Talk:Gun show loophole: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:00, 19 October 2024 editDarknipples (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,342 edits →Review at NPOVN: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:29, 19 October 2024 edit undoDarknipples (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,342 edits →Review at NPOVN: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 299:		Line 299:
	:::Cheers. ] (]) 23:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)		:::Cheers. ] (]) 23:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
	::re POVFORK, ], ], ], ], ] and a quick look shows little or no "gun show" content in any. FOPA the best merge target if you are thinking merge? Would have thought all of those would have some "gun show" content. ](]) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)		::re POVFORK, ], ], ], ], ] and a quick look shows little or no "gun show" content in any. FOPA the best merge target if you are thinking merge? Would have thought all of those would have some "gun show" content. ](]) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::See the FAQ. When this article was moved from ] to a stand-alone, there was much discussion over the neutrality of the title. ] made sense, and the topic has continued to remain notable in academic studies, legislation and news reports. I checked Google books Ngram which shows GSL is more common in literature than Private sale exemption. I no longer think a title change or redirect to solve this dispute is without risk of violating WP policy. ] (]) 23:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

	=== Review at RSN ===		=== Review at RSN ===

Revision as of 23:29, 19 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun show loophole article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Does the article title "Gun show loophole" violate the neutral point of view policy? A1: There have been a number of discussions about this matter, but there has not been a consensus to rename the article:

Gun show loophole has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 21, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
February 26, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed
October 24, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Gun politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.
	This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun shows in the United States was copied or moved into Gun show loophole with this edit on 12:09, 25 June 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

EXPERT from POLITIFACT deleted: Misplaced Pages Bias Caught Red-Handed Once Again

If the purpose of Misplaced Pages were actually to be informative -- rather than to be a dishonest, biased tool of left-wing activism -- an informative quote published by POLITIFACT would be a jewel of an addition to an article on public discussion about the "Gun Show Loophole"

But the biased activist censoring Misplaced Pages removed the expert opinion provided:

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."

When people hear about the gun show loophole they want to look it up and find out more.

It should not matter what your position is on the topic.

Misplaced Pages should leave the reader more informed -- not radicalized -- about the topic of the gun show loophole.

References

Sherman, Amy (January 7, 2016). "PolitiFact Sheet: 3 things to know about the 'gun show loophole'". Retrieved 11 August 2019.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Excessive trivia and advocacy (clean-up banner)

Hi, Kamenev, please discuss your specific recommendations or desired changes here, or per WP:BRD, feel free to make the desired edits and wait to see if any of them are reverted in which case we can circle back to this section to try and find some consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, DN. Three of the sections amount to restatements of what could be one History section, but with divergent and excessive detail. I'll do my best to make the edits. Will also be adding relevant sources on latest effort by Biden Administration to change the definition of "in the business," which relates to the topic. User:Kamenev (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the previous version with consensus per WP:BRD. So far, I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements here. It's been a few days and there hasn't been any additional changes to address the alleged "advocacy and trivia". For example, how does adding a non-neutral descriptor, such as "controversial", to the lead somehow "Neutralize the obvious advocacy"? This is not suitable for the lead, as it provides no informative value and is purely an opinion. Writing that the term is "meant to convey" advocacy for universal background checks instead of simply saying what the higher quality sources say, also seems to utilize SYNTH. You have seemingly increased advocacy for a non-neutral tone by writing... "Because the term is one of advocacy, it is often used in ignorance of the current state of federal gun law". The italicized portion you added is clearly not reliably sourced. I will leave the banner to encourage ongoing participation. DN (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding citations for "ghost gun loophole" - possibly for See Also and or spin off article

NYT Biden admin considering regulations on gun-parts, similar to finished products.

Guardian US implements new rule to close loophole on untraceable ‘ghost guns’

The Hill New Biden administration guidance closes ‘ghost guns’ loophole in federal rule...DN (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

bipartisan safer communities act updates

Some recent citations that may be DUE...I'm still not clear on what specific changes are made under this new law, if anyone is interested in helping to clarify that.

WaPo April 2024 " the Justice Department has finalized rules to close a loophole that allowed people to sell firearms online, at gun shows and at other informal venues without conducting background checks on those who purchase them." "The rules clarify who is required to conduct background checks and aims to close what is known as the “gun show loophole” — which refers to the reality that gun-show sellers and online vendors are subject to much looser federal regulations than vendors who sell at bricks-and-mortar stores."

ABC News April 2024 " It requires that anyone who sells guns for profit to have a license and that buyers be subject to a background check, including at firearms shows and flea markets. The administration had been working on the rule since last spring. Once publicized, it will take effect in 30 days

I've only gleaned a few notable bits here, but if anyone has sources with more detailed info as to how this relates to GSL, this would be a good place to discuss them.

Cheers. DN (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@DN: Hello! As you know, and as discussed in the article, under federal law, gun dealers are required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). When an FFL holder sells a firearm, they're required to do a background check of the buyer, using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). By contrast, private sales, i.e. sales between individuals, do not require a background check under federal law (though some states do require it). This is the so-called "gun show loophole".

Under the new rule, more people than before will be required to have an FFL if they want to sell any guns. Therefore the effect will be that there will be fewer gun sales conducted without background checks, thus significantly reducing -- some would say closing -- the "gun show loophole". As the New York Times explained, "Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to "predominantly derive a profit" from their actions." And as The Guardian noted, "Intra-family transfers of firearms, or occasional sales to enhance a collection, will not be presumed business transactions, a White House spokesperson said."

This is a very significant development and it definitely should be added to the article. If you look at the "Legislation" section you'll see that there's a paragraph about this from last year, when it was still in the planning stages, but now it's been implemented, and will take effect in less that 30 more days, apparently. So that section could be updated, but, that's a subsection of the "Government studies and positions" section. This has now moved well beyond studies and positions, so it should have a more prominent place in the article, in my view -- maybe in the "Provenance" section, maybe somewhere else. I would also think it should be mentioned in the lead section.

References

Cole, Devan; Rabinowitz, Hannah (April 11, 2024). "Biden Administration Finalizes Rule to Close 'Gun Show Loophole' in Effort to Combat Gun Violence". CNN. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
Thrush, Glenn; Green, Erica L. (April 11, 2024). "Biden Administration Approves Expansion of Background Checks on Gun Sales". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 16, 2024. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
Luscombe, Richard (April 11, 2024). "US Will Require Background Checks for Gun Shows and Online Firearm Sales". The Guardian. Retrieved April 16, 2024.

— Mudwater 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How should this term be labeled?

There appears to have been a bit of back and forth on how this term is described. While it has been labeled as "non-neutral", if there is a point to be made there please provide your sources for or against here. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Calling it "controversial" does nothing but lead the reader to take a biased position, and leaves out the political context. The ONUS is on you to seek consensus to change from the STATUSQUO, so I am reverting until a new consensus is reached, since this was already discussed at the article's inception. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to where this was already discussed in depth specifically referring to that term? If not, you risk an edit war and we can involve ANI sanction. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the archive, and I'm well aware of 3RR, so please keep things civil and don't threaten me. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW I also suggest avoiding WP:CANVAS, if you are unfamiliar with it. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed your second revert, so I have added an NPOV tag.

What was that you said about about edit warring?... DN (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that tag is needed for now while we discuss. I appreciate your doing that. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn This article was able to achieve GA status because we avoided loaded language like what you keep attempting to insert into the LEAD.

You should at least explain how this is an improvement to the LEAD and provide Neutral reliable sources that show term is "controversial" as opposed to political.

Otherwise it shall be reverted back to STATUS QUO, but leaving the tag.

You need a better reason besides "other editors did it too". DN (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, Which sources do you see in the article that justify putting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL in WP:VOICE in the LEAD SENTENCE without thorough discussion and consensus? At this point it just looks like sloppy ORIGINAL RESEARCH put there by a vandal. DN (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many such articles, but first I am doing a deep dive on the archive per your suggestion and seeing what, if any, relevant discussions may have previously occurred related to this point. Meanwhile, in response to your comment on my talk page, I would urge you to keep in mind that there is no rush as we work on Misplaced Pages. We are in the process of building consensus around this term which I believe is demonstrably disputed and therefore some form of new language is necessary in the lead. This isn't going to happen overnight. Thank you for your patience. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:TIND, which is an essay, not a POLICY.

So, in order for us to receive GA status the article had to be stable, which meant all active editors had to agree on the lead. There were many discussion on using the term "controversy". As I recall at one point I was fine with naming the article "Gun Show Loophole controversy". This was untenable however as it was non-neutral and went against MOS:CONTROVERSIAL.

I noticed in your edit summaries you keep referring to the "consensus of the other editors". This seems odd to me. We are not supposed to "represent" other editors without their explicit permission, especially if they are not actively participating. This is akin to WP:SOCK.

Aside from that, no amount of consensus can justify UNDUE and UNSOURCED material. DN (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Upon reading the comments above I think there is a case to be made for the term being "controversial". The phrase "political term" or just "term" based on my research does not entirely capture the loaded nature of the term. (Pun unintended).

Some sources like Politico, and The Hill, refer to the term as "so-called" indirectly calling into question the existence of a "loophole".

Other sources such as CBS News refer to the term as something that "gun control advocates" most often use.

Whereas a Washington Post article features an instance where the take is that there is no "loophole" at all.

I think it is essential to introduce a clarifier in the lead to emphasise that "Gun show loophole" is not SOLELY a "political term".

I'm open to including "controversial" in the introduction, but there are other options to consider as well.

" ... is a political term predominantly used by gun control advocates"

"...is a polemical political term..."

Fenharrow (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow Maybe 10 years ago an argument could be made that it was considered polemic, but in 2024 public surveys have found that it has mostly become a bipartisan issue. I will also reiterate, we were only able to achieve Good Article Status by abiding by guidelines like MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. The majority of quality neutral sources do not use the term controversy to describe GSL these days. I suggest we ask NPOVN and see if it's even feasible. DN (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow Misplaced Pages uses news reports, but it is not a newspaper. DN (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, but I have to disagree with you on the statement that it is a bipartisan issue now (please provide sources). One of my sources points out that the term "gun show loophole" is often used by "gun control advocates," and others cast doubt on that term by using prefixes such as "so-called." Just calling it a "political term" or a "term" suggests that it is neutral when it is not, and is simply misleading. Fenharrow (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

One must also consider that calling it "controversial" or "so-called" may be considered a form of POV terminology largely preferred by pro-gun advocates such as the NRA.

The question over the existence of a "loophole" is covered in the body, but that doesn't encompass the entirety of it's definition. However, to reduce it down to a strictly "questionable or controversial existence" in the lead sentence requires one to innately presume as much from the very start.

Let's also clarify that "so-called", "controversial" and "polemic" have specific meanings and the question of their interchangeability deserves more scrutiny.

As far as I can tell, these terms still fall into the category of uninformative and unnecessary PUFFERY, which reads...

"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Misplaced Pages contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it."

To clarify, of course the topic of gun control may still be considered divisive, but here are some sources that state background checks for private sales have become an increasingly bipartisan issue. Also see the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

"Public opinion strongly favors background checks, with overwhelming support from both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. National polls consistently reflect widespread endorsement for measures aimed at closing loopholes in firearm sales regulations. Moreover, numerous states have taken proactive steps to address the private sale loophole, either by implementing universal background check laws or enacting legislation to tighten regulations on firearm transactions. The Center’s 2023 national survey found that 85% of Americans support universal background checks." Johns Hopkins University 2024
"90% of Americans, regardless of political party, want universal background checks" - Mostly True. Politifact 2022
"Eighty-three percent of respondents said background checks should be required if someone wants to buy a gun at a gun show or through a private sale." PBS 2019
"Two measures, specifically, remain overwhelmingly popular: Eighty-nine percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support background checks for all gun purchases, including private and gun show sales; and 86 percent back “red flag” laws allowing the police to take guns from individuals found by a judge to be a danger." ABC 2019
"Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Pew Research 2015

There is only 1 RS I have found from NBC, out of the majority (including much higher quality sources already in the article) that do not use that term.

I'm perfectly willing to take this to WP:NPOVN and see if they think it won't affect our GA status, or if it's worth ignoring Misplaced Pages guidelines over.

We can use their findings to obtain current consensus on this issue.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "gun show loophole" is also used by pro-gun advocates in a pejorative manner, and it's also why we had to decide to just stick to MOS:COMMONNAME. DN (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I have been looking through the archives of this page and I have noticed that some other editors have had similar concerns to mine (Two examples: Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2#Got controversy? and Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Category:Dysphemisms). Some of them did not think that the term was neutral enough, especially considering the significance "loophole" conveys.

I have observed that you have been very active on the article for some time into the past, and valid criticisms have been raised regarding the "loophole" terminology of the article. However, it seems your approach has been one of long-term persistence, but that clear consensus around this term being neutral has long been lacking. The fact that the neutrality of this article has been questioned so many times is evidence that the GA status it achieved may have not ever really been valid, and perhaps needs to be revisited soon.

I think it would be helpful to include other language. Alternatives to "controversial" might include: "disputed", "contested", or "used by proponents of gun control" (as proposed in another comment). Iljhgtn (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to take into account that I'm also the one that put the NPOV tag up to encourage discussion, instead of claiming other editors that tried to change it without consensus now form some sort of "phantom consensus".

Furthermore, you can see how I wasn't the only editor working very hard to bring this article to GA status.

You need reliable sources that use the term "controversial" in the correct context to place it the LEAD sentence, so far I'm the only one that has provided one.

It sounds like you are using this space as a forum for commenting on me, rather than the topic at hand. If you plan to take me to ANI over any of my behavior, it is not helping your case to talk about it here. Just do it or let it go. We have better things to do.

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that the neutrality of this article has been questioned so many times is evidence that the GA status it achieved may have not ever really been valid"

If you want to call into question the integrity of the GA reviewer and the validity of their work, I suggest you do that on their talk page or appropriate noticeboard. DN (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It has occurred to me these concerns are all already addressed in the last paragraph, which reads...

Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights have stated that there is no loophole because current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and the United States Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.

I am less opposed to making changes here to reflect the concerns of "not enough POV by gun-rights advocates", as opposed to inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL into the lead sentence. This will still require justification by the body and RS, and my view is still that the article is already BALANCED, as evidenced by it's GA status. However updating to newer sources and context is always a good thing. DN (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and clarify what this discussion is about. I think it's about whether or not the term "gun show loophole" is controversial, and if it is, how that should be explained in the article. I think it's *not* about whether instituting universal background checks is controversial. That would be a separate discussion. Does everyone agree?— Mudwater 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can agree this is article is not about UBC, but it is about background checks for private sales, as evidence by sources. The term "controversial" is subjective. That is according to Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Would you agree that unless an overwhelming majority of sources use that term, it doesn't belong in the lead sentence, and may be better served in the paragraph I suggested? DN (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is about how federal law requires background checks for sales by firearm dealers, but not for private sales (although some states do require background checks for private sales). This is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole. But I didn't ask what the article is about, I asked what the current discussion is about. I think that it's about whether or not the term "gun show loophole" itself is controversial, and if so, how that should be discussed in the article. If that's right, then the article text that you quoted above -- "Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks," etc. -- does not really address the topic of discussion. My point is not to complain about your post, but rather to clarify what we're currently discussing. — Mudwater 00:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it is controversial is subjective. Or do you disagree with that, and by relation, my proposal of putting it into the last paragraph (upon justification by sources)? DN (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if editors argued to make the lead sentence say "The Gun show loophole is an uncontroversial term" or "The Gun show loophole is a logical term"....It's not supposed to work that way for a reason. DN (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "gun show loophole" is definitely controversial, and the article should talk about that. But that does not necessarily mean that the word "controversial" should be included in the lead sentence. My current thinking -- subject to change as the discussion progresses -- is that the lead sentence is probably better without describing the term as controversial, and also without describing the term as political. Probably the last paragraph of the lead section should briefly summarize the controversy. And even there, we might or might not want to say that the term is controversial. For example, we might say something like, "Some people object to the use of the term "gun show loophole" because..." Anyway, we should consider this further, and, yes, agree on appropriate references. (My other activities on and off Misplaced Pages may keep me from spending a lot of time on the current discussion, but I'll see what I can do to contribute further). — Mudwater 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Explain why it's controversial using sources. DN (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are just a few:

1. From Forbes, "The Justice Department announced new rules that would force unlicensed gun sellers who primarily sell firearms at gun shows and online marketplaces to register with the federal government—a significant change that could close the notorious “gun show loophole” https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/04/11/biden-closes-gun-show-loophole-heres-what-to-know-and-when-rule-comes-into-effect/

2. From CNN, "In a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot enforce the rule intended to close the so-called gun show loophole in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah." https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/politics/gun-show-loophole-injunction-texas-kacsmaryk/index.html#:~:text=The%20new%20ATF%20rule,%20which%20took%20effect%20May%2020,%20seeks

3. From NBC, "The Biden administration announced Thursday that it is proposing a rule to eliminate the so-called gun show loophole — one of the biggest attempts to regulate the sale of firearms in years." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-proposes-eliminating-gun-show-loophole-regulation-rcna102800

4. From National Interest (only potentially non-RS, but I do not see it on the RSP list, so it is not unreliable either), "In reality, there is no “gun show loophole.” If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check."https://nationalinterest.org/feature/10-myths-about-guns-america-14850

If anything, calling the term "controversial" is putting it mildly, and perhaps language such as "so-called" is more in keeping with the direct sources if we were to quote from the most common descriptors directly taking from the reliable sources. Though there is no rule that we need to directly quote from them, in fact that would be plagiarism and there would be no need for editors if we never were to paraphrase. We cannot commit either WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR, but that is not at all what we are doing here. Rather as editors we are supposed to do our best to take the information from reliable sources and put it in commonly used and understood English language per MOS standard guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Unless these sources explain why it's controversial I don't see how you can claim it isn't OR and or SYNTH to try and put controversial in wiki voice as you have repeatedly attempted. Maybe adjust your proposal. DN (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn May I now assume you agree that my previous reverts were justified per WP:VOICE and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL? DN (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You were free to revert per WP:BRD, but I still think that after thinking on the matter for a period of days, it still does not support the actual way this term is disagreed upon by reliable sources, and therefore we need to better describe that disagreement (read "controversy"), in the lead, and even in the opening lines of this article. The mere insertion of the word "controversial" I still believe best summarizes the overall tone of all of the reliable sources that resound together in a cacophony of disputed validity, but I am perfectly open to other wording if someone else has a better proposed descriptor or language to insert. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What informative value does calling it "so-called" offer per these sources, that isn't already explained as "this group doesn't believe GSL exists"?

Perhaps there's some relation to other types of denialism, but since I don't have any RS for that I'm just going to let that go for now. DN (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"If anything, calling the term "controversial" is putting it mildly"

How exactly did you glean that?

Forbes - "notorious". What encyclopedic value does this add? Where does the article go into that? "Gun rights advocates have long opposed the expansion of background checks....The National Rifle Association even claims that “there is no such thing as the gun show loophole.” I think that's basically already in the last paragraph.
CNN - "so-called" - "what gun control advocates have long called". Do gun rights advocates call it something else? Is there a different name for it that isn't mentioned in the lead?
NBC - "so-called". Again, is there even an explanation as to why it is "so-called", at least one that's any different from the one that gun rights groups that say ie "it doesn't exist"?
The National Interest is an "opinion site" that makes strikingly similar arguments to organizations such as the GOA and NRA. The author's name is Chuck Grassley and I'm curious if that is Republican senator Chuck Grassley that received an A+ rating from the NRA.

"My legislation, Senate Amendment 725, was specifically designed to combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals and out-of-state residents."

...yup.

I'm willing to take any of these articles to NPOVN, if that's all you believe we need to avoid violating WP:PG. I think they will get a kick out of the National Interest.

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The "encyclopedic value" that is added by any language is that we are adequately and to the best of our ability summarizing (in an encyclopedic manner) the various reliable sources in such a manner as to not insert our own voices or bias, but to adequately capture the bias and language used by said RS. Human beings are biased, we all are, and Misplaced Pages is not free from bias, but it is not the job of us editors to fix all of that, but merely to represent it with NPOV and reliability in mind. Again, I feel you make a fair point to say that calling this in the lead "notorious" would perhaps express WP:UNDUE weight in the direction of a single source or viewpoint. "Controversial" on the other hand does not overly portray any one side (gun rights or gun control or however we want to frame the related gun violence or gun politics meta-sphere), but rather just accurately reflects that there is an open dispute about the use of the term. It is by nature a charged political term, yes, but it is also controversial in its application depending on the varying bodies using it and under what context. As cited, the reliable sources reflect this each in their own ways. The majority appear to use "so called" language, but there are others still that use language like "notorious" as you have rightfully highlighted. Do you have a proposed alternative descriptor for the "Gun show loophole" term that adequately summarizes these reliable sources reporting of and use of the term? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Controversial" on the other hand does not overly portray any one side (gun rights or gun control or however we want to frame the related gun violence or gun politics meta-sphere), but rather just accurately reflects that there is an open dispute about the use of the term."

Using Loaded language & MOS:LABEL are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. This isn't personal, I just don't get the sense you are acknowledging these issues. DN (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this isn't personal, but not using the language that is repeatedly employed by reliable sources is itself an editorializing omission that itself constitutes an insertion of opinion into the way the term would be read about and understood. I think if I were to offer an opinion, and I do not mean to cast aspersions or anything of that kind, but I think since you created this article and did a LOT of good work on it over many years, you are understandably a bit defensive of any impactful changes that might be made to it. However, we still need to follow the sources and write about the subject matter as accurately as possible just as those same sources describe any notable encyclopedic entry. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Review at NPOVN

Are there any objections to sending this RS (NBC) to NPOVN as the case for inserting the term "controversial" into the lead, or do we have any better suggestions? This discussion has been going for about a week now and it needs to move forward if there is still no consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn Your previous suggestions of "contested", "disputed" etc... should all go to NPOVN for review, but you need to find citations for them, otherwise it's just original research. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's not submit this to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Not now, anyway. Let's continue the discussion here. That might take a while, but that's okay. I feel like we are making some progress. And also, we might get more editors joining the discussion here. — Mudwater 19:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mudwater Before we discuss it further we need sources, otherwise this is just OR. As it stands, it is POV to try and put it in VOICE and OR because the one source I found doesn't explain why it uses that term. The idea that it doesn't exist may be why, but thats only a guess that comes specifically from gun rights organizations, and groups. DN (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, since we still don't have any RS explaining why GSL requires a "label" or qualifier, the question to NPOVN looks almost exactly like it did last time. Calling a CTOP article controversial looks utterly redundant. DN (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as use of the term "SO-CALLED". See MOS:DOUBT (Words to watch: supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called) ... So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others." The title of Gun show loophole was disputed years ago in different RfCs and we have stuck with the WP:COMMONNAME since. DN (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples In one instance you said we need sources calling it "controversial", in other instances you say what the sources call the term is no good. You cannot have it both ways. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, I've made an attempt to resolve this dispute here. Is there any consensus for it? DN (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph is mixing together two related but different topics. One is the idea of requiring, at a federal level, background checks for private sales. The other is the term "gun show loophole" itself. Both should be dealt with in the article, but separately. Indeed, a person could be in favor of universal background checks while still objecting to the term "gun show loophole". — Mudwater 00:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a citation for that? DN (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible you may be misinterpreting this as a Black or White fallacy? The article isn't saying people can't hold both those opinions, we just don't have any citations to make that kind of clarification. It will go more smoothly if we tackle one thing at a time. So may we focus on whether or not this edit helps resolve the dispute at hand without tacking on a new somewhat unrelated issue? DN (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit does not help resolve the dispute at hand, because that paragraph -- before and after the edit -- mixes together two things: (1) the phrase "gun show loophole", and whether or not it is controversial, which is the dispute at hand, and (2) the idea, and opposition to the idea, of universal background checks. — Mudwater 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, since you prefer your WP:STICK to actually working towards consensus, this is going to NPOVN today. BTW, your use of the word "Some" here looks like it ignores MOS guidelines...again. DN (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples So it is ok to cite essays in support of our arguments now? When I earlier cited WP:NORUSH (which you seem to be very interested in ignoring) you said, "You are referring to WP:TIND, which is an essay, not a POLICY." @Mudwater you raise a perfectly valid and fair point. I believe we are not discussing much other than if the term is properly called controversial, disputed, contested or some preferred variant based on the fact that all reliable sources speak of the term in "so called" or other charged language. I have cited numerous of those sources above. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is all old ground that has already been covered. I won't ignore that. DN (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

At this dramatic juncture, I would like to suggest the following: (1) In the lead sentence, we do not say that the term "gun show loophole" is controversial, or political, or any other adjective. (2) We add this paragraph, or something along these lines, to the end of the lead section:

Some people, especially gun rights advocates, object to the term "gun show loophole", and say that it is misleading or confusing. These people point out that the lack of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is not specific to gun shows. They say that most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers who are required to run background checks. They also say that there is not a loophole, in the sense of an exploitable ambiguity or exception in a law, as the federal rule was intended to regulate sales by licensed gun dealers and not by private individuals.

References

"Myth vs. Fact". NRA-ILA. Retrieved October 9, 2024. The same laws apply to the same categories of persons, regardless of where or how a firearm sale or transfer takes place. Federal law generally requires all FFLs to conduct a NICS check prior to the transfer of any firearm to an unlicensed person, whether it occurs at the dealer's retail premises or at a gun show....
Pichardo, JP (July 8, 2024). ""Engaged in the Business" Rule Does Not Close a "Gun Show Loophole"". Gun Owners of America. Retrieved October 9, 2024. At a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Thomas Massie stated that 'there is no gun show loophole.' ATF Director Dettelbach replied by saying 'and there never was.' ATF's rule also states: 'The Department also notes that the term 'gun show loophole' is a misnomer in that there is no statutory exemption under the GCA for unlicensed persons to engage in the business of dealing in firearms at a gun show, or at any other venue.
Cooke, Charles C. W. (April 8, 2021). "Joe Biden Lied About Gun Shows". National Review. Retrieved October 9, 2024. There are no special rules for gun shows. The same set of laws applies to them as applies to, say, your kitchen table: If you are in the business of selling guns, you are federally obliged to run a check. If you are not, you are not — unless your state requires you to. That's it. There's no "loophole" here, and nothing about gun shows that separates them from the broader debate about private sales.

— Mudwater 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do these sources seem neutral to you? DN (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mudwater I support wording of this nature being added in the lead, but in addition to, not instead of, describing the term as the many reliable sources do. The many sources do not use clear definitional and uncontested language, but rather write and speak of "gun show loophope" (especially the "loophole" part) in the language of a term which has many differing interpretations as to its very validity. (Cited above just some). Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe these are NEUTRAL sources on the topic of GSL? DN (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"To some, “gun show” is a controversial word." To some, this kind of source is just as credible as an academic source.

References

"Buying and Selling a Firearm: Gun Shows". www.nrablog.com. Retrieved 2024-10-11.

DN (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see anyone here claiming the NRA, especially an NRAblog no less, is credible as a source in any way for the purposes of this discussion or on Misplaced Pages more generally. And in fact, I would heavily side with you DN if we were discussing whether or not just the term "gun show" was or was not controversial, it most certainly is not. However, "Gun show loophole" on the other hand most certainly is a controversial term. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT DN (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Already have. I am aware of where the "burden of proof" lies, but multiple sources have already been provided. I am curious if there is any subject matter at all that you believe could be called "controversial" on Misplaced Pages? Or are you simply saying it never is appropriate in your view? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't use WP:SYNTH DN (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, when sources are very clear, or it's attributable as it is in this case. I believe Misplaced Pages is held to higher standards and is WP:NOT a newspaper. DN (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn - See link to NPOVN Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gun show loophole endless discussion over_NPOV DN (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I added an fv tag (didn't know which to use) for fn #1. It has the policy should not be limited to transfers at gun shows (an approach known as closing the “gun show loophole”) which would imply the term does not apply to private sales other than at gun shows. But while writing this i recalled {{better source needed}} so will replace with that. fiveby(zero) 18:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific issue is, but would any of these better clarify that in your opinion? There are two links to the Law journal, one includes a PDF style editorial that is more detailed than the splash page.

Feel free to bring it up at NPOVN (link above) where discussion is underway.

References

"Closing the "Gun Show Loophole": A Step In the Right Direction With More Work To Be Done | Center for Gun Violence Solutions". publichealth.jhu.edu. 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-10-13.
Goddard, Andrew (2009). "A View Through the Gun Show Loophole". Richmond Journal of Law and the public interest. 12 (4): 1.
Goddard, Andrew (2009-01-01). "A View through the Gun Show Loophole". Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest. 12 (4): 357–361.

Cheers. DN (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first: "Closing the “Gun Show Loophole”" is from an advocacy org with no author. If you were to cite the journal article, there would be the same problem, the text of the source would conflict with the article content. ...,including those done at gun shows. would need to change to ...at gun shows. It's not a NPOV problem, i just added the comment here instead of starting a new section. The problem is the citation given conflicts with the article text. fiveby(zero) 19:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are "quoting" the source verbatim here, nor are we required to, AFAIK. It is written in the typical lead summary style. That particular source might only refer to gun shows, but the body and other sources make clear that the private sale exemption ie GSL is not limited to gun shows. AFAIK, sources aren't even required to be in the lead, but we can provide more sources if that would help you.

Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren’t purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer, Nichols said. Rather, those weapons are bought at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors, Nichols said. These are the so-called loopholes in the current federal background check system. The NRA disputes that characterization about the “gun show loophole” because federally licensed firearms dealers participate at gatherings and, of course, conduct background checks.

In a move that officials touted as the most significant increase in American gun regulation in decades, the Justice Department has finalized rules to close a loophole that allowed people to sell firearms online, at gun shows and at other informal venues without conducting background checks on those who purchase them....The rules clarify who is required to conduct background checks and aims to close what is known as the “gun show loophole” — which refers to the reality that gun-show sellers and online vendors are subject to much looser federal regulations than vendors who sell at bricks-and-mortar stores.

But federal gun laws contain a major loophole: Transactions between private sellers and buyers do not require a background check. That used to typically just mean sales at gun shows, or through listings found in classified ads. But that was before the internet made it as easy as a few mouse clicks to find a gun for sale from a private seller on an online marketplace or through social media...The loophole has remained in place despite polls showing high levels of public support for making all firearms sales subject to background checks. Gun-control activists see closing the loophole as the foundation for a comprehensive gun violence reduction plan, while the gun lobby, and many Republicans, have been vehemently opposed.

Private firearm transfers that do not require background checks are colloquially called private sale exemptions or gun show loophole transfers.

References

Martinez, Michael (2013-01-14). "'Universal background check:' What does it mean?". CNN. Retrieved 2024-10-13.
Stein, Perry (2024-04-12). "Justice Department finalizes rules to close 'gun show loophole'". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2024-10-13.
Oppel Jr., Richard A.; Hassan, Adeel (2019-08-13). "How Online Gun Sales Can Exploit a Major Loophole in Background Checks". New York Times.
"The Biden Administration's New Restrictions on Firearms Sales". Congressional Research Service Reports. 2024-05-29.

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i'll try and explain

"Gun show loophole" applies only to gun shows
"Gun show loophole" applies primarily to gun shows, but also such as mail-order and internet sales

These are two incompatible statements. The current article content takes position #2, but the citation provided takes position #1. In fact a major part of the source is complaining that it only applies to gun shows:

As discussed in the section on criminal acquisition of firearms at gun shows, the fundamental flaw in gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party transfers, which occur at flea markets and swap meets, through classified ads in newspapers and publications for firearm enthusiasts, in homes, on the street, and increasingly over the Internet

Now i don't care which position the article takes, just that the citation provides supports the article content (since i changed the text i had to look at the references for the sentence.) Probably best just to remove the citation as you say they aren't even required to be in the lead and probably best not to have them. I left the source in place because it might be valuable for the article, and don't know which of #1 or #2 should be stated in the article. fiveby(zero) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. See . Cheers. DN (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole thread but but do have an interest in terminology issues like this. IMO "gun show loophole" is just a vague epitaph (used to refer to many different things) rather than a distinct topic and so would be best covered as a termwith suitable skepticism. A good example of this and doing so is Homosexual agenda . Also often used in a misleading way or even being designed to mislead, because it is almost always referring to (and an attempt to rename) the general ability to do private transfers, the vast majority of which are unrelated to gun show. Which is another reason to cover it skeptically as a term, with Homosexual agenda being a good example on how to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We try to use as many neutral higher quality academic sources as we can to avoid WP:NEWSSTYLE and MOS:LABEL. If you have any suggestions or find any that aren't included, we would certainly appreciate them. DN (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Homosexual agenda article seems to be mentioned in the WP:WORDISSUBJECT category of WP:DICT which explains that as an encyclopedia our primary focus is to explain the subject as opposed to simply defining terms. The sources for the LEAD sentence are a state agency and private membership organization called the Wisconsin Historical Society, and a textbook on the linguistic analysis of hate speech. The lead focus is on defining terms as opposed to summarizing the explanation, which the article does in the body instead of the lead. DN (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As documented there, Misplaced Pages has many articles on terms. And terms are often used to distort or cast a negative light on things which have more neutrally worded terms and which are more distinct topics. In these cases, it's really more neutral and better to cover it as a term rather than being the place to cover the topic(s) which the term is seeking to vilify. For example, Homosexual agenda is not the place that Misplaced Pages covers the LBGT initiatives which are the target of the term. And in this case, there are the extra layers that it does not refer to a distinct topic, having wide ranging and varying usages, many unrelated to gun shows. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @North8000. Furthermore, I think it is time we initiate the page move and then can continue work on this page from there. Who wants to initiate that, or should I? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn A page move was contingent on there being evidence that PSE was a better fit. Have you done any work or found any evidence to make that determination? Google books Ngram suggests there is more literature on GSL. The article has also been stable since the change by uninvolved editors at NPOVN, and it now includes "controversial" in the last paragraph of the lead, although RSN hasn't weighed in on that. We will likely need an RfC if you want to move forward with a move since it is a possible POVFORK, and a majority of the uninvolved editors at NPOVN agreed that your sources were not clear if your sources were referencing the term or the subject. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

North8000, if you feel the Homosexual agenda article sets an example for GSL, when do you plan to nominate it for a GA review?

For that matter, once this dispute is resolved, I think a GA review for GSL is also prudent, to make sure it stays in good standing.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO there are two viable possibilities:

Cover it as a term as Homosexual agenda does....a term designed to to vilify something.
Cover the "target" of the term with a different neutrally worded topic.

Since the term has so many variable uses (including most commonly those which conflict with it's wording) IMO #2 is a less viable option because there is no distinct topic. But it might be more do-able in the current situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That is fair and makes a lot of sense. Wise words as far as a path to proceed from here. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's use the FAQ as an example. In the context of the current dipute/proposal, the use of descriptors such as "so-called" and "controversial" are presumed necessary by it's proponents to maintain NPOV. Guidelines such as MOS:DOUBT, MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, MOS:OPEN aside, considering the lack of clarity by the sources defining the "term" as opposed to the "subject", this should probably go to RSN to be sure it's not WP:OR or WP:SYN as opposed to NPOVN.

I am of the opinion that framing terms is more of a NEWS-STYLE approach rather than an encyclopedic one, though I see your reasoning. Nothing against your preferred approach, my concerns are mainly avoiding WP:POVFORK and ensuring focus on facts before attributed opinions in the lead.

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines you mention by the way are absolutely being weighed and considered, after all, the wording such as "so-called" might generally be avoided, "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject..." which in this case that exact wording is very commonly used. Thus, the "so-called Gun show loophole" would indeed be wording sanctioned by MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, in addition to the other guidelines you continue to cite as if they were somehow in disagreement with this. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am under the impression that since you agree with NORTH8000, we should essentially ignore WP:REFERS and revert DeCausa's change , in order to "define the term" in the lead sentence. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here.

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

re POVFORK, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act, Brady Bill, Gun law in the United States, Gun politics in the United States and a quick look shows little or no "gun show" content in any. FOPA the best merge target if you are thinking merge? Would have thought all of those would have some "gun show" content. fiveby(zero) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ. When this article was moved from Gun shows in the United States to a stand-alone, there was much discussion over the neutrality of the title. WP:COMMONNAME made sense, and the topic has continued to remain notable in academic studies, legislation and news reports. I checked Google books Ngram which shows GSL is more common in literature than Private sale exemption. I no longer think a title change or redirect to solve this dispute is without risk of violating WP policy. DN (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Review at RSN

Please list sources for "so-called" and for "controversial" to be used during the discussion at RSN. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: