Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 26 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun control 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gun control. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gun control at the Reference desk.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun politics was copied or moved into Gun control with this edit. 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun control 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Nazi Material

I made this edit a few days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gun_control&diff=594568536&oldid=594567315

The edit was quickly reverted (As I thought it would be, all things considered). I guess you could say that I made it as a test. I have no strong feelings on this issue, so I really don't care if it stays or goes, but if the decision were mine, the material would stay for the reason I gave in the RfC. If the material stays, I think it needs to be reworked, anyway. If it is decided that the material stays, I think there should be a mention about groups like the one in the edit I made. I couldn't find anywhere in the article any mention of Jews that oppose gun control. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both Sue and Andy. I have re-added the JPFO point, but also resurrected the ADL link from the archives. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP MISREPRESENTING MY VIEWS. I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not consider this pseudohistorical material appropriate for inclusion in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the adding and "tweaking" (which Anything has done a great deal of) of Nazi material should stop until ArbCom is over. Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies... Anything's tweaking has been on related page, Gun politics in the U.S., but I think the same thing about Nazi material there. Until ArbCom is concluded, let's leave it alone. Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't "Jews that oppose gun control". It is the many representatives of Jewish communities who have made clear their opposition to the use of pseudohistorical arguments concerning the Holocaust by sections of the U.S. pro-gun lobby. And as for making edits as 'a test', I am sure you are aware that this subject matter - and the issue of the 'Nazi' material in particular - is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. 'Tests' made in the expectation of reverts are clearly inappropriate in such circumstances - even more so when it is clear that you haven't bothered to do the slightest bit of research before citing material. Cherry-picking a source for a statement about a fringe pro-gun group while ignoring the clear evidence that they have little support amongst wider Jewish communities is entirely contrary to WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted Gaijin42's latest edit - not only does he falsely imply that I approved of the edit, but he entirely fails to make clear why the ADL opposed this misuse of the memory of the Holocaust for the purposes of pro-gun propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted to Gaijin42's latest edit, as it is cited and seems much more balanced than the text does with the removal of the cited data. WP is not censored. With proper cites, we should include all major viewpoints. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And the evidence that the misleadingly-named Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership represents a 'major viewpoint' can be found where exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This group deserves no attention in an article about gun control. They have attracted no serious attention, especially in the world outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I can find precious little evidence that they have attracted much attention inside the U.S. for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

mobile. excuse brevity plz. I'm ok with dropping jpfo, added to try and show compromise between sue and Andy. their poc is adequately covered by others. ok with keeping adl to voice offensive povGaijin42 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

When I made this comment I had no idea just how large this organization is. The material should definitely stay in the article. The JPFO material can stay or go. Either way is fine with me. I just think that as the article stands, it give the impression that all Jews are 100% in favor of gun control, and it makes the article look unprofessional, and I thought of it as a bit of an olive branch to our gun-toting friends as well. I think if the hardliners here can loosen up, even just a little bit, we can get this to GA status someday. Anyway, if the consensus is to remove it that's perfectly fine with me, obviously. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to provide the source you used to determine "just how large this organization is"? So far, I've seen none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

JFPO membership isn't restricted to Jews, despite the misleading name. The existence of this organisation tells us nothing about the percentage of Jews for or against anything. Not that it would tell us much if it was restricted to Jews, given that we have no idea of the number of members it has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of WP:RS evidence that JPFO is anything but a misleadingly-named fringe lobby group, I have again removed this material. It should be noted that the source cited is explicitly discussing JFPO in relation to "a fully elaborated revisionist theory of the history of the Holocaust", describing such revisionism as "absolutist" and "extremism". I should remind contributors that citations of sources are supposed to reflect with due weight the views of the author, and aren't just convenient places to cherry-pick at random. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have restored the mention of the JPFO. It is the 3rd largest gun rights group in the US, behind the NRA and the Gun Owners of America. Disparagingly calling them a "misleadingly-named fringe lobby group" is certainly not a fair description of them. Their publications were used by SCOTUS in the Heller case. If they truly were a "misleadingly-named fringe lobby group", I don't think the justices would have referenced their publications. I get it that AndyTheGrump is calling this Jewish group names, but that is no reason to exclude them from a passing mention, especially since their publications were used by SCOTUS. Have restored the passing mention of this organization. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Names? How about 'not actually Jewish'? Nobody has produced the slightest evidence that this group actually has a significant Jewish membership - though there is no lack of evidence whatsoever that multiple representative groups from mainstream Jewish organisations have objected to the way factions within the U.S. gun lobby have abused the memory of the Holocaust for partisan political reasons. Yet again we have a perfect demonstration that rather than conforming to Misplaced Pages policy by accurately representing the subject matter - a multinational overview of firearms regulation issues - this article is being manipulated to promote the partisan agenda of one particular faction in one particular country, in gross contravention of multiple Misplaced Pages policies. This article isn't about JFPO, and it certainly isn't here to provide a platform for right-wing extremist groups from any country to promote historical revisionist propaganda about the Holocaust entirely unsupported by any historian remotely qualified to speak on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Humbly, may I ask how the name is misleading? The two larger gun groups are open to anyone as well. Should we remove all references to the NRA because there might be a few pro-gun control members? I am not following your logic on this. The name is very specific, presumably only a certain group would even want to join it. Do you have some information that the rest of us do not? How is the name misleading exactly? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

An organisation that describes itself as 'Jewish', but solicits for members regardless of whether they consider themselves Jewish or not seems self-evidently misleading to me. And as yet, we still have no data whatsoever on what their membership is. What we do have is a source describing them as 'extremist', and promoting Holocaust revisionism. And for the umpteenth time, this article isn't supposed to be about the U.S. gun control debate - it is supposed to be in international overview, and regardless of just how significant JPFO are amongst U.S. pro-gun groups, they sure as hell don't have any meaningful support for their insurrectionist fantasies elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not getting how having an open membership somehow trivializes the JPFO. The NRA has an open membership, as do most gun control organizations. I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, or perhaps I am not being clear (Sometimes the printed word simply does not translate well). How is the JPFO is any different, extremist, or misleading, from either of the two larger organizations that also have open memberships? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The source you cited describes them as extremist. And I'm not interested in facile debates - an honest 'open access' organisation wouldn't choose a name which implies that it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, but thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Are they really that big? I thought they were quite small population wise (but perhaps more influential than their size would indicate within the movement). I would certainly have thought they would be behind the SAF in size in any case. Any source for size? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the most relevant policy/guideline is wp:undue(in wp:npov) which basically says to weight by coverage in sources. I think that discussion of their size/prominence on the talk page to help sort things out is also useful/appropriate. And even though not policy, IMO the degree of relevance to the topic of the article should also be given consideration. Andy seems to be positing other criteria which I don't think are appropriate. Like the editors have to first prove and source that a group that has "Jewish" in its name "has significant Jewish Membership" as a criteria to allow the material to go in. Andy also seems to be saying that he decides what the (unwritten) motive of the inserting editor is, and if he judges that such is wrong, that that is a reason for exclusion. These seem contrary to the applicable policies and guidelines, and his general claim that policies/guidelines support his position IMHO is the opposite of the actual case. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats right, the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE. And since mainstream historiography on the subject gives no credibility whatsoever to this revisionist propaganda concerning the Holocaust, neither should we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what wp:undue says; it actually says the reverse. If it is widely made claim, covered in sources, that it should be covered. And in this case it is also attributed as being their claim, i.e. not stating it as fact in the voice of Misplaced Pages. A second possibility for exclusion is wp:fringe, but I don't think that you could credibly argue that this claim falls under that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If the subject matter is the Holocaust, the claim isn't 'widely made' within the relevant academic field. We go by the best relevant sources, not the loudest fringe ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We're starting to circle back now. I think we both said what we have to say. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that I believe this Nazi material is undue in this article and that we should wait for ArbCom before putting more work into the article re: the said Nazi material. As for JPFO membership: its IRS report for 2012 shows an income of almost $127,000. At $25 annual membership, and assuming all its income is membership fees, that makes a little over 5,000 members. The weird thing, they don't list the income as membership dues. From my experience with nonprofits, there are probably members who give more than $25/year, and there are probably other sources of income, so I'd be surprised if they actually have 5, 000 active members. Can we please remove that ref from the article? Lightbreather (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I too would like a source for "just how large" (3rd largest after NRA and GOA?) the org is. Lightbreather (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

JPFO's Alexa rank is pretty impressive. Ranked: 177,032. (Google PR is 5) They seem to have no trouble getting millions of hits. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? The Time Cube website ranks 338,600, and I very much doubt that is an indication of support for the material posted there. If you wish to argue that JPFO is significant, provide direct evidence from reliable sources. Significance of course, meaning significant in terms of the subject matter of this article, which isn't the US gun control debate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

On what basis is your determination that information relevant to the US debate is to be excluded from a global overview? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, your pathetic attempts to misrepresent what I have written do your case no good whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No reason to use such combative language, I am not "arguing" anything, and I don't think Gaijin is misrepresenting anything. I think I understand your position perfectly. You do not want any nazi material in the article at all for any reason whatsoever, am I correct? Why such a hardline stance? Two years ago the group I am in picketed a gun-show. On almost every hillbilly pickup truck there (my apologies to any hillbillys here who own pickup trucks) there were bumperstickers with things like "All in favor of Gun Control raise your hand" along with a pic of Hitler throwing his salute, others I saw were ones with Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. It angers me to see this sort of thing, but we have to be intellectually honest here and put our politics to the side and do what is best for Misplaced Pages. Clearly these issues (The Nazi issue and others) are a big part of the gun control debate. I cannot recall having a debate with one of my gun-toting friends when the subject hasn't come up. For that reason alone, these things need to be in the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely 'intellectually honest' about an article misrepresenting fringe pseudohistorical revisionism entirely unsupported by academia as a historical account of events leading up to the Holocaust. Those pushing for inclusion of this material have repeatedly argued (when it suits them) that they are merely presenting 'facts', and not presenting any particular viewpoint - but now they are claiming that this viewpoint needs to be represented because it is significant. Not that they provide the data to back it up. Just unsubstantiated claims about membership that tell us nothing. And just how many times to I have to point out that this isn't an article about the US gun debate - WP:WEIGHT has to apply in relation to the subject as a whole, not to the US alone. And so far there has been no evidence presented that this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum has any significant support beyond the US. This has all been explained repeatedly, but still we get the same contradictory arguments, the same ridiculous insistence that 'facts' are all that is being presented, and the same insistence that because the US gun lobby makes more noise than anyone else, they have the right to determine the content of an article purporting to be giving an international overview. That isn't intellectual honesty, it is partisan manipulation of Misplaced Pages for the promotion of a 'history' of the Holocaust written for pro-gun propaganda purposes by people with no academic credibility in the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You realize that of all the people I've mentioned, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc., none of them are Americans, right? The only American issue on the subject would be the slave gun-laws. This is not an Ad Hitlerum issue, although regrettably the gun-toters have made him a poster-boy. It's not an American issue, either. Please explain how it is WP:WEIGHT for the article to breach the subject. It's a significant viewpoint WORLDWIDE. I am seriously not following your logic here at all. There are people in Afghanistan who cite Soviet attempts to disarm the population (Which was even less successful than Hitlers). By the way, I am not trying to argue, I am trying to understand you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is a significant viewpoint worldwide, please provide the evidence. And cut out the patronising crap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sue Rangell, that is the nature of the Hitler argument. It has nothing to do with what Hitler did and everything to do with what someone wants to argue. So the U.S. gun lobby says that gun control was what Hitler and Stalin did. But historians of those societies see nothing unusual about their gun control laws and rarely mention them. So oddly the only mention of Hitler's gun control policies are in articles about gun control in the U.S., not gun control in Germany. TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that Sue's argument is essentially (via a more extreme example for clarity) that, in the debate, a gazillion people claimed that gun control is a plot by an alien race that inhabit the the invisible planet Gozorba that orbits the earth, that, per Misplaced Pages standards, and what Misplaced Pages a does, their claim should be covered, even if attributed as "they claim that xxxxxx" And Andy is saying that if their claim is not supported by experts, that such is a reason to exclude coverage of it. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We certainly don't include it in articles discussing objects that orbit the Earth. See WP:FRINGE AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

North understands me. I am not saying that there is any validity to the hitler stuff (or any of the other stuff) validity does not come into it. It could be 100% fringe. It still needs to be noted that in a discussion about gun control, this is going to be some of the first stuff out of their mouths. We are not talking about a small number of people here. If that were so, I would agree with keeping the info out. But it isn't so. Also, this is a worldwide view, as I mentioned the problems in Afghanistan. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Hitler argument is never used outside the U.S., because the broader argument that guns are necessary in case government descends into tyranny is itself only used in the U.S. So if it is mentioned at all it should be mentioned as part of the debate in the U.S. and its significance explained. For example, "Some extreme gun rights activists in the U.S. claim that Hitler used gun control as part of the Holocaust. Scholars reject this view and Jewish groups have complained about it as trivialization of the holocaust." TFD (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is actually used outside the US (albeit less notably), as several sources have been provided for, but with the exception of the word "extreme" which is itself a POV issue, the current article text is a slightly expanded version of what you just said. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you name any country, other than the U.S., where Hitler is part of the gun control debate. TFD (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Note, I freely admit that the argument is made to a less often, less notably, and with less traction elsewhere, but it is happening, and it is documented by reliable sources. Australia , Canada , UK (cant find source, discussed in archives), Brazil Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Utterly insignificant. Furthermore, the example you cite for Brasil is a clear and unambiguous misrepresentation of the source, which makes it clear that the 'Nazi' references were made by the NRA, who apparently now see it as part of their mission to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I truly believe it would be more constructive if we stopped calling it "the Hitler argument" or "Nazi argument", and referred to it instead perhaps as "the oppression argument", make a section along those lines, and throw the hitler stuff in there with the rest. Just my opinion. (see below) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The material in question is about Nazis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada merely says, "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." That is the sole mention of Nazi Germany in the book, and the author provides no elaboration. It is extremely trivial to the debate. Sue Rangell, the oppression argument more typically refers to the constitutional right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights 1689. Ironically, that right does not extend to Jews or Catholics for that matter. But that argument has become infrequent since colonial times as the act lost the force of constitutional law in Commonwealth nations. Only some U.S. states and the federal government chose to write it into their new constitutions. TFD (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying, the above discussions are about whether or not Nazi gun control is a significant part of a debate about the topic of the article and not whether or not it is simply a significant instance of the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

And who exactly appointed you to 'clarify' what other people are discussing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor does not need to be "appointed" to point out something on the talk page, which is what I was doing. And that clarification does not call for such a nasty angle / response on it, implying that I did something wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to express an opinion do so. But don't dress up your opinion as 'clarification' - that is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not just an opinion, it is very clear that this entire section is talking about additional relevance to the debate or ramifications of the Nazi Gun control. North8000 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why the nasty responses? I think that North's clarification is entirely in order, as I don't think anyone is trying to make the point that Nazi gun control would have made any difference in the Holocaust. The point is that gun-toters will cite these (Nazi, Soviet, and other oppressive gun control laws) almost 100% of the time when there is debate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, numbers pulled out of thin air aren't 'a point'. Particularly when they are manifestly wrong. Nowhere but in the US is this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum taken seriously, and this article isn't about the US gun debate. It is downright offensive the way multiple contributors endlessly insist on referring to the US debate as if it were the only one that matters. Misplaced Pages is a multinational project, and this is supposed to be an international overview of the subject matter. Even the most basic understanding of WP:NPOV policy should make clear why the domination of this article by the US debate (or more accurately, by one faction within the debate) is entirely contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's law applies to any topic. Sooner or later someone will say that's what Hitler did. But it has little relevance to gun control disputes outside the U.S., because they are rarely based on the right to keep and bear arms. The Canadian long gun (22 rifles and shotguns) registry dispute for example focused on cost and effectiveness and the undue costs, red tape, and risk of prosecution posed to farmers. No one suggested that the people needed this weapons to defend against a tyrannical federal government. Ironically when the issue had been defined in rights terms (in the 19th century) it was to defend the government against the lower orders and American democracy. TFD (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

An aside....the only way to be immune from the accusations implicit in Goodwins Law is to erase all coverage of everything Nazi related, including all history book coverage of it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If we would follow your reasoning then every article that involves political disputes should explain how they did things in nazi Germany. Health care, homosexuality, minimum wage, weights and measures, legal codes - the nazis had policies on all of them. But reasonable participants in this dispute do not say that's what the nazis did, ergo it is wrong. TFD (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD you are intelligent and write intelligent stuff. I think that you know that what I wrote essentially says that sometimes it is bogus to invoke Goodwin's law to criticize, and not what you described as my reasoning. On the rest of your post thee are good thoughts in there. Responding would be just getting on the the "main debate" with you.....I would enjoy a structured one-on-one conversation with you on that (and it might be very fruitful) but otherwise I hesitate to just start an exchange that does not have that depth. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This material can certainly be considered a instance of Godwin's Law . But it is a notable one. In fact, it is the ORIGIN of Godwin's Law (along with abortion). (another sign of notability!) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html You can disagree with the arguments. You might even be right. But saying the argument isn't notable is ludicrous. Im glad that everyone agrees the argument is notable within the US. We disagree about its notability elsewhere, but even if so, that isn't an really argument for exclusion. You would have to gut almost all of every article because each bit of content was a fact/argument was about a particular country. This is a single paragraph of text, in a decently big article , with many other arguments to provide balance. Excluding arguments you disagree with is not encyclopedic, particularly in an article about a political topic where by definition there is controversy - excluding controversy does not lead to neutrality. @TFD - you are very right we do not bring up that argument in every topic, because it is not notable in every topic. However, it is notable in this topic. Its also notable in say the eugenics article, and it also is notable in Homosexuality, where its given prominent coverage LGBT_history Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The book you provided on gun control in Canada makes only one mention of the nazis (along with Stalin) in one sentence. One only plays the Hitler card when one has lost the argument, but that is true of any argument. Sure, some nazi policies are significant, and I suppose their treatment of homosexuals was one of them. But there was nothing unusual about their gun laws, as a review of the literature on gun control shows. If one views all political disputes along a statism/freedom axis, then what the uberstatists do becomes important. But that is not how mainstream sources view it. TFD (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing unusual about their gun laws?? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. Or at least, if they were, historians qualified to discuss the Nazis seem not to have noticed. Which amounts, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, to the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything about their gun control law you find unusual? TFD (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes very much so. I am very much in favor of gun control if the purpose is to protect the streets and keep people safe. The laws of totalitarian groups do not operate on those principles. When a gun control law targets a specific groups such as Shiite Muslims, US or South African blacks, or Mujahideen, I consider that to be highly unusual. You gentlemen are of course free to disagree. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that 'targeting specific groups' may well be the norm, if it isn't always as overtly stated as by the Nazis. As TFD notes above, the English Bill of Rights 1689 that U.S, pro-gun lobbyists are so keen to cite as the root of their legal 'right' to bear arms intentionally excluded Catholics, along with other minorities: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". As has often been noted , the background to the first major restriction to this 'right' in Britain - the Firearms Act of 1920 - was motivated by fears (real or imagined) of Bolsheviks and Irish Nationalists. Similar laws were passed in Canada and Australia for example for much the same reason. As for the motivation of the Nazi laws, I'm sure they would have justified it as 'keeping people safe' (they did after all see Jews and Bolsheviks as responsible for everything wrong with the world), but the broader context suggests that the law of 1938, was framed the way it was as just another episode in the systematic harassment of Jews (or rather people they categorised as Jews) that they had been engaging in for years - specifically, the removal of rights as citizens. There is no evidence whatsoever that they saw the 250,000 or so remaining Jews in Germany as any sort of real threat, and likewise no evidence that these same Jews would actually have been capable of mounting any sort of threat - not least because the majority of firearms confiscated from Jews by the Nazis seem to have been WW1 souvenirs, of no practical use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The law made no mention of Jews. Foreigners were not allowed to possess guns, but then neither the Bill of Rights 1689 nor the U.S. Bill of Rights 1789 protect the right of foreigners to keep and bear arms. What Nazi Germany, South Africa and the United States (but not the Soviet Union) have in common is that the removed citizenship from minorities in order to deprive them of civil rights. BTW African Americans in the U.S. are less likely to obtain permission to carry a firearm than white people. TFD (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the US law was and often still is applied discriminatorily. There was more than one law/regulation in 1938. Nov 11, 1938 "Verordnung gegen der Waffenbesitz der Juden" "Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935 . . .) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority." 04:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The second "law" was actually a ministerial order to execute the law. The 1938 act had prohibited gun permits to foreigners and untrustworthy people just as the 1928 act had. Since Jews had been stripped of citizenship in 1935, they no longer had the right to keep and bear arms. Frick could have issued the order even if the 1938 law had never been written. TFD (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's a law or Ministerial order doesn't matter. It was gun control, and aimed specifically at a minority, and historical fact. It doesn't matter how effective it was. What matters is that it is part of the world-wide gun control debate. The US is a very significant part of that debate. Totalitarianism in other parts of the world mirror the same arguments. All of these worldwide arguments belong in the artical regardless of what country they originate from, or which dictator was using gun control as a form of oppression. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin, how did you get the time on your last post but not your user ID? I would fix it but...  :-)

Has anyone heard the latest about the ArbCom? I have feedback on comments (above) from the past week but don't want to add to the debate while we're still waiting for the ArbCom results. Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1938 Reich ministerial order is not "part of the world-wide gun control debate", and is not even mentioned in the U.S. except among a tiny group in the gun rights fringe. Incidentally the order only extended to Germany, while 95% of Holocaust victims lived outside Germany. TFD (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, the order was an example of German gun control, not US gun control. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

An example of gun control that almost nobody but U.S. pro-gun lobbyists sees as being of any significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. But it's still German gun control, and U.S. pro/anti gun lobbyists aren't exactly minor players in world gun politics. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control as oppression

As a compromise, would either side of the issue be opposed to putting the Nazi material into it's own section, along with U.S. treatment of indians and slaves, Soviet actions, Iraqi issues, early British gun laws, and other historical attempts to control populations by removing guns? If all of these were in one place, it would eliminate the Ad Hitlerum impression presently given, and allow a more international tone to take place in the article. This could be a win-win for both sides of the issue, even for the hardliners here, I believe. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We had it that way before "Associations with authoritarianism". Covered nazis, US race stuff, boshevik russia etc. Gutted and removed by the cabal. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be wise to wait to see what ArbCom has to say on the matter. I'm sure they will have something to say regarding 'cabals' too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree (generally) with waiting for ARBCOM, but it does no harm to discuss it. I do not know much about Cabals, but perhaps this is something that we could consider. It seems like a good compromise to me, but I am admittedly biased. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We normally can look at reputable tertiary sources for a guide to how to lay out articles. They tend to ignore this type of stuff and if they mention it at all but it in with pro-gun fringe groups. And they tend to include both the argumentum ad hitlerum stuff with what pro-Hitler pro-gun groups say. TFD (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

9th circuit (well known as very liberal leaning) ruling today giving summary judgement to one denied a CA carry permit since he could not show good cause. Starting at about page 34 of the ruling, the majority opinion quotes Halbrook and others on racist and oppressive use of gun control within the US http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant WP:OR. Misplaced Pages isn't the slightest bit interested in the partisan spin you can put on primary-source material. And this article isn't just about the U.S. for the upteenth time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with Andy, I'll point out that the 9th Circuit ruling reversed the district court ruling:

The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. REVERSED and REMANDED

See page 77 of the ruling you linked above. Requoting a snippet from that, "San Diego County’s 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

My guess is that analysis and comment by secondary sources will soon appear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The political views of judges are in this case irrelevant, as they are bound to follow the majority view in D.C. v. Heller. In any case, all it shows is that it is part of the debate in the U.S., not that it is relevant to any other country. TFD (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. is still part of the world, correct? Or should we change the name of the article to reflect that it's supposed to be about Gun control everywhere BUT the U.S.?? The article is about Gun control in general, isn't it? If the concern is that U.S. issues are dominating the discussion, then please by all means improve the article by introducing material relevant to other countries and nations. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If something is specific to one country, it should be included in that country's section, lest we misrepresent that it is a universal issue. TFD (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NO gun control featured/mentioned in: Gun legislation in Germany, Adolf Hitler, The Holocaust, Nazi Germany

If the Nazi argument - Nazi "gun control" - was a significant, contributing factor in the Holocaust, why is there nothing about it in any of these articles?

• Gun legislation in Germany
• Adolf Hitler
• The Holocaust
• Nazi Germany

I should think the Gun legislation and Holocaust articles especially would have sections or subsections about this. Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Information may be of different notability in different contexts. It is notable in the topic of gun control. It may be not in the topic of the Holocaust, but you are incorrect, it is briefly mentioned in the Gun legislation in Germany article. It had more previously I believe. The german wikipedia article covers it in more detail https://de.wikipedia.org/Waffengesetz_(Deutschland)#Mittelalter_bis_1945 and in fact has an entire article dedicated to the topic https://de.wikipedia.org/Entwaffnung_der_deutschen_Juden Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw that the 1938 Weapons Act was in the German gun legislation article, but it doesn't say anything about its significance to the Holocaust. And the Holocaust article doesn't mention the law at all, does it? (I don't see it.) That's part of my beef with including Halbrook's Nazi "gun control" arguments and theories in this article. If Nazi gun control contributed significantly to the Holocaust - it should be in that article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The content is much more WP:UNDUE in the holocaust article. Halbrook et al are notable voices in the topic of guns and gun control. They are not notable voices on the topic of the holocaust. there are opinions that these laws were part of the holocaust, and how important they were. There is no opinion required as to these laws being instances of gun control. Further they are notable instances. That you (or anyone, including holocaust scholars) may disagree with the arguments and opinions that make them notable, does not make them less so, within the umbrella of gun control. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notability has to due with whether or not a topic can have its own article. I still say, at best, the argument should have its own article - as a minority viewpoint - and per DUE/UNDUE a brief, one sentence reference or "See also" in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait for ArbCom - there is no point in going over all this yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am waiting. I only get sucked into it when I'm following some of the ongoing discussions and see things that I don't want to slide (because to some people silence means something). Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait for ARBCOM, or participate in one of the other discussion threads. Don't start yet another thread. By doing so you are perpetuating a conversation that has already stalled out. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it makes no difference whether or not Nazi gun control was a significant contributing factor to the holocaust. What's important was that it is an historical example of gun control, and that it finds it's way into nearly every debate on the subject. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

To the same extent one finds Hitler in every debate, no matter what the subject. ("You want to build a highway? Hitler built highways!") You need to establish that it is a significant part of this debate, which you have failed to do. TFD (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with "to the same extent". It's quite common in gun control debate and volleys, and exceedingly rare in volleys and debates about highways. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

While I am sure that the Hitler argument is popular in discussions you have, no evidence has been presented that it is common in gun control debates. In the book about the history of gun control in Canada for example it is only mentioned once in passing. (Stalin is mentioned in the same sentence.) The author saw no need to explain what their argument was. TFD (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going more by publications. I think that this whole thread is a tangent (away from the main reasons for inclusion); my comment was on the narrower topic of your post. Godwin does not mean that all discussion of German Nazi history are illegitimate. North8000 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually cannot recall having a debate with a gun-toter when it didn't come up. In fact often it is the first thing out of their mouths. The bumperstickers are all over the vehicles at the gun trade shows. I would venture that it is one of their more popular points. Google search of "Nazi Gun Control" produced "About 18,600,000 results" (79,700 with the quotes) and the first page had dozens of examples of the subject being discussed in newspapers, blogs, and forums. "nazi built highway" yeilded only a single result. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just how many debates regarding issues concerning the regulation of firearms have you had with anyone other then U.S. citizens? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would that make any difference? This article includes Gun Control in the United States, correct? As far as I can tell, Gun Control in the USA is a significant part of the world-wide discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter at all if you weren't making (invalid under WP:OR anyway) claims regarding the significance of the argumentum ad Hitlerum: "it finds it's way into nearly every debate on the subject". And by the way, regarding Google read this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I am well aware of Misplaced Pages's essays, including those like the one you cited which is not even on Misplaced Pages. As I thought was obvious, I was making a comparison between "nazi gun control" and "nazi built highways". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yoiks! First, has anyone heard anything about the ArbCom? Second, I want to say I don't know why this is debated so much - but of course it's a Nazi argument, so that explains it.

That said, the very first sentence of WP:DUE says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been PUBLISHED by RELIABLE sources, in PROPORTION to the PROMINENCE of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (I added the caps.)

1. Has this Nazi argument been PUBLISHED? Yes. It passes that test.

2. Has it been published by RELIABLE sources? There is debate about the reliability of the sources of the Nazi argument. For instance, is Halbrook a reliable source? For some things, yes. On this subject? No consensus.

3. PROMINENCE? There is a small but vocal group that believes the argument is valid, and that group keeps pushing to have it recognized. These are the gun-toters - members of the general public - speaking their opinions, or writing them in blogs or in comments sections after news stories.

4. PROPORTION (of published, reliable sources) is the final hurdle this material does not clear. That's where WP:DUE once again tells us what to do: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. Lightbreather (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS's and two potential general types of Nazi era gun control coverage

A couple of notes: Misplaced Pages's definition of a reliable source relates to being published with a review layer, not any judgement of reliability. (e.g. objectivity, expertise). Not inferring that any source does or doesn't have that, just that (for better or for worse) that test is not policy Also just reiterating, there are two general types of coverage of Nazi gun control that that have been debated. One is just coverage as an instance of gun control, the other is coverage opinions/inferences/interpretations/drawn parallels/arguments/assertions etc. regarding it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is weight. You need to show that the Hitler argument has been extensively mentioned in reliable sources about this subject. TFD (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The weight would seem to be considerable. It makes it's way into virtually every discussion of gun control. Just look at this thread. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, WP:WEIGHT says: In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. Lightbreather (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That proves Godwin's law, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Weight is not determined by what Misplaced Pages editors believe but what reliable sources find important. So far you have failed to show that the Hitler argument is significant in rs. TFD (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sue gave the discussion here as an example/indicator of it's prevalence, she did not say that the prevalence here was the basis. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for putting that back into context. I appreciate it.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't prove Godwin's law. It inspired Godwin's law - another indicator of the notability of the argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If the subject of this article was Godwin's law, you might have a point. It isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Most people ignore the rest of it (from the WP article) "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate". Or stated more as the logical fallacy that it's observation means that all discussions about that part of history are inappropriate. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an example of Godwin's law, not it's inspiration. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets ask Mr Godwin. "By 1990, I had noticed, something similar had happened to the Nazi-comparison meme. Sure, there are obvious topics in which the comparison recurs. In discussions about guns and the Second Amendment, for example, gun-control advocates are periodically reminded that Hitler banned personal weapons." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In the sentence after that "By 1990" paragraph Godwin wrote: "And birth-control debates are frequently marked by pro-lifers' insistence that abortionists are engaging in mass murder, worse than that of Nazi death camps." Are you saying that he believes that Nazi arguments belong in discussions about gun control and abortion? Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

North, old friend. Can you rephrase your "Not inferring" sentence at the top of this subsection? It has three negatives in it and I'm having a hard time understanding what you meant. Also, WP:RS may be a guideline, but the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy says exceptional claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community require multiple, high-quality sources. Because we're talking about an argument embraced by a small but hyper-vocal group there are quite a few sources for it, but the quality is a problem. Lightbreather (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LightbreatherThe core of my post was a pretty narrow comment on your comment, but then I went on to touch on several broader areas. So I'm not sure quite how to answer. I have been seeking to to have an in-depth high-road working discussion with someone who seeks to have this material kept out but who has not ruled out any possibilities including a compromise. (or include multiple such folks from both "sides"). It could include some of the usual "point lobbing" done in a nice way, but would need to evolve beyond that. And it would need to exclude the nasty crap (vilifying etc.) so it might need to be done at an editor talk page. Are you / is anybody interested? Without that I'm not up for attempting a substantial discussion, either of the type in the pre-arbcom nasty environment or in a perpetual superficial (though much more civil) point-lobbing mode which has been the case here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

North, I'm 99% sure the "nasty crap" comment isn't meant for me, and 100% sure that you know that I know how to compromise. I propose compromises often - and did so re: this argument. Create a Nazi gun laws article (exact name TBD) and have a simple sentence in this article like, "Some gun rights advocates believe...." and a link to the new article. Until more editors on both sides of the argument agree that there are enough high-quality sources, treat it as a WP:FRINGE/historical revisionism argument. That's the best compromise, IMO. That is to say, I haven't seen a better one. Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is at the Gun politics in the US talk page. And what I said to another editor at the time was, "Personally, I think it's WP:FRINGE. However, I read about historical revisionism and, at least according to WP, it's not all "bad," so I chose that as a less fractious term." Lightbreather (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, on your first item, of course I was not referring to you when I referred to the nasty stuff. And the dialog I was seeking was one that really gets to and deals with the underlying questions on the various types of potential content. For me I'd be up for having that, but for me life's too short to spend a lot of time on individual phrases on "matters of opinion" type articles such as this one and the other that you are referring to, and I'm thankful for other editors that are willing to do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, a Google search of "Nazi Gun Control" produced "About 18,600,000 results" and the first page had dozens of examples of the subject being discussed in newspapers, blogs, and forums, certainly enough of it citable to show that the subject of "Nazi Gun Control" has a place in this article about gun control. How effective it was is irrelevant. Whether it's an intelligent or accurate point to make is irrelevant. What matters is that the topic is newsworthy and lots of people are talking about it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A Google search for 'Flat Earth' supposedly gives about 76,600,000 results. Do you think we should include the theory in our article on the planet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that she was giving it to show the prevalence in conversations, not a claim that google results alone dictate inclusion. Also, coverage of the gun control debate is coverage of expressed opinions, coverage of the flat vs. actual shape of the earth is coverage of scientifically proven fact. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Terminology and context

The Terminology and context section is completely unsourced. I am going to take a day or two to work on it and provide some source citations. If you have a question or comment, please AGF and bring it up here. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please find sources, but also please don't start simply removing unsourced material without discussion, thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't find any that directly supports this section the way it's written... and it's written using weaselly language. It also includes a lot of off-topic details, which I find a lot of in these gun-related articles: for instance, long, wikilinked lists of every kind of weapon that doesn't fall under gun control. I think the whole thing could be reduced to this, without question of being OR or synthesis, but if y'all think it's encyclopedia as is...

My suggestion:

Gun control is similar to arms control except that gun control deals with a government's domestic policies regarding civilian ownership and use of small arms like pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Arms control typically deals with international treaties regarding conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SALW), as well as weapons of mass destruction.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to do exactly what its title says, provide (common) terminology for the topic being discussed and explain that the article deals with a smaller piece of a much large topic. It was meant to narrow the scope that (non-gun knowledgeable) people could perceive the topic to mean. In this case, the article (originally) discussed gun control of handguns and long arms (rifles, shotguns) and their associated variants excluding full military items such as tanks, chemical weapons, etc.

In a global (non-US centric) sense, the definition is expanded to small arms and light weapons (SALW). Here in the United States, the "gun control" debate does not typically include discussion of grenades, but on a global scale it does. Another way to look at it, gun control is "local" or "regional" and arms control is "international". This article deals with what happens within borders, not across them.

If this were a simple, easy to understand topic with universal, commonly accepted terminology, we wouldn't need the section at all, but it's not... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This article stinks

Don't know a better way to say it. It should be scrapped and re-written. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be a mess, and very US centric. And it's weird how oddly selective the airing of NRA talking points is in this article. Shouldn't this article either have all major NRA arguments supported by fringe theories put forward by gun control groups trying to manipulate holocaust guilt by misrepresenting themselves as representing holocaust survivors or none?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not in any way constructive. Point out sentences or other items that you specifically see as problematic, and discuss it. General whining and complaining doesn't do anyone any good. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Go back and read the Talk page edit history starting about 6 months back, you might be impressed even less. Yes, we (and I don't mean the "royal we", myself included) have made a genuine mess of this article. We had good intentions, but then got stuck on the damn totalitarianism/Nazi/gun control topic and its all went to hell from there.

This topic should be no different that the articles on "racism" or "homosexuality" where the topic is talked about rather than discussed or debated in the article. So now what? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-ordering the paragraph

Since the ArbCom case seems to have stalled completely, I'm going to briefly re-enter the discussion to say what I was going to say at the beginning of January, before everything blew up. A major problem with the "Nazi" paragraph as it stands is its structure: 1) the "facts"; 2) how a number of people and groups draw logical conclusions from these facts; 3) the way in which others respond to those arguments. By putting "facts" in scare quotes, I do not mean to say that they are not true, but only that they are selective, and putting them up front in that way introduces a POV that no amount of "stating both sides" can undo. Facts are facts, after all. My proposal for introducing NPOV is simply to change the word order – not adding or subtracting anything – so that the "facts" are incorporated into the gun rights arguments, thus:

• Gun rights advocates such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Democratic Congressman and NRA board member John Dingell, the NRA (voiced by NRA presidents Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre), Stephen Halbrook, and others in the international debate on gun control have argued that policies and laws instituted by the Nazi Party (NDSAP) during the Third Reich, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and later confiscated arms in the countries they occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, and have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate. In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews, but he and and others like Robert Spitzer and the Anti-Defamation League argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. They further argue that the use of Nazi allusions is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA" and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.

Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to you for such "high plane" efforts. On your proposed change, I think that it goes right to the heart of one of the main questions. I think that the two main coverages or potential coverages are:

1. Coverage of what happened (essentially without comment) simply as a significant instance of gun control
2. Coverage of it and discussions about it in the context of it in contemporary gun control debate.

Currently the article sort of does #1 and then #2. Your change (for better or for worse) sort of eliminates #1 by putting it solely "under" #2. Ran out of time, but wanted to say a bit. Again, thanks for such high plane efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This makes the sentence structure more complicated/harder to read, and could possibly run into WP:SYNTH since there is no single source that is giving all of the points in the sentence, but I can accept this change. I also would like to thank you in working cooperatively on this issue.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO we should not drop the idea of coverage #1. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I agree with you that my proposal leads to a longer, more compicated and harder to read sentence. However, if the change is made and the POV issue addressed, it shouldn't be difficult to make stylistic changes afterwards. I hadn't thought about a possible SYNTH issue, but on looking at it again I see that the people cited for the "facts" are the same people cited for the arguments. Those citations aren't really needed any more; the "facts" are not potentially contoversial as they are adequately referenced within the arguments. As for specific articles, Halbrook (2012) and Halbrook (2013) are not cited for the arguments, but that can be remedied by just moving the refs to the end of the sentence. I'm going to go ahead and edit for my own proposal, and you or others can edit it for style and verifiability.

@North8000: I do respect your view, but as you know I don't share it. More importantly, it seems to me from this talk page and from the Arbcom workshop page that you are in a minority of one as regards that particular view. If I'm wrong, then no doubt somebody other than you will revert my edit.

Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Scolaire. I was just giving my opinion. I think that it is most important to have a nice process in place as has been the case for this change. I think that the sum total of this thread leans a bit towards going with your version and so from a "supporting process" standpoint, I am fine with you making the change. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, before I comment on the topic at hand, is it possible we'll never hear any decision from ArbCom? Does that sometimes happen?

As for the Nazi stuff in this article, if you're going to work on it, I'd like to work with you. As you know, my preference would be for this topic to have its own article, with a brief sentence in this article like, "Some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws..." Yadee, yadee, yadee. I still hope that is an option that ArbCom might recommend. However, if we aren't to start on anything like that soon, I would like to help you with the material currently in the article. I have some commitments early today, but I will get started on some suggestions and check back in again after my day frees up.

1. Assuming you're doing this too, but I'm reading and re-reading the sources given as I go along. The very first one, Horwitz p. 137, begings:

"'How can anyone support gun control after what Hitler did to the Jews?' What began several years ago as a throwaway line used by gun rights activists to suggest that perhaps European Jews could have organized themselves to resist the Nazis if they had been better armed has become a fully elaborated revisionist theory of the history of the Holocaust."

Emphasis mine - and supports my proposal. The source is given as a reason to include JFPO among the list of gun rights advocates who support this theory. I do not think we should include that group, for reasons I have given in a recent, related discussion, but this source would be a good one to use in an article about Nazi gun laws (or whatever we decided to call it). Lightbreather (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem not to have read the first line of my original post, where I said I am "going to briefly re-enter the discussion". Even if I was so inclined, I simply do not have the time to put in the work required for a major revision of the article.

As for ArbCom just not bothering with a proposed decision, that is unprecedented in my experience. There are only two cases before ArbCom. Both of them finished their evidence and workshop phase long ago, and yet arb activity on either of them seems to be close to zero. What can I say? Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was viewing the above as a compromise. If this is going to evolve further, I think that straightforward coverage of what happened (just as a significant instance of gun control) should be included in it's own right. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, I don't think it requires major revision to make what's currently in the article read better. I had done so before, back on Feb. 10, but someone reverted it. Writing a new article would be a major project, but I've been hold off on that pending ArbCom. Here is what I was going to post next:

2. Taking the paragraph in its current form, since your last edits, I propose this change as the next step. It adds some more key details, giving it more meaning, and removes some less key details, lightening the word count (from 115 to 73):

Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator and author Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance. They have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate. In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews, but he and and others like Robert Spitzer and the Anti-Defamation League argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. They further argue that the use of Nazi allusions is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA" and that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis.

Misrepresentation of Harcourt

To say "In response, Bernard Harcourt agrees that gun control was used to further the genocide of the Jews" is a gross misrepresentation of Harcourt's views. I have read the two sentences cited. In fact, the citation is identical to the one used (twice within one sentence) to present the argument that he is supposedly "responding" to ! Those two sentences are nothing more than an acknowledgment that the "facts" presented by Halbrook et al. are factually correct, i.e. that they are not liars. It is in no sense a "response" to their argument. Further, "that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis" is a summary of a short passage in an article that is 28 pages long. It has the appearance of being deliberately chosen to give the impression that the whole thrust of Harcourt's response was "you're right, of course, but on the other hand..." Here are a few representative quotes from the cited article:

• ...the argument is of an odd form for the NRA and pro-gun proponents. After all, the NRA stands for the proposition that "it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people"...you would expect a member of the NRA to respond in the same manner when confronted with the Nazi-gun-registration argument: "It's not gun registration that produces gun confiscation and genocide, it's people who do."
• The fringe pro-Nazi element in the country has far more ties to the pro-gun community than it does to the anti-gun community, and you are far more likely to see a swastika at a gun show or a pro-gun rally that you are at the anti-gun Million Mom March on the Washington Mall.
• : But the symbolic message in Heston's comment is not one of inclusion or integration. At least, the imagery used is a far cry from that of the oppressed Jewish family in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Nazi regime.
• The fact is, there is tremendous fragmentation internal to the pro-gun community on the specific issue of Hitler and gun registration. Not all pro-gunners buy the Hitler argument. The pro-gun folks at the talk.politics.com web site, for instance, debunk the infamous Hitler quote. They rely primarily on the research of Clayton Cramer, a pro-gunner...and they tend, to a certain extent—at least Cramer does—to minimize the connection between gun registration and the Holocaust.
• ...within the pro-gun community there is a sharp conflict as to whether Hitler was pro-gun control...one of the leading defenders of Hitler on the question of gun control is also pro-gun... Pierce writes: "...When you have read , you will understand that it was Hitler's enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today."
• The toughest question in all this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views.
• In order to disarm Jewish persons, the Nazi government used both the "trustworthiness" requirements originally legislated in 1928, as well as more direct regulations denying Jews the right to manufacture or possess firearms. It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control. But if forced to, I would have to conclude...that the Nazis favored less gun control for the "trustworthy" German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic, while disarming the Jewish population and engaging in genocide.

Whether you agree with them or not, these are all very strong arguments, and none of them are of the drippy "yes, but on the other hand" sort. I know that editors here have a strong commitment to neutral point of view, regardless of their own personal point of view. We need to come up with a summary of Harcourt's article that truly reflects his position. And we need to get rid of that "In response, Harcourt agrees" bit as a matter of urgency. Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Harcourt is arguing strongly against the meme. The current state is a result of two influences I think. Sourcing for both the "facts" and the initial argument. Previously, editors were arguing that the Halbrook et al were unreliable, even as documentation that that pov exists. If there is consensus that both the facts and initial argument are sufficiently sourced without harcourt, I am more than happy to not cite him for those points (Although I think its interesting that you can source essentially the entire section by only using sources arguing against meme, without changing any text). However, if you want to change the summary of his objection however, I am open to that. At the time I originally rewrote this section, I said I took a stab at the opposing view, but thought it may be better for an advocate of the opposing view to write that summary. Harcourt does explicitly say that the laws were used to further the genocide though, which is an important concession - but if the facts are indeed presented as facts (possibly current wording does this), I am probably willing to let them stand on their own.Gaijin42 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I knew I could count on you to take a reasonable position. I will have a think and try to come up with a reasonable (and reasonably brief) summary of the "anti" stance. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done the edit. In the process I removed references to web pages that were anti-gun rants (Aronsen, Seitz-Wald and Frank). I haven't taken them out of the Bibliography section because I don't know for sure that they're not cited elsewhere, though I'm pretty sure they're not. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazi gun control article

I created a Nazi gun control article. If you check it out, PLEASE read what I wrote on its talk page, too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read and responded to what you wrote there. I still hope that it will be brought to AfD ASAP. In three years it has not been possible to get a single paragragh in this article that is encyclopaedic and NPOV. The chances of doing that for an entire article are as close to zero as makes no difference. With all due respect to yourself, this new article proves my point; it is unmitigated rubbish, and I can't see a way even to begin to improve it. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Gee, Scolaire, despite the "all due respect," the "unmitigated rubbish" seems a little hasty and harsh. I have been nothing but collegial with you here, and I supported your ArbCom proposals, and we had a friendly discussion on your talk page.

I am moving the rest of my reply to the Nazi gun control talk page, since you have made some comments there, too. Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the fact that you have been friendly towards me does not and cannot stop me from expressing my opinion on content. If something is unmitigated rubbish I will say so, it doesn't matter if my own mother wrote it. Scolaire (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Question, since I've only been editing articles like these for seven months: Has anyone ever written an article, a separate article, on the topic of Nazi gun control before? Perhaps not with that name, but if not - why not? Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge that has not been one before. Personally, I think its just part of the evolutionary cycle of articles, plus the real world events. This was just one of the many arguments discussed in the "Politics" article, and it was using fairly low quality sources - mainly relying on just the common knowledge of the meme. It stuck around in that state for many years until the heated debate ignited last year, (along with the creation of this article) at which point the more detailed/more reliable sources were found and discussed during the arguments, that would sufficiently back a stand alone article - also real world events certainly play a part - although the meme is quite old (1940s) it was recently reignited after Newtown and the resumed gun control pushes, and that triggered the creation of some of those more reliable sources. The most detailed work on the subject (Halbrooks new book) was only published this winter, but also many of the anti-meme sources (Mother Jones, Salon, etc) are quite recent. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The subject has no significance beyond the US gun control debate - as is evident from the lack of coverage from those most qualified to discuss it, academic historians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin, what do you mean when you say meme? Nazi gun control? Also, since you apparently have lots of sources on the subject (I won't comment on their quality right now), why don't you write a separate article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Meme "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem) is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." - one of the main popularizers of the word "meme" itself is Mike Godwin, of Godwin's Law specifically identifies Nazi comparisons (and gun control comparisons in particular) as a meme http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html As for an article, I think there should be an article, and the more compliated/expanded discussions should go there, but your suggestion of reducing the content in this article to a single sentence or so is too drastic - the argument is too notable for that. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what a meme is. What I mean is, which one are you referring to when you use "meme" on this talk page? Question withdrawn. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how much of it is see-alsoed or summarized here or in other articles, if it's so important to you guys - go write it. That's all I'm saying. Obviously, I won't be the final word on how much of it goes into this or other articles, but at least we won't all have to spend our time debating this stuff over and over and over again. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant to add, your argument that the Nazi gun control argument is too notable for a single sentence has not been proven by anything like a consensus among Misplaced Pages editors, though more than a sentence has been strong-armed into this article (and Gun politics in the U.S.)... while ArbCom was underway. For the flak I'm getting about creating a fringe/revisionism history stub/start article, that more important fact is being ignored. Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, I copied material from the Nazi gun control paragraph of this article into the Nazi gun control article, but I put the Halbrook and others material into the section titled "Nazi gun control" hypothesis, and the criticism into a section titled "Reactions to the hypothesis." I also changed the citation style to what I was already using on that page. However, all of these - article title, section titles, citation styles - are only placeholders, suggestions. I won't put a lot more energy into developing it since A) we're still waiting for word from ArbCom, and B) some have hinted at an AfD. Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and then you replaced the agreed content in this article with a most egregious POV statement, and linked to your new article, which has your version that was not agreed by anybody. Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't make personal remarks again, but that trick was just too blatant to go without comment. Your behaviour is coming very close to the kind of disruption that leads to AN/I. Please, please dial it down. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What agreed content in this article did I replace with an "egregious POV statement"? And which statement is the one you think is egregious POV? Lightbreather (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits without discussion

I would appreciate it, and I'm quite sure others would as well, if editors did not make series' of edits like this one, creating new subsections with contentious titles in the process, without prior discussion on the talk page. I have made two important edits in the last few days, and both times I gave a lengthy justification here on the talk page, and waited for other editors' responses, before doing the edits. I see no reason why others should not show the same courtesy. Scolaire (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about them, one at a time. (I also think it would be a courtesy to revert edits one at a time, giving a content-related edit summary.) Would you like to do that here, or on one of our talk pages? I am quite sure we can work together on this. Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to bed now, but if you want to justify each of your edits, one at a time, then please do. On this page – the discussion is for everybody. You can use numbers or bullets or whatever way you choose, and I will respond in the morning, and hopefully others will respond as well. Scolaire (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, and sleep well. I really want to work together. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1. This edit was to add a subsection header under the existing Studies, debate, and opinions section. I chose "Nazi gun control and Holocaust imagery," but it could be something else. The main thing is, it needs to make it very clear that what follows is a small minority hypothesis, not supported by broad, mainstream scholarship or high-quality, mainstream news sources.

That said, if we go with a single sentence or two in this article that links to the article that is currently titled "Nazi gun control" (also not carved in stone) then a subsection header is unnecessary. A suggestion for the simple sentence or two is:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S., group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control contributed significantly to the Holocaust. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to do the exact opposite of what you've just said. More than half the problems on this article have arisen from the fact that this was in its own section or sub-section. What to call it – no two people can agree; where it should go – it was moved from Studies and Opinions to History (while it was still full of opinions) and back to Studies and Opinions (after it had been reduced to just history); notable pro-gun argument or fringe theory – deadlock; and so on. We now have a reasonably short, reasonably balanced paragraph about opinions which are being expressed in the literature and in news media in the Opinion section of the article, and you want to change it back into a subsection with a provocative heading (no, please don't tell me to suggest an alternative heading; there are no "good" alternatives) so that we can go back to the fun days of the war. As for your "simple sentence", it is a more blatant statement of POV than any I have seen from the most biased pro-gun editor. I'll say no more than that.
I assumed you were going to justify your edits one by one, but all at the same time. I'm not bothered to log back on thirteen times to respond to your response to my response to one point and then respond to your next point, so I'll comment on all of your other edits together now:

1. Removing a second citation for an uncontroversial fact: I agree, but you need to discuss this with Gaijin before doing it again, because he has already reverted you once.
2. "Occupied France": on p. 536 Halbrook talks about "the countries occupied by the Nazis." "Countries" (plural) or "occupied Europe" appear on other occasions. It's not just about France.
3. "Critical theorist and legal scholar": let's choose one or the other. No other person cited is double-jobbing. If it's the first, no need to link, per WP:OVERLINK.
4. Anti-Defamation League and Abraham Foxman: The cited source is a press release from the ADL which is headed "ADL Says Nazi Analogies Have No Place In Gun Control Debate". ADL, Not "Abraham Foxman, director of the ADL". The date is of no importance, and the direct quote does not serve a useful purpose. It would be sufficient to say, "The Anti-Defamation League has said that use of the Holocaust in these arguments, as well as being historically inaccurate, is offensive to the victims of the Nazis."
5. Gun rights advocates / U.S. gun rights advocates: not bothered either way.
6. "According to Bernard Harcourt": My edit said that Harcourt "has argued" the things that follow – all the things (see my next point) – because that's what he did: he set out a number of arguments in response to the claims that are made. There is no reason whatever to change that to the vague "according to". WP:SAY does not include the word "argue" and, even if it did, it does not forbid the use of any words, just says to use them sparingly and appropriately.
7. William L. Pierce: Harcourt in his article pointed to Pierce as an example of a gun rights activist who took the exact opposite line to Halbrook et al. That is what is significant, not the mere fact that he said what he said. "Simplifying" it takes away the whole point of it.
8. "Narrow to gun-rights advocates who have...written about it." Why? Speaking about it (if it is reported) is as good a way to propound an argument as writing about it. This seems completely arbitrary to me.
9. "Re-ordering" the first sentence: The argument is that disarming Jews and relaxing regulations for "ordinary" citizens were an enabling factor in the Holocaust. "Re-ordering" so that the cause comes after the effect and in a separate sentence makes no sense. If you're worried about the citations, the sensible thing is to put them all together at the end of the sentence, where citations normally belong. A complex sentence should be edited to make it more readable, not to suit the placement of refs.
10. "They have used allusions to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate" is a woolly enough sentence as it is; "They allude to the Nazis in the context of the modern gun-control debate" just sounds nonsensical.
11. Most importantly, the whole thirteen edits do not add one thing of value to the paragraph or the article. It is just tinkering for the sake of tinkering. The paragraph has undergone two substantive – and substantial – changes in the last couple of days. Why not leave it as it is, to see if those changes are acceptable to editors in general? Tweaking can be done at a later stage, if it is done in a reasonable way and at a reasonable pace.

Finally, please stop telling me that you want to work with me, when what you want is for me to follow your agenda. I don't want to work on this at all. I want to give it a long rest. Maybe you should too. Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: your "2" above, which given source are you referring to? Halbrook's SSRN article "Why Can't We Be Like France?" or his National Review piece "How the Nazis Use Gun Control"? Neither "the countries occupied by the Nazis" or "occupied Europe" appears in either. The word "countries" is in the "France" article 28 times, but only once in the context of confiscation. Re: U.S. Congress debates about GCA 1968, Halbrook wrote, "proponents recommended European models and denied that the Nazis used prewar gun registration records of the occupied countries to confiscate firearms and to repress the populaces." As the article's title indicates, it's primarily about France. The words "France" or "French" appear in it almost 200 times. We shouldn't misrepresent what H. was writing about by writing ourselves "Nazi Party policies and laws... which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied." Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The other items are addressed in my comments below, following the side-by-side "Before" and "After" text, and taken together they address the first part of your "11." They improve the article, though I'm sorry that being bold about making them seemed unreasonable to you. Lightbreather (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the section/subsection title issue for now, I had every intention of proceeding with the other items this morning, my time, which is seven? hours behind Ireland. (I'm in the U.S. West.) When I replied to your message last midnight? your time, I was getting ready to serve dinner and then watch a little basketball and a movie with my husband. It wasn't a good time for me to start re-explaining my edits one-by-one. However, I thank you for, in the meantime, addressing them one by one.

Also, I don't want you to follow my "agenda" any more than you want me to follow yours. My only agenda is to treat this Nazi gun control material in a Wiki-kosher way, which I don't believe it does in its current form, though it is perhaps closer than it's been before. As for the edits, here is the paragraph before and after. I will post comments on their parts separately.

• "Before" sentence 1 is 72 words long with a grade-level readability of 35! (Other editors have knocked the importance of readability, but any good writer will agree that it is important - especially for a layman audience. I use the Flesch-Kincaid test, but there are many others as you may know.) That one sentence also cites nine sources. It is too long (trying to pack in too much info) and WP:OVERCITE. It cites four different Halbrook sources, two other pro-gun/gun-rights sources, and two mostly neutral sources. (One gets cited in two places. Also, maybe some would qualify them as not neutral. I dunno.) Considering that before this went to ArbCom the proposal to include Nazi gun control material was outvoted two-to-one, citing so much of it is uncalled for. Beyond that, it's unnecessary because many of the sources include the same material, even if presented in slightly different ways.

The "after" sentence is two sentences. One has 47 words and a grade-level score of 11. It's supported by three sources: one Halbrook, one LaPierre, one Harcourt. The other is 27 words, grade-level 18. (Higher than I like, but much more readable than before.) It's supported by two sources: the already-used Harcourt, plus one additional Halbrook. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Before" sentence 2 uses the passive voice. It also suggests that they have used allusions in the past, but do not any more. However, I can live with the passive voice if you think it's better in this case. Lightbreather (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Before" sentence 3. First, Halbrook and Harcourt are probably the two most important people in this debate, if one boils it down to two people. That's why it's important to identify them clearly: Halbrook, (gun rights or Second Amendment) litigator and author; Harcourt, critical theorist and legal scholar. Second, "has argued" is passive voice again. Also, it's more like the loaded WP:CLAIM than the neutral WP:SAY. "Argue" can simply mean to give reasons - but it can also mean to express opposing views in a heated way. "According to Harcourt" or "Harcourt says" is active and neutral. If it's agreed that "argue" is an improvement in this case, we should at least say, actively, "Harcourt argues." Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Before" sentence 4. "Point out" is a WP:W2W, but if it's preferred here, I don't have a big complaint with it. However, I replaced "there is disagreement within the gun rights movement on the question" with "gun rights advocates disagree about the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust" for two improvements. First, there are unquestionably gun rights advocates, but what is "the gun rights movement"? Second, "the question" is ambiguous, whereas "the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust" is not.

Oh! and again, I broke one 77 word sentence into two more readable sentences... And, I replaced "activist" with "white nationalist" because that's who Pierce is. (Neither "gun" or "firearm" appear on his Misplaced Pages page.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Before" sentence 5 I left unchanged - even though the passive voice makes my journalist anus pucker. (There, guys, I can be crude on occasion.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Before" 6 and 7: unchanged. Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Before" sentence 8. I think wrapping up the paragraph with a dated and fully attributed quote puts weight on an argument that, according to two out of three editors who weighed in on the "include-it?" proposal, is WP:DUE. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There are the explanations for all of my edits, and I apologize if the edits themselves along with my edit summaries did not make them plain. Lightbreather (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict, not responding to last post) Lightbreather, people have limited Misplaced Pages time, and even more limited time for any particular article. And, particularly on contentious articles, people like to and expect to have the opportunity to review edits, and to have the contentious and POV-related ones go through the normal process, including engagement of other editors. When you make large bundles of edits, given the above time constraints, you are effectively removing your edits from that process or stymieing that process, and people are not comfortable with that. This concern is further heightened because you do do situations where you do a large amount of gnome edits with a few (right or wrong) POV-shifting edits blended in with them, and typically always being in the same direction. I'm not saying or getting into whether such is right or wrong or neither, but all things considered I thought it might be helpful to elucidate what has been the source of some concern and fireworks on these situations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

North, friend. Without commenting on why you've written some of the things you've written, here's my suggestion. I am addressing my edits here one-by-one. Let's talk about those and not about me. OK? Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather. I made an effort to make it clear that I was not saying that any of these things that you are doing are wrong. In essence, if I was implying anything, it was to suggest that on contentious articles, to slow down and not do large bundles of edits at once, even if they are all fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Halbrook aricle I was referring to was the only one you had left following "occupied France", i.e. Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews. You will find that the words and phrases I quoted were in it, in context, where I said they were. If the speed and recklessness of your edits confuse even you, then you really should heed North8000 instead of dismissing him so brusquely.
• I certainly don't knock the importance of readability, but readability is not just a score based on word count. If you break up a sentence so that the first part of a "because...therefore" is moved to the following sentence, that makes it less readable, not more so. I said that "A complex sentence should be edited to make it more readable, not to suit the placement of refs." You seem to have gone straight to answering me without reading what I said first.
• The fact that the RfC was showing a majority for excluding the material does not mean that, if it is not excluded, it should not be properly referenced. To say that the inclusion of citations is "uncalled for" goes directly against policy. As it happens, I agree with you that there is an excess of refs in that sentence, and I said so above (again you obviously didn't read it), but that is a question to be raised in a separate section here on the talk page, to allow all parties to agree which refs should be retained.
• "They have used allusions" is not the passive voice. If you don't know what passive voice is, you really shouldn't be giving lessons in grammar to others. There is nothing wrong with the perfect tense. It doesn't imply that the person has stopped doing the thing (another misconception), and MOS has nothing to say about it. Ditto "Harcourt has argued".
• The notion that the "two most important people" ("probably") should have two descriptions each to show how important they are is laughable. Which guideline is that in? I missed the fact that Halbrook has two descriptions; that should be rectified. "Argue" is only a loaded term if it implies somebody is arguing when in fact they have only made a statement. Harcourt has presented an argument, therefore he has argued. Again, you don't seem to have bothered reading what I said before responding.
• Ditto with "points out". It's only a word to watch. I do watch it and I use it only when it is appropriate.
• Harcourt's words were "pro-gun community". I paraphrased that as "gun rights movement". You may as well ask "what is a pro-gun community?" as "what is a gun rights movement?", but that is what Harcourt says. You might reasonably expand "the question" to "the question of the Nazis and gun control", I'll grant you that. Again, it is Harcourt, not me, who puts Pierce in among the guns rights activists. And I'll repeat (since you didn't read me the first time), Harcourt in his article pointed to Pierce as an example of a gun rights activist who took the exact opposite line to Halbrook et al. That is what is significant, not the mere fact that he said what he said. Improving the Flesch-Kincaid score is not a justification for changing the whole meaning of a sentence. Moreover, playing around with the summary of an article without referring back to the article as you go is bad practice.
• There is no need to "wrap up" a paragraph (again, I've checked MOS and can't find any guidelines on how to end a paragraph). Saying what the ADL said gives it due weight. A "dated and fully attributed quote" does not add one iota to it. That particular sentence has been there since the beginning of the year; why is it only now, when I added a decent pro-gun control summary to the paragraph for the first time, that you discover the need to change it?

Your whole post only confirms what I said in mine, that the edits were only tinkering for the sake of tinkering. None of them served any useful purpose. I'm not going to go a third iteration on this. You have my critique, and if you try something like this again I will revert you again. If there is a particular, non-trivial issue that you want to discuss, start a new section and put forward your view. Otherwise, please just leave the paragraph alone, and let other concerned editors give their opinions. There are over 30 other paragraphs in this article alone which could be improved; you needn't be idle. And, by the way, underlining is a form of shouting. It doesn't make your case any stronger, it just makes you look aggressive. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

First pass / general impression from reading the "before" and "after" paragraphs above. My general impression is that (especially in the second half of the "after" is that it converts a paragraph about the actual instance/uses of the meme in discussions into a debate about overreachng "straw man" assertions. The most notable overreaching straw man is "gun control leads to authoritarian regimes" North8000 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph, in deference to Flesch and Kincaid, to break the second part into smaller sections, as well as clarifying two or three things per Lightbreather. Since it was Gaijin who wrote the first part, I think we should leave it to him to edit it appropriately. Gaijin seems to be on a short break at the moment, but there's no rush – it has been there for two and a half months, so another few days won't make any difference. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire said in one of his last edit summaries that he will respond to me no further on this subject, but I will still reply to clarify some things, if anyone else is interested.

• He wrote, "The Halbrook aricle I was referring to was the only you had left following 'occupied France.'" That is not the source attached to the before (and current) statement, "which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied." The two sources that are given are the ones I asked about in this question. Those are both bad sources for the "which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied" statement. The one I chose absolutely supports "occupied France" and, not-so-well (but better than the other two) "countries it occupied." I am going to restore that citation to that place. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Re the "readability" comment: Of course word count is only part of how readability is measured, and that's why I didn't refer to just word count. The long, complex sentence that is the subject of this debate was two sentences before it was changed. Another editor said, "This makes the sentence structure more complicated/harder to read, and could possibly run into WP:SYNTH since there is no single source that is giving all of the points in the sentence...." I think he was on to something. A complex sentence should be edited to make it more readable, and one of the ways of doing that it is two break it into two sentences. Also, although my preference is to place all citations at the end of a sentence, when it's controversial material like this, it's probably best to maintain close text-source integrity - even if it makes for an ugly sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I did not say that inclusion of citations was uncalled for; I said that inclusion of so many here is uncalled for. Or as Scolaire said, "there is an excess of refs." Lightbreather (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I absolutely f***ked up saying "they have used allusions" is passive voice. I have been schooled by Scolaire. ;-) However, I still say that "they allude" is better in this case. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• I also stand by WP:SAID, which says "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." If "argue" is an absolutely unambiguous synonym for "say," then let's edit the sentences so that the pro-gun statements use "argue" and the "anti" (launch eye-roll sequence) gun ones simply use "say." Anyone? As for "points out," if everyone else is cool with its use here, OK. Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• As for what Harcourt has written about Pierce, I don't know how to argue my point any better than I did before. Contrary to what Scolaire wrote - repeatedly - I did read all of the sources to-do with this paragraph, many of them more than once. I think this simply boils down to one editor's opinion over another, with no call for personal attacks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto regarding the final (wrap-up), ADL sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally, my underlining is only a result of inserting more text into already-posted comments. When I was a newbie editor, I was chastised for not doing it that way... so that's how I do it now. However, if it looks aggressive, I will go back and remove the insert code. And I will reply to Scolaire's other personal remarks on his talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing Harcourt

I am back from my short break. Scolaire With one exception, I don't have any strong objection to your changes, and I am in generally agreement with your commentary above re LB's etids (In particular the great need for discussion and collaboration on this contentions topic before rashly making edits). The one exception : " Bernard Harcourt has argued that the disarming and killing of the Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy" I think this is not supported by the sources per the line you took objection to before where Harcourt explicitly admits gun control was used to further the genocide. I think there must be some phrasing that correctly exposes the full POV of Harcourt, or at a minimum is not stating something explicitly contradicted in the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The exact quote is, "Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views." Orthogonal, according to Wiktionary, means "independent of or irrelevant to". I paraphrased that as "unconnected to", but I'm not wedded to that. Having said that, what Harcourt acknowledges, on page 676, is that the Nazis "used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide." He then goes on, on the following page, to say that "It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control" (italics added). In other words, their use of the gun laws in this one instance is not their gun control policy. I am open to suggestions as to how we express this subtlety. Scolaire (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire Indeed, I think you have identified the crux. Harcourt spends quite a bit of time discussing if the Nazis were in general pro or anti gun control. This is a convenient straw man (and admittedly directly addresses some of the gun rights rehetoric of things like "raise your hand if you like gun control") - but is not really on point to Halbrook, to whom Harcourt is ostensibly responding. Beyond that, I agree with Harcourt entirely that control was liberalized for the "trustworthy Germans", while being applied against the ones about to be pogromed and sent off to the camps - but I'm not sure how that is in fact an argument against the meme - Arming group A, disarming group B, and then sending A to round up B seems like a pretty solid plan.

Personally I think we should avoid "Nazi's views on gun control" as that is a very complex, multifacted issue, and getting the correct nuance is going to be exceedingly difficult. Harcourt and the other arguers do directly respond - the arguments about Jews not having enough guns to make a difference, or the Nazis already being in power by the time these laws were implemented - are much more on point, and frankly much more persuasive. Thats where I would focus the anti-meme argument, but thats just me.

On this specific point above, I think by switching from "views on gun control" to "gun control policy" magnifies the discrepancy in the straw man. Do you object to any inclusion of the "used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide" quote? If we could include that bit back in, and then perhaps rewrite the other quotes to be more inline with the actual text I think that could resolve my issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As long as it doesn't take the form of "Harcourt agrees". Perhaps something along the lines of 'Harcourt acknowledges that the Nazi gun laws were used for the disarming and killing of the Jews, but argues that it is "absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control."' Scolaire (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Scolaire's assessment of what Harcourt wrote (in his paragraph that begins "The exact quote is"). As for Gaijin's response, I think it's another example of why this material belongs in a separate article. Before you know it - either now or in the near future - in order to explain all the subtleties, this thing will grow larger and larger. Considering how many editors believe that this stuff doesn't belong in the article at all, it already has more space than it deserves. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph, top to bottom, one point at a time

OK. Since I've been asked to discuss my edits to the paragraph, I am starting at the top. I propose we edit the first, long, complex sentence, which was two sentences before, back to two less long and complex sentences that we can agree on. Here is current:

Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance.

Here is my proposal:

U.S. gun rights advocates such as gun law litigator Stephen Halbrook, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, have argued that Nazi Party policies and laws were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance. Their arguments refer to laws that disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and to the later confiscation of arms arms in countries it occupied.

1. Winkler 2013, p. 236. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWinkler2013 (help)
2. Knox 1993, p. 286. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKnox1993 (help)
3. Harcourt 2004, p. 655. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)
4. ^ Harcourt 2004, p. 670,676. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)
5. ^ Halbrook 2000, p. 533,536. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHalbrook2000 (help)
6. ^ Halbrook 2000, p. 484. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHalbrook2000 (help)
7. Halbrook 2006, p. 113. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHalbrook2006 (help)
8. ^ LaPierre 1994, p. 88-87,167-168. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLaPierre1994 (help)
9. Harcourt 2004, p. 653-5. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarcourt2004 (help)

I gave most of my reasons for these changes in my discussions with Scolaire, and I've made some changes based on some of his comments. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the "US" part at the beginning, I do not see a problem with the splitting. There were multiple sources for international, which you removed and those should be included again. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That brings us back around to our unfinished discussion from March 20-21. Should we resume it up there, or should we move or copy that portion of that discussion down here? Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say copy it to a new section. That way consensus can be read in this section on the single issue of the split or not. And we can deal with international independently. I think the above sections are too cluttered to be useful at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably should have waited for Scolaire to opine, since he was the one who voiced opposition to the split above. 2 does not generally make a consensus, unless they are the only 2 to have said anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are John Dingle and Charlton heston removed? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I had not noticed that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

???? They should go back in. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are Dingle and Heston IN the article? Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

International debate?

Copied here from unfinished discussion of March 20-21

I removed "and others in the international debate on gun control" while we reconsider that statement and those sources. I have read them a couple times now and what they say - that is to say how what they say is used in this article - is hinky. Lightbreather (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources that explicitly say the argument is made internationally, is insufficient to say the argument is made internationally? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. Considering how contentious Nazi material is in any article, the dirth of high-quality sources for Nazi gun control is a problem. As I've said before, it ought to have its own article. Beyond that, to suggest that the argument is as significant internationally as it is among its fringe American adherents? The sources do not support it.

Here is what I re-wrote - including the "and others in the international debate" material (in italics) and excluding the inline citations (those for "and others" follows text snippet):

Gun rights advocates such as Congressman John Dingell, NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre, litigator and author Stephen Halbrook, and JFPO leader Aaron Zelman, and others in the international debate have said that Nazi Party policies and laws, which disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, while relaxing firearms restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens, and which later confiscated arms in countries it occupied, were an enabling factor in the Holocaust that prevented its victims from implementing an effective resistance.

The sources for the "and others" material are these:

• "Chapman, Simon (2013). Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press. ISBN 9781743320310." and
• "Brown, R. Blake (2012). Arming and disarming: a history of gun control in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442646391."

In a barely one-page section titled "Hitler tried to disarm the Germans," Simon (Australian) wrote: "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany." He gives a one-sentence quote by "Queensland's Ian McNiven," and a two-sentence quote (a what-if question and answer) by an unnamed editor of Guns Australia. There are no citations for the source of either quote. That is to say, he attributes the quotes to those persons, but doesn't cite where he got the quotes.

McNiven sounds like Australia's own Wayne LaPierre, so we could probably find some material by/about him re: Nazi gun control, though how good the quality?

Brown (Canadian) wrote: "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearms owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." This appears to be from Chapter 6, "Flexing the Liberal State's Muscles: The Montreal Massacre and the 1995 Firearms Act, 1980-2006," but no organization or person is named, and his source(s) is/are hard to verify (from the URL we give anyway). Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for. We are not stating that the argument is as influential or as notable outside the US, but it is a verifiable fact that it was made outside the US, as these pro-control reliable sources clearly verify. The ADL citation is in the section already, and the "throw a scare" line is from the Aronsen article in the previous sentence. It is not necessary to re-cite sources for every sentence that they support. I am reverting these changes as they removed valuable information. Please slow down your edits and get feedback on them before making the changes. This is already a contentious enough section, and making many sequential edits makes it difficult to deal with them on an individual basis. As to putting this content into a WP:FRINGE ghetto, Im quite happy to have a larger article on the topic, but it should not be removed from this one in this WP:SUMMARY form. This is a subjective political argument, the application of WP:FRINGE is mistaken, but even if it were a scientific fact, its notability would still require some level of coverage. For example global warming denialism is covered in about this same depth as this is, in the main global warming article. Global_Warming#Discussion_by_the_public_and_in_popular_media Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to call it a night, but I'll leave this question: To what were you referring when you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for"? As well as, how these edits improved the article? Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Above, you complained that Chapman and Brown do not provide their own citations for their sources. WP:V and WP:RS are not recursive. Saying that "people have made this argument" is not an exceptional claim that requires any exceptional sourcing. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler ". That source alone is sufficient to say the argument extends beyond the US. I agree that the argument is less notable outside the US, and has gained less traction - but our agreement as to that point is worthless WP:OR without a source makign that comparison - but we do have very clear neutral sources explicitly documenting its use outside the US, and clearly it was notable enough to respond to. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Backing up just a little, you wrote, "Reliable sources do not require internal citations for us to double verify, particularly for something innocuous as it was being used for." I don't think any part of this discussion is innocuous. And that the argument is international is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that requires multiple, high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Calling this exceptional is ridiculous. If a political argument magically restricted itself to arbitrary geographical boundaries - that would be exceptional. The reverse is almost the default.
2. We do have multiple sources.
3. And no, nowhere in WP:V or WP:RS do we have requirements to go check reliable sources own sources.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" is an awfully strong word, so could you please clarify what "this" is that you say is innocuous/unexceptional? Also, we have two sources, and not particularly strong ones for the claim that the debate is international. And, we may not be required to check a source's sources, but we are talking about a controversial statement, that there's an international debate re Nazi gun control. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and wp:undue apply here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The book abour Canada presented as evidence that "the argument extends beyond the US." makes only one reference to Hitler in a sentence where it says some brought up Hitler and Stalin in the debate. It does not refer to any of Hitler's legislation or how it related to gun control. It certainly does not establish notability. There are lots of things covered extensively in the book that do not belong in this article, for example the debate over removing the right of Irish Catholic canal workers to have firearms in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that gaijin has shown very well that "and others in the international debate on gun control" is more than appropriate, and there is certainly no consensus to remove the material, please replace it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A 'debate' would involve more than one group of participants - where is the evidence that anyone outside the US has taken this facile analogy seriously enough to bother responding to it with more than the derision and contempt documented in the Chapman book? Of course, if we are going to include the Australian 'debate', we will have some nice quotes - like the Sydney Morning Herald writers dismissive suggestion that the "more valid comparison is between the cunning propaganda practised by the shooters and the Nazis". Or are only pro-gun Nazi analogies to be permitted in this article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the content, because it shouldn't have been removed without agreement. However, I agree with Andy on this one. Two unrelated books written outside the US do not make an "international debate". I think the paragraph looks better without that bit than with it. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire Is there any doubt that the argument has been made by those outside the US, and that those outside the US have responded to the argument? If your objection is the wording "international debate" is there some other wording that would be more acceptable that would still indicate that the argument is not exclusive to those in the US? (There are other sources previously in the various archives, showing use of the argument in at least Brazil and UK I believe as well) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any 'international debate' beyond a fringe minority of pro-gun lobbyists making the argument, and being dismissed with derision - it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy to make out that such arguments have had any serious traction outside the US. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, as has already been pointed out, the supposed 'Brazil' source actually referred not to a local debate, but to attempts by the NRA or their confederates to interfere in the domestic politics of Brazil. The UK source referred to nothing more than another fringe gun-lobby group raising the argument, and being treated with contempt - the mainstream UK gun lobby wanted nothing to do with such nonsense. I suggest that you actually read what sources say before you cite them again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO we really need to start with straightforward coverage of gun control in Nazi Germany. What happened when. And since most of debate happens in the US, such is inherently significant on a world scale coverage of the topic, at least enough for inclusion. The fact that the Nazi meme is a factor in other countries only adds to this. To do otherwise would be like saying that you can't discuss giraffes in an article about the world's animals because they are Africa-centric. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We already discuss Nazi gun control in the appropriate place - in our article on Gun legislation in Germany, where it belongs. And no, what happens in the US isn't 'world scale' - and I find it frankly astonishing that anyone could seriously make such an assertion on a Misplaced Pages talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you misstated what I said into a straw man /caricature version of it in a way that deprecates me. I'm not going to engage with you on those comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When governments do thinks someone does not like, someone may call them names, such as Nazis or Communists. These epithets come up in all debates. For example Archbishop Garnsworthy compared the Ontario premier to Adolph Hitler, when the government extended Catholic School funding. "This is how Hitler changed education in Germany...." (See Lewis Garnsworthy#Separate school funding.) Does that mean we add a section on education in Germany to the debate over religious school funding? TFD (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I respect you a great deal, even though we are often on opposite sides of issues. I consider you to be immensely intelligent, and you stick to the top few levels of the "pyramid" in your approach. Even with the good folks, I really don't want to re-enter a cycle of just trading talking points. But if you would ever like to enter into an organized, logical dissection of this and debate of the points (where I try to convince you and you try to convince me) I think that that would be a useful. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The handful of sources have been discussed at length here and on other talk pages. This is NOT an international debate. Period. What is in this article is already more than there should be. Everyone should remember at all times re this: the last time there was an RfD on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST having ANY of it here. I call on Gaijin and North to let this go. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to let the international bit go, because atm there are bigger fish to fry, but its plain stupid that we have a reliable pro-control source explicitly saying the argument is made internationally, and the response is essentially "lalala no its not because I said so. period.". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Chapman 2013, p. 221. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFChapman2013 (help)
2. ^ Brown 2012, p. 218. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBrown2012 (help)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Start-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics