| Revision as of 19:44, 1 February 2014 editSue Rangell (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,776 edits →Global gun cultures: note← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:05, 1 February 2014 edit undoDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,336 edits →Global gun culturesNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| :::I disagree, Gaijin--I think there's plenty of content here, and different enough from content about laws. We're having enough trouble already keeping politics and attitudes out of the more legal and historical articles, so let's not throw this into the mix. Sure, the two are related, but so are popes and saints. Or popes and Renaults. If SCOTUS saw the light and reinterpreted the 2nd amendment tomorrow (to read it the way the Founding Fathers intended! haha) we'd still have a gun culture(s) in the US, probably even more of one. ] (]) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | :::I disagree, Gaijin--I think there's plenty of content here, and different enough from content about laws. We're having enough trouble already keeping politics and attitudes out of the more legal and historical articles, so let's not throw this into the mix. Sure, the two are related, but so are popes and saints. Or popes and Renaults. If SCOTUS saw the light and reinterpreted the 2nd amendment tomorrow (to read it the way the Founding Fathers intended! haha) we'd still have a gun culture(s) in the US, probably even more of one. ] (]) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{u|Drmies}} How are popes related to French cars? (Or is there some obscure Catholic term Renault that we don't have mentioned? (Is the popemobile a Renault or something?) I see the relationship as a feedback loop. The dominant culture controls the growth, constraint, or reduction of gun laws/habits. That in turn affects the next generation of culture. With of course the standard pendulum swing common to many cultural cycles. Occasionally there are major disruptive forces in the cycle that can change things drastically in a short time (wars, mass shootings, terrorism, revolutions) but the two are very closely linked. Certainly in the case of the US I think it would be futile to talk about the politics without the culture, and visa versa, and in other countries where the law has brought ownership down to negligible levels there is not much culture to talk about. (Although your comment on the other split/merge discussion I thought was insightful, if there was enough sourced content to give detail to each sub-culture, I could see that breakout being valuable, but right now the "US gun culture" is pretty much just talking about the NRA etc. ] (]) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ::::{{u|Drmies}} How are popes related to French cars? (Or is there some obscure Catholic term Renault that we don't have mentioned? (Is the popemobile a Renault or something?) I see the relationship as a feedback loop. The dominant culture controls the growth, constraint, or reduction of gun laws/habits. That in turn affects the next generation of culture. With of course the standard pendulum swing common to many cultural cycles. Occasionally there are major disruptive forces in the cycle that can change things drastically in a short time (wars, mass shootings, terrorism, revolutions) but the two are very closely linked. Certainly in the case of the US I think it would be futile to talk about the politics without the culture, and visa versa, and in other countries where the law has brought ownership down to negligible levels there is not much culture to talk about. (Although your comment on the other split/merge discussion I thought was insightful, if there was enough sourced content to give detail to each sub-culture, I could see that breakout being valuable, but right now the "US gun culture" is pretty much just talking about the NRA etc. ] (]) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::As you have seen I don't yet believe in the viability of the US gun culture article and have argued for it to be merged. That's not so for this article, which is viable and full of content. As for the pope, certainly you read . ] (]) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''{{big|KEEP}}''' per ], ] and ], (or if all else fails, '''Move''' per ]). The nomination appears to be defective. (Did the ] read and comply with the relevant parts of ]?) No consensus developed for the proposed merge mentioned. The claim that the article was "edited exclusively by it's creator" is false, the nominator was the 5th editor to make changes. () One of the objections to ] was its lack of global coverage (]), which this new article can provide. The article is not a POV fork because instead of a USA-only POV, it can provide multi-national viewpoints. Culture goes beyond laws and politics. {{xt|"Notability is a property of a ''subject'' and not of a Misplaced Pages article."}} is and has been a notable subject for decades. ...] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) | *'''{{big|KEEP}}''' per ], ] and ], (or if all else fails, '''Move''' per ]). The nomination appears to be defective. (Did the ] read and comply with the relevant parts of ]?) No consensus developed for the proposed merge mentioned. The claim that the article was "edited exclusively by it's creator" is false, the nominator was the 5th editor to make changes. () One of the objections to ] was its lack of global coverage (]), which this new article can provide. The article is not a POV fork because instead of a USA-only POV, it can provide multi-national viewpoints. Culture goes beyond laws and politics. {{xt|"Notability is a property of a ''subject'' and not of a Misplaced Pages article."}} is and has been a notable subject for decades. ...] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Are the article ] and other editors aware that they may <ins>continue to improve</ins> the article while in AfD? Since this article contains some content ] from ], the "principal editors" of that page should have been notified about this AfD (and the merge discussion). In particular, ] exclusively edited in the section that was transferred to this article, ] added the Synthesis tag to that section (among other edits), and briefly, ], ], ], ] and ] made significant contributions to that article. (Filter: 3+ edits, still active.) ...] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Are the article ] and other editors aware that they may <ins>continue to improve</ins> the article while in AfD? Since this article contains some content ] from ], the "principal editors" of that page should have been notified about this AfD (and the merge discussion). In particular, ] exclusively edited in the section that was transferred to this article, ] added the Synthesis tag to that section (among other edits), and briefly, ], ], ], ] and ] made significant contributions to that article. (Filter: 3+ edits, still active.) ...] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| **I think we are all well aware that we can edit it, thank you. It's nice though not mandatory to notify editors, and I appreciate you doing it. I agree with your reasoning about the POV fork--if anything, this is a proper content fork. ] (]) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | **I think we are all well aware that we can edit it, thank you. It's nice though not mandatory to notify editors, and I appreciate you doing it. I agree with your reasoning about the POV fork--if anything, this is a proper content fork. ] (]) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ***Unless I missed something (I'm Human) I don't think anyone is calling it a POV fork. Definitely a content fork however, actually the article creates multiple forks. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]]</span></span> 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ***Unless I missed something (I'm Human) I don't think anyone is calling it a POV fork. Definitely a content fork however, actually the article creates multiple forks. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]]</span></span> 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ****At least three editors have called it a POV fork. I say it's a valid content fork, if it's to be called a fork at all. ] (]) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - And improve this article as it is obviously a notable topic. ] (]) 01:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - And improve this article as it is obviously a notable topic. ] (]) 01:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:05, 1 February 2014
Global gun cultures
- Global gun cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As seen HERE. This article was hastily created to take control of content that will be merged into the Gun politics in the United States from the Gun cultures in the USA article. Virtually all of the remaining content was cut and pasted from other areas of Misplaced Pages. The article is also edited exclusively by it's creator. This is basically a form of WP:PUSH behavior that not only creates MULTIPLE REDUNDANT CONTENT FORKS, but an article that fails notability requirements as well, since the content is already going to be merged into a larger article, and if not merged, remain where it is. (No new article is needed) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Of course Sue is entitled to her opinion about why the article was created, but the discussion that she points to gives the reasons why it was created. As does this discussion on the Gun cultures in the USA talk page. As does the suggestion (a sort of statement of intention) on the Global gun cultures talk page. Also, maybe she hasn't looked at it in the last 24 hours, but there's not much left in the Gun cultures in the USA article to merge into the Gun culture section of the Gun politics in the U.S. article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, that little "Find sources" tool above is great. I wonder of anyone in the WP firearms editor community has a copy of this? Open Fire. Understanding Global Gun Cultures Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- This editor follows me around and shouts "SPA" about me at everyone. Here is the latest discussion about this. Lightbreather (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather, please sign your posts. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Quit it, Sue, I will block you if you continue.--v/r - TP 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather, please sign your posts. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nom comment - As nom, per the above. Article info is duplicate info, content forking, and fails notability guidelines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- User is nom - appears to have voted twice. Hipocrite (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into Gun control. This is a fork of Gun control and Overview of gun laws by nation. "Global gun cultures" summarizes articles for each country about "gun politics", just as those two other articles do. TFD (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- weak delete per TFD. The gun culture of each country can be dealt with in each country's article, and if overview information is needed, that can go into the overview article. No reason to cover the same ground many places. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - as long as the intent for an article is not a hoax, autobiography, attack, or vandalism, the motive for creating an article shouldn't matter. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- DELETE article is written like a soup sandwich and poorly sourced. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- DELETE or merge into Gun control. This is a POV fork attempt.Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. This article seems to have been created based on a Reuters article that is written in a way to suggest itself was based on a need to fill space on Reuters' website. But I could be wrong. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to the Overview of gun laws by nation page. The same info is already on that page. Also, it has more comprehensive coverage.--RAF910 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- REDIRECT per RAF910. Otherwise delete as a POV fork.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Meh. Keep, for now. Not a great article, but I don't see how this is a POV fork--it's hardly not-neutral beyond salvation. As an overview article, it could be very useful. As for the proposed redirect, there is a great difference between gun culture and gun laws/legislation (I mean, duh). That the article is supposedly badly sourced right now is not a valid reason for deletion. Gaijin42, I don't know what overview article you mean--can you enlighten us? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies While you are correct that culture is different than laws, with the minimal amount of content here,even if it is slightly off-topic, I see no reason why that could not be included on the article about laws (since the two are often tightly interrelated) Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation. (With obviously Gun Politics in XXXX having the info for each individual country as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree, Gaijin--I think there's plenty of content here, and different enough from content about laws. We're having enough trouble already keeping politics and attitudes out of the more legal and historical articles, so let's not throw this into the mix. Sure, the two are related, but so are popes and saints. Or popes and Renaults. If SCOTUS saw the light and reinterpreted the 2nd amendment tomorrow (to read it the way the Founding Fathers intended! haha) we'd still have a gun culture(s) in the US, probably even more of one. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies How are popes related to French cars? (Or is there some obscure Catholic term Renault that we don't have mentioned? (Is the popemobile a Renault or something?) I see the relationship as a feedback loop. The dominant culture controls the growth, constraint, or reduction of gun laws/habits. That in turn affects the next generation of culture. With of course the standard pendulum swing common to many cultural cycles. Occasionally there are major disruptive forces in the cycle that can change things drastically in a short time (wars, mass shootings, terrorism, revolutions) but the two are very closely linked. Certainly in the case of the US I think it would be futile to talk about the politics without the culture, and visa versa, and in other countries where the law has brought ownership down to negligible levels there is not much culture to talk about. (Although your comment on the other split/merge discussion I thought was insightful, if there was enough sourced content to give detail to each sub-culture, I could see that breakout being valuable, but right now the "US gun culture" is pretty much just talking about the NRA etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- As you have seen I don't yet believe in the viability of the US gun culture article and have argued for it to be merged. That's not so for this article, which is viable and full of content. As for the pope, certainly you read this. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies How are popes related to French cars? (Or is there some obscure Catholic term Renault that we don't have mentioned? (Is the popemobile a Renault or something?) I see the relationship as a feedback loop. The dominant culture controls the growth, constraint, or reduction of gun laws/habits. That in turn affects the next generation of culture. With of course the standard pendulum swing common to many cultural cycles. Occasionally there are major disruptive forces in the cycle that can change things drastically in a short time (wars, mass shootings, terrorism, revolutions) but the two are very closely linked. Certainly in the case of the US I think it would be futile to talk about the politics without the culture, and visa versa, and in other countries where the law has brought ownership down to negligible levels there is not much culture to talk about. (Although your comment on the other split/merge discussion I thought was insightful, if there was enough sourced content to give detail to each sub-culture, I could see that breakout being valuable, but right now the "US gun culture" is pretty much just talking about the NRA etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree, Gaijin--I think there's plenty of content here, and different enough from content about laws. We're having enough trouble already keeping politics and attitudes out of the more legal and historical articles, so let's not throw this into the mix. Sure, the two are related, but so are popes and saints. Or popes and Renaults. If SCOTUS saw the light and reinterpreted the 2nd amendment tomorrow (to read it the way the Founding Fathers intended! haha) we'd still have a gun culture(s) in the US, probably even more of one. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies While you are correct that culture is different than laws, with the minimal amount of content here,even if it is slightly off-topic, I see no reason why that could not be included on the article about laws (since the two are often tightly interrelated) Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation. (With obviously Gun Politics in XXXX having the info for each individual country as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- KEEP per WP:SAVE, WP:PRESERVE and WP:SUMMARY, (or if all else fails, Move per WP:Drafts). The nomination appears to be defective. (Did the nominator read and comply with the relevant parts of Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations?) No consensus developed for the proposed merge mentioned. The claim that the article was "edited exclusively by it's creator" is false, the nominator was the 5th editor to make changes. (My edit) One of the objections to Gun cultures in the USA was its lack of global coverage (Template:globalize/West), which this new article can provide. The article is not a POV fork because instead of a USA-only POV, it can provide multi-national viewpoints. Culture goes beyond laws and politics. "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Misplaced Pages article." Gun culture is and has been a notable subject for decades. ...172.129.246.164 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Are the article creator and other editors aware that they may continue to improve the article while in AfD? Since this article contains some content split from Gun cultures in the USA, the "principal editors" of that page should have been notified about this AfD (and the merge discussion). In particular, User:Ef80 exclusively edited in the section that was transferred to this article, User:Trilobitealive added the Synthesis tag to that section (among other edits), and briefly, User:Kevinp2, User:Ekabhishek, User:Hoplon, User:BillyTFried and User:AliveFreeHappy made significant contributions to that article. (Filter: 3+ edits, still active.) ...172.129.246.164 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think we are all well aware that we can edit it, thank you. It's nice though not mandatory to notify editors, and I appreciate you doing it. I agree with your reasoning about the POV fork--if anything, this is a proper content fork. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something (I'm Human) I don't think anyone is calling it a POV fork. Definitely a content fork however, actually the article creates multiple forks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- At least three editors have called it a POV fork. I say it's a valid content fork, if it's to be called a fork at all. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I missed something (I'm Human) I don't think anyone is calling it a POV fork. Definitely a content fork however, actually the article creates multiple forks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think we are all well aware that we can edit it, thank you. It's nice though not mandatory to notify editors, and I appreciate you doing it. I agree with your reasoning about the POV fork--if anything, this is a proper content fork. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - And improve this article as it is obviously a notable topic. BillyTFried (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note - If all of the duplicate material were removed, there would be no article to speak of. Whatever remained would rightfully be merged into the main articles anyway. The entire article is just a series of content forks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)