Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Op-Ed

Well done to both sides for putting their viewpoint forward and making it fit the editing requirements -- and well done to the editorial team for making this happen. It appeared there were quite a few hurdles along the way. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I rather liked the "Modern Sporting Rifle" name, so blatantly euphemistic. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say, as the guy who copyedited the most of the thing, I found this to be one of the most thought provoking debate I came accross in a while, and not just on Wikipedia. I don't agree with everything on either sides, of course, but both were very well argued. I have my own opinions on the topic, and both sides have challenged them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This Op-Ed has parallels to recent controversies and criticism regarding Wikiproject Military History and the "clean wermacht" thesis. It was a significant/divisive Arbcom case (don't have the link handy--apologies). Interesting article on the Clean Wermacht and Wikipedia here. It can be easy to underestimate the power of Wikiprojects.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the parallel if the assumption is a project has influence on the articles related to that project. However, I think there difference between the clean wermacht issue and this.  Here it isn't a question of interpretation of material or if such material is reliable.  Rather it's a question of if the basic material is within the scope of a particular article.  Springee (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The broader issue, relating to Wikipedia in general not just Nazis and guns, is how weight and wp:due are used tactically by editors. For example, the argument that war crimes details in a biography article are wp:undue.  Or in the case of Pennsylvania State University, the argument that including the sexual assault crimes there was wp:undue.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that hits on one of the questions I had, weight is somewhat gray in these areas. Do articles about PSU normally mention the crime (I assume we are talking about those related to the assistant coach) or are people using articles about the crimes to establish weight for inclusion in the university article vs an article about the crimes.  Also, even if a one or two articles about the school talks about the crime is that sufficient to say articles about the school include discussion of the crime?  The closing of the automotive RfC mentioned in the Con OpEd closed with a statement that suggested that when in this gray area it basically does come down to the subjective opinions of seasoned, and hopefully, uninvolved editors to give it their best judgement.  Springee (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

USAmerican bias
The notion that the use of guns are permitted is very USAmerican centric. In the rest of the world this is not at all accepted or acceptable. As this is not reflected in the reporting on guns and gun violence it is proof perfect that Wikipedia is biased. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the rest of the world this is not at all accepted or acceptable -- citation needed? Actually the difference is that in countries like New Zealand or the United Kingdom, when terrible things happen due to widespread legal availability of guns, democratically elected politicians bring in measures to change that, and these changes are not shouted down or drowned out by interest groups or lobbies or whatever. (1988 and 1997 in the case of the UK.) MPS1992 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure how this is a US biased discussion. The crimes discussed aren't limited to the US though in terms of shear numbers the US has more such events.  The firearms articles aren't country specific in general.  Springee (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The language itself in the comments betray the bias. First, this is not a discussion about crimes, it is about guns. At this moment it is even framed in specific types of guns. My statement is about the use of guns, legal and otherwise. The other is in the absurdity to ask for "citations". When you are really interested in this discussion, when you are truly engaged in the subject, you know statistics, publications et al. In a talk page, asking for citations is posturing to defuse a point made. To illustrate my point in a personal way; I have never ever carried a genuine gun. I will not, I abhor the notion that I would have a gun of any type. I am not alone in this, the majority in my country is like that.
 * To make you appreciate more the difference in the outlook on guns and gun violence. In Utrecht a guy shot four people dead in a tram. Our country went into lock down.
 * When the point is made that "the firearms articles aren't country specific", it is EXACTLY the point that I am making. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Going to agree here with that to a non-American, this debate is clearly an American one, if only because Americans are downright obsessed with guns compared to the rest of the world, what happens is that these articles tend to reflect the American voice. The same is true of this debate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it's an American one (but we will still let others join the discussion ;D ). However, bias has baggage that saying this is an American debate does not.  Debates about Cricket are largely not American as few people here follow or even know the game.  However, I guess that also might impact what is seen as significant.  A parallel might be an article about the Ford F-150 or another full size pickup.  A reader in one of the markets where such trucks have been common might be interested in knowing about what engines/options were available in a specific generation while someone from a country with narrow roads and high gas prices might only be interested in why Americans want to drive such things.  I could see that leading to a debate about, "Should criticism of the environmental impact of driving full size pickups be included in the F-150 article just because it talks about the consumption of the Ford F-150?"  Anyway, I would agree this is very US centeric but I don't think bias is the correct term. Springee (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The reason for the discussion is to resolve two positions. However both positions should be in a separate article about the USA and its issues with guns. The problem I signal is that guns and its acceptance is globally a much bigger problem because of the effects of the USA crisis with guns. The comparison with cricket is false because the dominant discussion in the USA drowns out any NPOV as there is not even an acceptance that its discussion does not reflect the global realities. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite an interesting debate. Perhaps we could get more articles in this style in the future? --Joshualouie711talk 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with that opinion. It mostly depends on finding 2 people willing to submit the articles. There are some technical difficulties - and I have to ask the 2 writers to solve these in good faith, even though they disagree on the topic (Thanks for helping in this part). The basic difficulties are similar length and style, not crossing certain lines, e.g. nothing close to a personal attack, and which piece is published on top. The top-most writer has an advantage in setting the scope of the debate, but the writer of the bottom-most piece has the advantage of having "the last word".  If you know of two folks who can agree to disagree in such an agreeable manner, *please* send them to Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)