be used to "imply authority" to opinions expressed by members of this organization that Grayfell opposes.


 * Wow. You are going about this the wrong way if you want to change the article. There are real people on the other side of that screen, so why are you talking like that? Who, exactly, are you talking to? Are you willing to having a discussion with us? If so, you should talk to us, not past us. We're trying to explain where we're coming from to build consensus. I linked to a Wikipedia policy that I thought was relevant. That it mentions WP:FRINGE ideas was not the main point, and was not intended as a personal threat. If you continue with the personal insults and other aggressive behavior, you're unlikely to accomplish the changes you're suggesting. I didn't ask you to reveal the author's identity, that was one of the other two editors who are trying to explain the problems with your edits. Mind the signatures, and be WP:CIVIL. Being civil is a policy I am directly referencing, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Grayfell. Much appreciated. You made some excellent points in your edit that gave me pause to reflect. I apologise for being too aggressive. I’ll have to take my medication before I respond to edits that get me excited. I’ve also been stressed lately after a loved one passed away and have been overreacting to all manner of things sad to say.


 * I was upset to find that the comments relating to me edit seemed unreasonable when TFD (with your subsequent support) wrote: “you need to establish the weight of the opinions expressed in secondary sources”, as there was no Wikipedia policy that I was aware of to this effect and there appear to be countless examples of quotes being included in Wiki pages without the weight of the opinion being established by secondary sources, and subsequently took other comments negatively.


 * On reflection I accept the desirability of secondary sources to give weight to a primary source in some instances, notably facts or opinions which run counter to the consensus and/or common sense; though in this instance the quote by Lutz was not counter to the common sense consensus articulated in the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section that the proposition by some pro-gun advocates that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust but for Nazi gun laws was manifestly false.


 * The quote by Lutz supports the common sense consensus articulated by history professor Alan E. Steinweis who wrote (in the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section) that the Jews could not have stopped the Holocaust even if they had firearms as they “constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population”. Lutz wrote much the same by asserting that the Jews could not have stopped the Holocaust even if armed as they “only constituted a tiny disorganized minority in Europe.”


 * Another point that Lutz and Steinweis agree on is the common sense consensus that the general population would not have risked their lives protecting Jews even if armed as most Germans despised them or were entirely indifferent to their fate as they were perceived as aliens. That said, the Nazis (who only received a third of the vote in general elections) were clearly concerned about a revolt by anti-Nazi anarchists, democrats, liberals, leftists and nationalists and acted accordingly.


 * The quote by Lutz affirms the common sense consensus by all rational actors that the Nazis restricted gun ownership to “reliable” people (a verifiable fact) to prevent an uprising that could have been prompted by their destruction of democracy or the mass murder of minorities. Many Germans did not much care for Jews, but opponents of the Nazis could have exploited popular discontent with Nazi policy failures or atrocities to organize a revolt.


 * An armed civilian revolt might not have succeeded against the Nazi militias (SA and SS), but was far more likely to occur if anti-Nazi anarchists, democrats, liberals, leftists and nationalists had ready access to firearms; while the people staging a revolt may have calculated that the German Army would have refused to help the Nazis or even joined the revolt upon seeing civilians being slaughtered by the SA and SS on German streets.


 * Upon reflecting on the Lutz quote it strikes me that it strayed into soapbox territory by including his position that widespread gun ownership serves as a democratic safeguard so long as the general population is committed to defending democracy and minorities. This is outside the scope of the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section which is about refuting the proposition that Nazi gun laws facilitated the Holocaust, so should be deleted.


 * Likewise, his comments relating to the Nazis only gaining one third of the popular vote and forming a coalition government are not appropriate in the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section which relates specifically to Nazi gun laws, not the electoral success of the Nazi Party, thus is not appropriate in this section and rightly deleted. People who want to find out more about the history of this party can visit the Wikipedia page about it.


 * As to your concern about the Human Rights Coalition (Australia) being a reliable source, one only has to visit this group’s website to find it is a small Australian group that has been around since 1997, not a large transnational organization like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. A look at its projects webpage revealed that it is involved in a wide range of issues ranging from child marriage to wars of aggression.


 * You were rightly concerned about the length of the Lutz quote as it does seem ludicrously long relative to the other quotes. It is now much shorter after having removed the above noted information that was not relevant to the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section. It is now slightly shorter than the quote by history professor Alan E. Steinweis. I welcome any comments by you and other editors/readers. Thank you for taking the time to read this comment. 03:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC) CodeBadger (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ABBREVIATED EDIT


 * In August 2016, Richard Lutz, who is the director of the Human Rights Coalition (Australia), wrote:


 * It is farcical for gun rights advocates to assert that Jewish civilians could have stopped the Holocaust if only they had ready access to firearms as they only constituted a tiny disorganized minority in Europe, though some able-bodied Jewish adults and youths would undoubtedly have been able to put up more resistance as in the case of the Bielski partisans. The primary goal of Nazi gun laws was to ensure that only “reliable” people like Nazi Party members had guns in order to help prevent an uprising by the general population after it murdered democracy or began murdering civilians they deemed “enemies” of the German people. An uprising that the German Army may have refused to put down or even have supported.(27)


 * 27. Lutz, Richard (August 2016). "Nazi Gun Laws" (PDF). Human Rights Coalition (Australia). Retrieved 2016-08-12. 


 * CodeBadger, the policy is "Due and undue weight": "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  I paraphrased it as one must "establish the weight of the opinions expressed in secondary sources."  You provided a link to it above.  TFD (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply and the link to the ‘Due and undue weight’ policy. This policy rightly asserts that one should fairly represent all significant supported sources in proportion to their prominence and exclude unsupported views by a minority, just as one should exclude any views that were not relevant to the subject matter.


 * Upon reflecting further on the Lutz quote I believe it should be shortened further by deleting the second half of the paragraph which relates to Lutz’s contentious assertion that the primary goal of Nazi gun laws was to “prevent an uprising by the general population”, as this appears to be an unsupported minority view that is in any case outside the scope of the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section that is about refuting the claim that Nazi guns laws were a key factor in facilitating the Holocaust. The amended quote is below. I hope this is more to your liking and would appreciate any comments you are willing to make. CodeBadger (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In August 2016, Richard Lutz, who is the director of the Human Rights Coalition (Australia), wrote:


 * It is farcical for gun rights advocates to assert that Jewish civilians could have stopped the Holocaust if only they had ready access to firearms as they only constituted a tiny disorganized minority in Europe, though some able-bodied Jewish adults and youths would undoubtedly have been able to put up more resistance as in the case of the Bielski partisans.(27)


 * 27. Lutz, Richard (August 2016). "Nazi Gun Laws" (PDF). Human Rights Coalition (Australia). Retrieved 2016-08-12.


 * It still does not meet the weight requirement. You need to establish the degree of support his opinion has in the literature which is done by consulting secondary sources.  If you do that it would make more sense to use secondary sources so that you can say something like, "The view that had Jews been armed they could have stopped the Holocaust has little support among scholars."  Incidentally, the article is about the German law, while Lutz writes about European Jews.  Over 95% of Holocaust victims were from outside Germany.  TFD (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply TFD. Although the Lutz quote refers to European Jews under Nazi control rather than just Jews in Germany, in both cases the Jews were a tiny minority while Jews in Nazi occupied nations in Europe were also subject to Nazi gun control laws that banned Jews owning guns, thus the quote is relevant. I thought the following might be more to your liking and would follow the quote by history professor Alan E. Steinweis, thus the final comment in the ‘Reaction and opposition’ section. The Lutz quote is in keeping with the comments by Nuckols and Steinweis that Jews could not have stopped the Holocaust even if they had ready access to firearms. Cheers. CodeBadger (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The view that had Jews been armed they could have stopped the Holocaust not only has little support among legal scholars like Mark Nuckols(3) and historians like Allan E. Steinweis,(5) it also has little support among human rights activists like Richard Lutz who wrote: “It is farcical for gun rights advocates to assert that Jewish civilians could have stopped the Holocaust if only they had ready access to firearms as they only constituted a tiny disorganized minority in Europe, though some able-bodied Jewish adults and youths would undoubtedly have been able to put up more resistance as in the case of the Bielski partisans.”(26)


 * 3. Nuckols, Mark (January 31, 2013). "Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
 * 5. Steinweis, Alan (October 14, 2015). "Ben Carson Is Wrong on Guns and the Holocaust". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-03-15.
 * 26. Lutz, Richard (August 2016). "Nazi Gun Laws" (PDF). Human Rights Coalition (Australia). Retrieved 2016-08-21.

No, the 1938 German Weapons Act only applied to Germany and areas (such as Austria) that were incorporated into Germany. And it did not mention Jews, they were prohibited from owning firearms under an order in council. The right-wing conspiracy theory begins by mentioning how the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 resembles the 1938 Act. But of course the 1938 Act merely updated the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928 and in fact makes it easier to own a firearm. The conspiracy theorists never mention the laws in occupied territories where over 95% of victims lived. Nor do U.S. gun enthusiasts question gun control policy in U.S. occupied territories. (Only one AK47 per family in Iraq for example.) Ironically the Nazis provided firearms to most adult males during WWII. But "No original research" says we must stick with sources. And sources talk about the 1938 Act and ignore the occupied territories. TFD (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply TFD. You are right that the 1938 German Weapons Act only applied to areas considered part of Germany including what is today Austria after Hitler annexed it, and that it did not specifically mention Jews as it was the regulations (First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law) that identified people who could not possess guns.


 * I thought the Nazi gun control theory article was about Nazi gun control generally in relation to the Nazi Holocaust, including the gun control the Nazis imposed on Nazi occupied nations and territories during WW2, as the article relates to the Nazi Holocaust that affected much of Europe that was occupied by the Nazis and subject to Nazi gun control, whereas you seem to think it relates to the gun laws the Nazis imposed on Germany in the form of the 1938 German Weapons Act. Upon looking at the page again I see that the introduction states: “This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust.” Thus the article is not limited to German gun laws the Nazis introduced, though much of the article focuses on German gun laws introduced by the Nazis, notably the 1938 German Weapons Act, which is not in keeping with the purpose of this article.


 * Thus the article needs to be expanded to include more info about Nazi gun control in general including those imposed on occupied nations and territories which affected hundreds of millions of people, not limited to or primarily focused on the gun laws the Nazis introduced in Germany that only affected tens of millions of people. The article has far too much focus on the German gun laws introduced in 1938 by the Nazis which were supposedly used as model for the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. A page about Nazi gun control in relation to the Nazi Holocaust must not limit itself to (or have as its main focus) the laws that the Nazis imposed on a single nation (Germany) as the vast bulk of Holocaust victims were murdered in occupied nations and territories that were subject to Nazi gun control. We cannot change the premise of the page by stating: “This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control in Germany facilitated the Holocaust” as this is nonsensical. The premise is that Nazi gun control facilitated the Nazi Holocaust, not just the role of the Nazi gun laws in Germany in relation to this crime.


 * This expansion can start with the Lutz quote which refers to all Jews who were subject to Nazi gun control, not merely the Jews subject to Nazi gun laws in Germany, which is entirely in keeping with the views of people like Alan E. Steinweis who asserted that Nazi gun control laws in Germany had no discernible impact on the Holocaust as the Jews were a small disorganized minority in Germany who could not possibly have stopped the Holocaust even if they were not subject to Nazi gun control, as the Jews in Nazi occupied areas were also a small disorganized minority who could not possibly have stopped the Holocaust even if they were not subject to Nazi gun control. The Lutz quote is merely the natural extension of the assertion by Steinweis in relation to the Jews in Germany. We must not pretend that Nazi gun control was limited to Germany via the 1938 German Weapons Act.


 * You wrote that the “conspiracy theorists never mention the laws in occupied territories where over 95% of victims lived”, but in fact this is implicit as the statements that many such people make when they say victims of the Nazi Holocaust were subject to Nazi gun control, as the vast majority of victims murdered by the Nazis resided in occupied nations. Victims in occupied nations and territories were not subject to German gun laws but were nonetheless subject to Nazi gun control. I fear that the objection you have to the Lutz quote is that it gives oxygen to people who claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust (which it clearly did by stopping Jews readily obtaining guns so they could set up armed guerilla groups) even though it rightly opposes the idea that Jewish civilians could have stopped the Nazi Holocaust even if they had ready access to guns as they were a small disorganized minority.


 * It is not tenable to assert that people who say that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust were only referring to German gun laws (introduced by the Nazis) that affected victims of the Nazis in Germany, as they are clearly referring to Nazi gun control in general that affected victims wherever the Nazis were in power including the Nazi occupied areas during WW2. Many pro-gun Americans focus on the assertion by some that the 1938 German Weapons Act was a model for the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, but this article is about Nazi gun control, not the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, thus must not exclude info about Nazi gun control in areas outside Germany where the great bulk of the victims of the Nazis were murdered (notably European nations like Poland). Nor is this page primarily about the assertion that the 1938 German Weapons Act facilitated the murder of Nazi victims in Germany. This article is primarily about Nazi gun control in general in relation to the Nazi Holocaust that affected much of Europe that was under Nazi occupation and subject to Nazi gun control, and must be expanded to better reflect this fact.


 * I want to expand the article with the following edit in the 'Reaction and opposition' section which includes a quote by Lutz (which has changed since my previous edit as the source document has been amended) that refers to the Jews generally in Nazi controlled areas, not merely the Jews of Germany as was the case with Alan E. Steinweis.


 * The view that had Jews been armed they could have stopped the Holocaust not only has little support among legal scholars and historians, it also has little support among human rights activists like Richard Lutz who wrote: “It is farcical for gun rights advocates to assert that Jewish civilians could have stopped the Holocaust if only they had ready access to firearms as they only constituted a tiny disorganized minority in areas under Nazi control, though some able-bodied Jews would undoubtedly have been able to put up more resistance as in the case of the Bielski partisans.”(26)


 * 26. Lutz, Richard (August 2016). "Nazi Gun Laws" (PDF). Human Rights Coalition (Australia). Retrieved 2016-08-24.


 * Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. CodeBadger (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed the image caption to a simple listing of the law's name. Since its effects are controversial, we shouldn't make assertions in a mere image caption. Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "rm cite that promotes the theory". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This article should probably be deleted as it promotes an extreme political theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.121.228.133 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't "promote" anything. Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Correctly labeling this article as 'Controversial'
I am very disappointed that this article, which definitely uses partisan language, is not labeled at the top with the 'Controversial' box. This is NOT in keeping with the spirit of an objective encyclopedia. StrivingforHistoricalTruth (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)StrivingforHistoricalTruth
 * Could you be more specific? Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

National review
Starting this thread as a courtesy (the editor should have already done so per WP:BRD). There are several problems: the new material is added to the lead, when it should be in the body, with the lead summarizing it (WP:LEAD). The source is suboptimal. Moreover, the source does not even support the claim made about historians. — Paleo Neonate  – 15:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be used for the claim that Holbrock said it (after all he wrote it) but yes it has no place in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Either way, there are legitimate publications and people that do believe in this argument so it cannot be framed as something only conspiracy theorists would believe in as it is now. That is not truthful or fair.

So if you don’t want me to put it in the first paragraph maybe open up a new section on the page about supporters of it or something. Unless you do indeed want everyone to think the way you think. Hopscootchica (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The section you want to add already exists. In the section titled "The Argument", the argument is described along with people who have notably advanced it.
 * This article is not describing something that "only conspiracy theorists would believe", but it really is describing an argument made by a small minority of people that is dismissed by academics and historians.
 * (I understand that people who believe in fringe ideas are often surprised by how fringe those ideas are, so let me just say don't fall into the trap of thinking that because this argument is only made by conservatives, that all conservatives agree with it. That's not the case. ) ApLundell (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is also the fact that the claim is the source did not say "historians".Slatersteven (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

some of the sources used in the begging of the page are counter to the point being made.

The logic of the article is as follows

1 germans banned guns after they were already in power 2 they let germans have guns still 3 they did start taking them away from jews, but who knows if that made it easier for the holocaust to happen

That seems like pretty thin logic to me, and it especially does not warrant such harsh language in opposition to the argument that is present in the first paragraph.

and these sources are all equal too or less credible than the national review, which supports the argument made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopscootchica (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not here for a logical debate. If you want that, go elsewhere.
 * Even if you could somehow prove to us that the argument was 100% true, ... it wouldn't change anything.
 * Were are here to report what reliable sources say about topic at hand. That's what encyclopedias do. ApLundell (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes but i have reliable sources saying that it is true.

and also, if wikipedia is only reporting what others say, than words like reportedly and allegedly" should be used, no definites should be in any pages. But there are definites and you know that. Stop being dishonest.
 * That's not how encyclopedias are written. That's not how they've ever been written.
 * Imagine that. "London is a city that is allegedly in Great Britain, which is reportedly a large island off the coast of a land mass that some are claiming is north-western Europe.".
 * Ha! No, I don't think you'll find much support for re-writing the encyclopedia so that there are "no definites" in any pages. ApLundell (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your straw man argument is amusing, yet pathetic. By Definite language I mean phrases such as "Johnathan is racist" "Olivia is xenophobic"

the page should say "John has reportedly made comments that critics deem racist, including 'i hate green people'." and "olivia has.......

however the page in question has resorted to the former examples, which is intellectually dishonest and childish. --Hopscootchica (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, that link from The National Review you keep pushing is written by a lawyer for the NRA who has no training as a historian.
 * It's Wikipedia's policy to take the views of legitimate experts over the minority views expressed by propagandists and lay-persons.
 * If you want to change that policy (for some reason) take it to the Village Pump or something, because so long as that policy stands, you won't get to make the changes you want to make here. ApLundell (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't a strong source for the lede. The article already mentions Halbrook's claims supported by context and multiple reliable, independent sources. Restating his opinions in the lede, based on his own opinions, is similar to saying that he agrees with himself. It's misleading, at best. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces are rarely reliable sources wherever they are published, and this one is riddled with misleading information. I was wondering if you know what source Halbrook used for his claim about Werner Best warning the government about Nazi intentions. TFD (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We do consider it, its there in the article ("Halbrook believes", or some such), but your source does not say "some historians". I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

ApLundell, I do not understand why a minority views are not considerd, that seems a bit racist in my view. Not saying you are racist, mind you, but that approach is. I athink minorities are an important part of our society. Again, Im not calling you racist. Hopscootchica (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 🙄 ApLundell (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Hopscootchica: The idea that gun control is evil because Nazis is WP:FRINGE. Articles are written in accord with sources from relevant academic disciplines. Since no qualified historians who have studied the period have supported the proposed text, that text will not be in this article since it would give a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Race and minority are not synonymous. We do not edit based upon pleasing minority attitudes or image, but based upon what the majority of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion
This article has two problems: First, it skews the argument away from - Hitler used gun control to make subjugating people easier - to the never posited by anyone argument that without gun control Hitler could never have risen to power. The facts are that Hitler DID enforce gun control against those who could have opposed him to limit his losses and to maximize his gains - that his losses without gun control would not have entirely foiled his plans is a distraction from the argument that pro-Second Amendment people would make. That leads to the second problem - the article only sites anti-gun resources and authors as it relates to the skewed definition of the debate. There is no fair explanation of the other point of view - which a neutral author would provide. The skewed argument wouldn't be so bad if the author didn't change the topic from "gun control wasn't the deciding factor in Hitlers rise to power" back to the gun control debates in the US. Tyrants do work to limit access to weapons to those they are going to abuse, and just because gun control wasn't a key factor in Hitlers rise to power - gun control DID make it easier for him to abuse Jews and thus we see a valid counter argument to the article which the author didn't share. Even worse, the author writes as if there is no plausible counter argument to be had. In the end, whether the author is ignorant or intentionally misleading - the article needs to be edited or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcts23 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

i wonder how some victims felt, being unable to mount personal defences and opposition to nasty rogue NAZIs and soldiers... i wonder if some would have rather taken teir own lives with the family pistols; ala Lt. Markison with the nickel-plated service sidearm ("A Few Good Men" 1992) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:8074:3:308F:B840:999D:EB88 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty pitiful encyclopedia article. This is not a theory. This is an argument about the merits of gun control with nazi germany used as a framework example. Anything here belongs in an article about the pros and cons of gun control legislation or one about the politics of gun control. Nominate for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The procedure for requesting article deletion is at WP:AfD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's great. you should get that started since you are working on this article and monitoring this page....there are lots of other guidelines in wikipedia that are violated here in this article as well that you should try to get to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a reader of Wikipedia, and once in a while I make small contributions to articles, usually grammatical edits and such. I must say that an purly partisan article like this does not belong on Wikipedia, and maybe would feel more at home at the Southern Poverty Law Center. 100.11.61.51 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think the title and subject of the article are okay, or instead the whole thing is no good? When you say it belongs at SPLC, do you mean the article seems like something the SPLC would write, or instead is like the stuff that SPLC criticizes?  Keep in mind that anything about Nazis is always bound to be somewhat controversial.-Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There are articles about all notable conspiracy and fringe theories. Your comment about the SPLC is confusing.  I imagine you dislike them, but their analysis is respected in mainstream sources.  TFD (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine (using your own words) that by "mainstream sources" you mean the leftist media. Some of the world's "mainstream sources" were the Pravda newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (sold 10 million copies in 1975), as well as Völkischer Beobachter (1.7 million sold in 1944), the leading German newspaper in the 1930-40s. The NYT only sold 1.8 million copies (5 times less than Pravda) last year. 108.161.123.243 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Gun_Control_in_Nazi_Germany . Fill your boots.204.40.194.137 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole concept of this article is simply implausible, not because of the rights or wrongs of gun legislation but because of a complete lack of context. Does nobody here understand anything about the laws which preceded the 1938 act? The first thing any student of Nazi history would look at is the Enabling Act, which handed Hitler and the Nazis unlimited power to legislate without taking it to the Reichstag. That happened in 1933, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, which abolished civil liberties. Anything after that basically targeted Jews, specifically. So the point is that the Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany was so draconian that banning 1% of the population from owning guns - after they had basically been banned from owning anything else - would have made no difference. Nobody could have stopped Hitler with a bunch of old shotguns, especially when private gun ownership was quite rare. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land. On top of that, Hitler's personal popularity was always high - astronomically so - until the Battle of Stalingrad, at which point it started to wane. There was the 20 July Plot, which failed spectacularly and after that, his popularity went up again. In fact, few people wanted to be rid of Hitler until right at the end. There is only one country in the world where such an argument could ever gain any traction: the USA. It has no place on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be global. Flanker235 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comments were doing fine as far as explaining your personal views of the merit of the theory; until your penultimate and last sentences displayed their real intent. This article is about the existence of a theory. It does not attempt to validate the theory (nor should it), it should simply describe something that exists, using reliable sources. Imagine my shock to learn that crazy theories exist only in the USA. Apparently France does not harbor or encourage bizarre theories, and apparently it turns out David Icke is an American, based upon the premise. The 'global' argument is fantastical. Because an idea is popular in a particular country, it should be banished from Wikipedia? Absurd. If you have some suggestions for improving the article, then by all means your contributions would be welcome. Arguing that because a theory is bad it should therefore not be described in Wikipedia is completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Spare me the sarcasm. Any inference that I would be opposed to it on the basis of freedom of speech would be ill-founded. The point I'm making is that there were already so many other oppressive laws in Germany that changing the gun laws, in a culture which did not have widespread gun ownership, would have made no difference. Therefore the article is irrelevant. None of the points it raises are discussed in context but in isolation. Even as an example of "alternative history" it holds no water because if anyone had wanted to rub Hitler out before the 1938 law was introduced, they already had five years in which to do it. And he was out there, meeting his adoring public and kissing babies. There were plenty of opportunities. The fact is that Hitler was so popular with Germans that it was never going to happen. Hundreds of thousands turned up to his rallies. Women went into hysterics in his presence. Modern celebrities and rock stars had nothing on him. That's why this article is an irrelevance. It ignores the historical truth. Wikipedia does not exist to give oxygen to what is, in this case, misinformation. Flanker235 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, your personal opinions on these matters are noted. Wikipedia exists to describe all aspects of existence and knowledge. The article describes a topic that exists. It does not promote those ideas. I don't like the ideas the KKK propounds; that doesn't mean that the KKK and their ideas don't exist, and it doesn't mean that we scrub them from the encyclopedia. Similarly, I consider the ideas of flat-earthers irrelevant; that doesn't mean we scrub the article about them, because 'irrelevant' is not a criterion for whether something that exists should be described. Describing an idea that does exist does not explicitly or implicitly lend legitimacy to it. None of your arguments validate the idea of deleting the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Except that without an historical context, it is misinformation. Is there an article on the conspiracy theory about AIDS you referred to earlier? What would be the basis for its inclusion? You said earlier that "Arguing that because a theory is bad it should therefore not be described in Wikipedia is completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.", yet the aim of Wikipedia is to provide reference-grade material. Without a historical context, it is virtually impossible to provide that level of quality. This is not an argument to say that the point does not exist. I have never disputed that so there is no need to raise the point again. I have also not argued the pro or anti point of view in terms of its use in the current gun debate. I am saying that without a context, it is about as relevant for inclusion as the carpet in my lounge room. Flanker235 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, your personal opinion on the matter is noted. You've yet to provide a rationale for deletion that falls within Wikipedia's criteria for same. What is irrelevant to you or your lounge room is immaterial. What is relevant is whether the subject matter is described accurately, using reliable sources to do so, and without giving undue weight to any particular opinion on the matter. Anastrophe (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the Nazi gun control theory is correct. It says that there is such a theory. Did you read the "Reaction and opposition" section of the article? It gives a lot of details about why most people don't agree with the theory. Furthermore in the lead section the second of the two paragraphs summarizes this mainstream non-acceptance. This is analogous to Wikipedia articles like Chemtrail conspiracy theory and Fairy. Most people agree that those things are not real, and that's explained in the articles, but they've been written about enough to meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 09:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @Anastrophe: You are misinterpreting the comparison I made. You are also, yet again, addressing an irrelevant point. It is irrelevant because I have not objected to the article on the basis of the positions it represents. That argument will be had in other forums, where it can be thrashed out ad nauseam. Please do not refer to it again as I did not say anything about it. It is not the basis of my objection. If you wanted to include it in the article about US gun politics, I would have no objection because that is its sole context.


 * @Mudwater: Yes, I did read that, thanks. I also note that it is classed as "counterfactual history" but I'm still unconvinced that it makes the article worthy of inclusion. Do we also have other articles about the supposed use of gun control in the Soviet Union and how the presence of privately owned guns might have stopped Stalin, for example? My point is, yet again, that without proper historical context, it serves no purpose other than to misinform (even if not deliberately). Now, to be fair to you, I do understand that the article makes it clear that the claim is not accepted but again, that is not my complaint. The problem is that counterfactual history can include just about anything. There is no article about what might have happened if Nazi Germany had acquired an atomic bomb, for example, or if WWII had gone on into 1946. Yet there have been whole books written on both subjects. I would also say that the article should be titled Nazi gun control claim" instead of theory. Theory is established from testing hypothesis, so it doesn't actually qualify as a theory at all. Flanker235 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a practical reason why this article exists. Per WP:FRINGE, oddball ideas should not be given excessive space in articles about mainstream topics. This material was moved from Gun politics in the U.S. so that that article could focus on legitimate topics. There was a big Arbitration Committee hearing on just this matter. I believe it endorsed this approach. So having this material squestered here provides advocates a place to cover it without putting it back into the more mainstream articles. Felsic2 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay but this is part of my complaint: that it belongs in the US gun politics thread because that is its only relevance. I don't agree that it's worthy of inclusion on its own. Now, I'm not silly enough to think that is enough to force a change but it highlights the contextual irrelevance of a second article. When you say an arbitration committee hearing, are you saying that it was discussed at Wikis admin level? Flanker235 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Search for "nazi". There are also a number subsidiary pages and talk pages. Felsic2 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC) And don't miss these:  Felsic2 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you very much. it looks as though most my concerns - though not all - have been addressed in the arbitration hearing. I can't say I agree with the judgement but Wiki will do what Wiki decides and I guess I just have to accept that. Flanker235 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure why this is presented as a "what if" theory and treated as not a very plausible idea. The setup of the actual events of the Holocaust gives a rather clear-cut picture. "Gun control can't be flawed because look they didn't control guns for everyone." Uhhhh no, the facts you put forward demonstrates the actual problem. Gun control doesn't work because terror groups (or the government) will find way to arm themselves, and an unarmed populace is now helpless. Btw, Communist Russia also practiced gun control. This is not a theory. 209.42.136.137 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased page. Should be removed or wholly altered, it has a clear bias and ignores significant testimony from a certain perspective, selectively choosing sources based on confirmation of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.157.232 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It might hep if you actually said what these were, so we can judge.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Fact-checkers
We cannot have a whole list of who we source, that is what the sources are for. But we wording so as not to imply this is some "official" body, rather then (for example) TV stations or newspapers.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Entire article appears to be a counterfactual?
I don't get it. "X helped Y." or "Not X would not have prevented Y." What does that even mean? is there any other article in Wikipedia about whether or not changing past variable X would have changed past outcome Y? And how can anybody be an expert in what "would" have happened? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS report, and RS report the claim that if the Jews had guns that the holocaust would have been prevented, as do not (however) put this in Wikipedias voice.Slatersteven (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there such a thing as an WP:RS for a counterfactual? Could a source satisfy WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Historians frequently explain why events happened or why they would not have happened had various factors been different. For example, had Trump not run for president he would not be president today. You don't have to be an expert to know that. TFD (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I actually agree with your Trump example. Such an elementary deduction can reasonably be made. I'm still highly uncomfortable with the one in this article. Not sure how to define the difference, or if that's even possible. And yet, while your Trump example seems reasonably knowable, this one doesn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By saying "according to Lonny McLoon if cats had wings they would be ducks" rather then "Cats have wings and are thus ducks".Slatersteven (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of "fallacy" In This Article
I've edited out the use of 'fallacy' in the first line of this article, but upon looking back see this change has been made and reverted before. If within the body of agreed upon facts this is considered a fallacy then the article itself should be renamed "Nazi Gun Control Fallacy". Otherwise if we are to agree that this is an argument with two sides dismissing it in the first sentence of the article as a fallacy (a statement of fact with how it was phrased) simply because 3 sources were cited which disagree with the thesis of the argument is contradictory.

This article either needs to be changed to reflect that the broader community has agreed this is, in fact, a fallacy or needs substantive edits beyond simply changing from fallacy to present this argument in a neutral way. That is to say, write what the argument is, cite relevant material which defends this position, etc. under a section of the article addressing what the argument is, and then in a another section cite what the main arguments against The Nazi Gun Control argument is and site the more prominent detractors of the argument in that relevant part.

ApacheFahmy (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to get support for your position, since as you say most editors have disagreed. I will therefore reverse it. Also, an IP removed a claim that the majority of historians rejected the argument, saying they have not been polled. Polling however is only necessary if there is substantial disagreement among historians, which does not exist. In any case, we allow experts to make the call. TFD (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If the broad consensus by the community is that this is in fact, based on factual information, a fallacy then I simply think the article needs to be renamed to Nazi Gun Control Fallacy. Otherwise this article is both trying to represent that there is an argument while simultaneously dismissing the argument as having any legitimacy. If there is no argument or debate on this issue then it seems a wrongful characterization to title it "Argument" if there is near unanimous, or even just a majority agreement, of the facts.


 * Also I question if 3 sources with personal leanings make up a majority. In my attempt to research into this subject further I failed to find any historians of note or prominence on the issue who draws a conclusion about this. I followed the sources linked (some of which like 21 and 22 linking to the same person simply in two different articles). In fact in my exploration of sources I failed to find one in which even in the article they named a historian who had this viewpoint of the argument being a fallacy or incorrect. I may have overlooked something but it seemed to me no historians were cited despite the article making reference multiple times to a majority of historians having come to a conclusion about the events.


 * While I understand you don't need to prove an actual majority did, surely at least citing two or three historians who have come to this conclusion is necessary? If I overlooked these citations I'd be happy with being enlightened by which citations they are that I've missed. Thanks!


 * ApacheFahmy (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Bumping this previous comment and adding on. If there is no historian cited (as I believe from looking through the citations) then it would be prudent to once again re-examine the use of 'fallacy' as it relates to this article as well as remove any references to historians having a particular viewpoint. I understand you don't need a poll, but surely at least 1-2 historians should be included in citations given how many fact-checkers are included?
 * ApacheFahmy (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree 1000%. Any RS's that call it a fallacy out there? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well maybe change it to lie [], or false [], [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Salon. We should just use that as the only reference. I'll go back to working on science articles now, where Argument from authority is less of a problem. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Myth then [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That one actually sums it up quite nicely, thanks: "Jews were expressly banned from owning weapons and there were reports of police disarming Jews shortly before Kristallnacht, a wave of attacks on Jewish homes and businesses in November 1938. So it is possible to argue that the Nazis pursued a policy of disarming the Jewish population as a precursor to mounting attacks on Jews. Whether that means that the crimes of the Holocaust would not have happened if more Jewish citizens had been armed is highly debatable. Like all questions of hypothetical history, it’s impossible to answer." Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Still listed under myths. Have I included this one [], false Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So we should favor the clickbait headline of an article over it's more nuanced content (which does not contain the word 'myth') when the two contradict each other? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clear plenty of RS say this is false (in one way or another).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, the issue is not simply with the use of the word fallacy but implying this conclusion has been reached by historians. Even in all your sources, when checking into those writing the sources, none of them were historians. They were political anaylists, journalists, etc. But again, not one of them I found was a historian. So we either need some citations of historians saying the things they are claimed to have said or we need the removal of reference to historian's opinions on the matter. I'm not saying we need a poll but at least 1-2 historians would be a good idea given the assertions of the article.


 * Also the politifact source you cited supports the idea that the gun control argument is not a fallacy. In fact it points out, "While Hitler did take weapons away from Jews, Communists and Social Democrats, he also armed private citizens to better terrorize those same political opponents. To reduce Nazi gun policy to confiscation of weapons is to miss at least half the story." The Nazi Gun Control argument is not that he took away guns from everyone and never gave them back to anyone, it was that he specifically disarmed the populace he wanted to persecute in order to make persecution of that populace easier to subjugate.[] You have attempted to summarize the findings as false without actually reading the article it appears. What was rated false was his claim "hitler took all the weapons" but this same source contradicts itself, admitting that he did indeed do that, and then gave weapons back to citizens he liked so that they might terrorize the groups he did not.


 * Additionally I looked through other politifact articles that you linked, many of which reiterate the same thing. For instance, "The Nazis used the records to confiscate guns from their enemies, but Ellerbrock also said the files included very few of the firearms in circulation and that many Jewish people and others still managed to stash away weapons into the late 1930s." "Regulations were introduced, though, to impose limits on Jews." [] I could go through and pull such quotes from all the sources. But I'm not sure they prove the point you are implying since many of them seem to make statements which confirm that there is indeed a valid argument ot be made that confiscating guns in Nazi Germany helped make subjugation of jews easier and was done to target the groups Hitler wanted to persecute.
 * ApacheFahmy (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't say historians say it is a fallacy, rather we list a serous of descriptions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We say it is a fallacy, the fact it is a fallacy is, presumably, based on the fact that according to the article, "The majority of Historians and fact-checkers have described the argument as "dubious,"[4] "questionable,"[5] "preposterous,"[6] "tendentious,"[3] or "problematic."[2]" Despite this none of those sources are from historians. As I said if we want to say it is a fallacy based upon the idea the majority of both Historians and fact-checkers have apparently come to a consesus then it is necessary to cite at least 1-2 historians, if it really is a consesus it should not be hard to find a couple historians who have said as much. Instead we have citation after citation of articles including one OP-ed "preposterous" which should be removed altogether, the source calling it "dubious" is not from a fact checker or historian, making it odd to be included as a description supposedly given by either historians or fact checkers. Additionally while it does call the claim dubious it does not elaborate or in any way support the claim. In fact the entire article isn't even about the Nazi Gun Control Argument but rather the idea that the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own guns to prevent government tyranny. Again, another source that needs to be removed. Then let's move on to the source that supposedly called it, "problematic" This would be a good citation, if only it weren't predicated on at best a half-truth. The portion of the book this citation comes from is a notes section, so I went to my university's online library and got a PDF of the full thing. The section these notes are refering to states, "To suggest that the Jews might have at least struggled or put up a good fight had their guns not been confiscated earlier is an appealing (if ques­tionable) argument." The author then elaborates in the notes saying they believe the problem is not that the argument is based upon fallicities, but that they don't believe it is legitimate to hypothesize about what could have happenned. However, that is their opinion and not a statement of fact. They are not fact-checking any historical claim, but rather stating their opinion that hypothesizing is invalid. This is neither a historian nor a fact check, so it should also be removed. After removing these we are faced again with the problem of calling it a fallacy using small excerpts as the support to verify. We can pretend there is not substantive disagreement among historians, and yet none of the sources given disagree with the source are historians.
 * ApacheFahmy (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why one cannot call an argument a fallacy. There is such a thing as a fallacious argument. The Fallacy article for example says, "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning...in the construction of an argument." TFD (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As you just said, a fallacy is the use of an invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument according to the own definition given on wikipedia. Therefore an argument itself cannot be fallacious but rather it can be built upon fallacies which are to the detriment of the argument. As I stated, if we want to treat this like an argument then we can, but if we want to classify it as a fallacy then calling it an argument makes no sense by our own defintion of fallacy.


 * ApacheFahmy (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * While that may be correct, ordinary language uses the term fallacious argument as mentioned in the free dictionary. If an argument is based on false statements or uses faulty logic, it may be called a fallacious argument. TFD (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument that this theory should solidly labeled as a fallacy when at least 5 sources listed in the article contradict this, is itself fallacious. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which 5?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Except [] is a professor of history (usually you have to be a historian to be one), as is .Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory Information
The article states that few citizens were allowed to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s. Its source for this claim (reference 2) is a brief paragraph that relies on a different source. It does not mention the act of 1938 and implies that the Nazi Germans simply added exemptions for party members and the military into the old 1928 gun laws. Reference 5 goes into far more detail on the subject, noting that the Weapons Act of 1938 effectively deregulated all guns but handguns. This deregulating effect is noted in another wikipedia article: Gun Control in Germany. Reference 5 later quotes "Hitler's paper" (Stephen Halbrook quoting 'Ein neues Waffengesetz, V6lkische Beobachter, March 22, 1938' -- not willing to track that down) with the following quote: "In the future, the acquisition of weapons will in principle require a police permit only when the weapons are pistols or revolvers. No permit will be required for the acquisition of ammunition." This seems to be far more in line with how the German Weapons Act of 1938 is understood. Another quote from the same source: "Further, the issuing of permits for the production or commerce with weapons is linked to the possession of German citizenship and to the personal reliability and technical fitness [of the applicant]." If only party members or the military could own firearms, then this quote would imply that there were non-citizens among their ranks.

It seems clear that the author of reference 2 had a more shallow understanding of these laws and was unaware of the deregulating effect mentioned by reference 5. Even if reference 2 were right, it would make reference 5 wrong. Since the sources used seem to disagree with each other, I thought it would be better to edit the talk page than the article. The only reason I found this article is because someone on a forum linked it, claiming it as proof that only the military and card-carrying party members could own guns. I think that the current form of this article is contributing to misunderstandings about gun control in Nazi Germany.--2601:243:1503:3F80:6469:AA09:222B:8883 (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
What is a "fact checker"? A person who checks facts? In that case, isn't everyone a "fact checker"? Please use the term "critic" insread. We must use neutral neutral language here on Wikipedia. M  .   M  00:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia assumes that there is a body of agreed and verifiable facts in the world. While that may in fact be a false assumption, and facts are merely subjective, policy requires that articles follow that assumption. TFD (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Verifiable facts"? A hypothesis about alternate history is unverifable by definition. M   .   M  00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right about the hypothesis' inherent unverifiability, but debating claims like that is not our purview. What you're missing is that it is not our job to decide things like this. Our job, as wikipedia editors, is to reflect what is shown about a topic in bona fide reliable independent secondary sources in proportion to those views. If a large proportion of those sources dictate that this is a "fringe conspiracy theory" with "no basis in reality," then we have to reflect that in the article. Full stop. That's the job. If you want to debate matters of content and politics, this is not the place for that. Might I instead suggest Conservapedia?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think you made some constructive edits. Though, I'm wondering what you mean by "subsequent atrocities". Shouldn't it just be "atrocities"? M   .   M  14:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The atrocities happened after the legislative changes. "Subsequent" means following afterwards in a string of events. The holocaust is widely recognized to become most atrocious with Kristallnacht in 1938 and gun control measures were passed by the Nazi party 1933-1938. I'm not trying to pass judgment on this fringe theory, just making sure we get our facts straight. My personal opinion is that I don't think it would have made an ounce of difference if the jewish people had guns, and it's reprehensible that some on the right in the US take advantage of the suffering and death of millions to push a political agenda. The conservative right in the United States is nowhere near persecuted. Especially not under a Trump presidency!-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As for "fringe theory", it's not "fringe" (prominent promoters of gun rights hold this view, including Ben Shapiro, see his famous Piers Morgan interview). And it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Theories require testing, but the hypothesis that the Holocaust could have been prevented (or at least slowed down) had the victims been armed can't be tested unless you have a time machine. M  .   M  00:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Fringe theory" is not the same as "scientific theory" and is closer to an unpopular or refuted hypothesis. I don't think "fringe theory" is necessarily wrong in this context, but I tried to reformulate and replace the tag by one of the existing sources (where "refuted" is more easily verified).  Also relevant in this context are WP:LEAD and WP:YESPOV: the lead does not normally need citations for material it summarizes that is already covered and sourced in the article's body; we also can state in Wikipedia's voice what most reliable sources agree with.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point entirely. Again, alternate history hypotheses are impossible to verify or refute unless you have a time machine. And we can't describe it as "fringe" either because, again, most gun rights advocates happen to agree with this hypothesis. M   .   M  01:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read your argument, but the article should reflect reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:IRS), not editor opinions, research or synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). WP:FIXBIAS (and WP:ABIAS) may be useful; If you know reliable sources that contradict the other sources used, this is a good place to suggest them.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Something that cannot be proved or disproved is not an hypothesis, its's a fringe theory. This particular fringe theory is based on false facts and faulty logic, as reliable sources have reported. And however prominent Shapiro is, he has no qualifications beyond a BA, and his theories have never been published in academic sources. TFD (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to restore the previous wording of the lead, I have no objection. — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: contrary to what's being asserted here, this is a fringe theory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, I've reverted the recent changes. Preserving here by providing this link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Be careful, there! You also threw out some of my edits that I'm confident were NPOV. Don't accidentally throw the baby out with the bathwater... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibbolethink (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * <S> The current version does not even follow its own sources. They say it's "highly debatable". Not the same as "refuted claim", so I'd appreciate if you could add a "not in citation given" template. Also, please read the above discussion. Alternate history arguments are impossible to verify or refute by definition. Finally, you removed what the actual argument is, as defined by its proponents. M   .   M  20:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * <S> Please self-revert the edit where you removed the NPOV template. This dispute is far from resolved, and several editors have raised objections about the current version. M   .   M  20:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read this carefully because it's going to be the last comment I bother making on the topic for a while: The neutrality of this article is disputed, whether you like it or not. You should do Wikipedia a service and restore at least one of the templates I recommended until talk page consensus is reached. M  .   M  21:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't put neutrality templates on Flat Earth either, despite the fact that a small group of people occasionally dispute its neutrality. ApLundell (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If the vast bulk of RS say X, X is not a fringe theory we need to be neutral about. We can say X.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. We are not supposed to be acting like experts on this. We should trust what the experts say.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ohh and "fringe" does not mean "prominent" it means "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." IN this case the history of the Holocaust (and form what I can see, yes this is very much Fringe view unsupported by any expert in the field).Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's trying to tell you the sky is red when it is clearly blue. Anyone who isnt a complete partisan zealot can understand that if the jews had the means to defend themselves, that it would have at the very least slowed down the nazi murder machine,and if by "fringe theory" you mean half of the United states (Republicans). then sure. Contrary to popular leftists beliefs, guns dont only work for bad people, the United states along with other nations have absolutely proven that an armed population can and will protect themselves from tyranny. The writer of this article, along with the editors that allowed it to be published with such bias language make me sick to my stomach, its pages like this that make wikipedia so untrustworthy Pbingman123 (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, and when experts on the holocaust say it would not have helped we have to accept that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I read through the citations for the statement "Fact-checkers have described this theory as "false" or "debunked."" and I noticed the following: Some of of the citations being presented as being from "fact checkers" were from news articles potentially posted by someone with a political agenda. The politifact article even states this: On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons." It restricts itself to "fact checking" a specific statement made by Ben Carson. It even acknowledges: Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized. The second politifact posting again concerns itself specifically with a statement made by Republican Sen. David Simmons. It disputes his statement solely on the basis that his statement did not specifically mention the jews. The citation from the Washington Post merely asserts that a facebook posting making this atement met backlash. Since when is facebook a fact checking authority? The channel 4 article even concedes: Jews were expressly banned from owning weapons and there were reports of police disarming Jews shortly before Kristallnacht, a wave of attacks on Jewish homes and businesses in November 1938. So it is possible to argue that the Nazis pursued a policy of disarming the Jewish population as a precursor to mounting attacks on Jews. In summary I find that the statement "Fact-checkers have described this theory as "false" or "debunked." has insufficient supporting citations, is partisan, and should be removed. I have not analyzed in detail the remainder of the criticisms section but overall I see no problems with it as it is labeled as a criticism not as fact. (23.115.249.137 (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC))
 * You right, we should change it to something like "expert opinion" or similar.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)