Talk:Gun control

"Homicide" / fluid terms

While the common meaning of homicide is murder of one human by another the technical one is the killing of one human by another. Folks who want to make the homicide figures look higher can use the latter definition, which includes, for example shooting of people by the police or military, or in self defense. For example, if someone kills someone in self defense using a gun, this is counted by some of them as a "homicide" and of course "due" to the presence of the gun. Additions regarding studies should explore and clarify exactly what the study used as a definition of a "homicide".

(BTW, another common one is counting suicides as "use of a gun against a family member" because technically a person is a family member of themselves.) North8000 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And please don't forget that this is the global article. It's not just about the USA. It covers the other 95% of the world's population as well. You will find it very difficult to get precise definitions for the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess what I meant is that these two are cases where there is available a technical meaning which is very different than the common meaning and that some utilize that disparity. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. It's possible to find statistics that will support almost any view. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there do not appear to be any stats in the article, the discussion appears to be moot. However, police typically only report figures for cases they treat as criminal homicide, which would include cases such as George Zimmerman who was found not guilty based on self-defense. In 2007 U.S. police killed 391 people and citizens killed 254 people in self-defense.[1] It is not a major part of the approx 10,000 gun homicides per year and does not explain why for example the U.S. gun homicide rate is five times more than Canada, which itself has a relatively high gun homicide rate among industrialized countries. TFD (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The FBI includes both sets in their numbers (though they are relatively small as you state). Suicides are also included, and that however is a very large number. That still does leave the 10k number. In comparing to Canada, I am somewhat surprised the delta is not higher (its only 5x) considering how much lower Canada's gun ownership is. "—In 2010, 31,672 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.5 percent of all injury deaths in that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2 percent) and homicide (35.0 percent). The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) was 10.1 in 2010, unchanged from the rate in 2009. The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide increased 3.4 percent in 2010 from 2009, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3 percent." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Injuries from lawn mowers are also higher in countries where more people own lawn mowers.North8000 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Canada's gun ownership rate is 30.8 guns per hundred people compared with 88.8 in the U.S.[2] But a number of those homicides are gang-related and they are able to buy guns smuggled from the U.S. TFD (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The USA also has about 160,000 deaths per year from doctor errors. Much more than countries that have few or no doctors. More doctors = more deaths from doctor errors.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be that high levels of gun homicides are perfectly acceptable. If you find a source that says that is a significant view, then we can add it. But it is not a conclusion we can make among ourselves and add to the article. TFD (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

North - neither lawn mowers nor doctors are the subject of this article. Please drop that nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it was germane to the tangent that this thread has gone off on.  :-) :-) The thread was really about just clarity of terms, especially when a "technically true" definition is available which conflicts with the common meaning of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

North8000, this talk page is for discussions of the article, not to chat about whatever you want. You've made several comments have don't appear to have any relation to improving the article. Please keep your comments on topic, or your comments may be removed. — goethean 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hilo, you misunderstand North's point. He is using an "analogy", not trying to make the article about lawn mowers or hospitals . For examples Suicides are the majority of US firearms deaths. Firearms are one method of suicide and the data suggests that a total absence of firearms doesn't change the rate of suicide death much, but rather the method of suicides. The real suicide number relevant and attributable to firearms in the US is between 200 to 1,200 (the studies show an elevation of between 1 and 6%.). Slightly less important but also notable are say firearms accidents. Hunting is an outdoor sport with health benefits like bike riding, kayaking etc. Yet owning a bike or Kayak when counting individuals against general pop, or jurisdictions with higher ownership rates, creates an elevated early death risk from those activities. Thirdly there is very god evidence that when it comes to gun murder the vast majority (80 to 90%) of victims are criminals. If people are engaging in a very high risk lifestyle (gang membership, meth production, part time mugger, armed robber, etc). In other words there is a different set of rational number than the aggregates thrown out there. They would be, say 600 suicides that occur because of guns; and 1,500 to 3,000 murders of non criminals.13:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.227.93 (talk)

108.48.227.93, how does this relate to improving the article? — goethean 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It indicates that "homicide = bad" is something that should not be implied, even though it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to actually use that in the article in regard the homicide statistics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

IP, those are anti-gun control arguments which may or may not belong in the article, but we need to take arguments from sources, not make them ourselves. See "No original research". Research btw shows that there is a link between gun ownership and suicide.[3] TFD (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control Statistics should be presented that show that Violence in America has decreased significantly over time while many other countries have simply hit a plateau.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dab1994 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Progress?

Can we finally get rid of the templates at the top? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not, considering that User:North8000 and User:Gaijin42 just removed the merge template through edit warring. This article is clearly a POV fork of gun politics.

Why is there a history of gun control in Germany both at this article and at Gun politics in Germany? Because certain editors find it amenable to their ideology to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis, which is propaganda straight out of the NRA playbook. Shameful. — goethean 00:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the false accusations against editors.North8000 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Gothean, wait a minute, we've debated, lambasted, argued, cajoled, and ridiculed that subject to death. There's no clear consensus (or apparently compelling evidence) that either is a fork of the other or that either is a distinguishable sub-topic of the other.

Are there subjects regarding gun politics that have nothing to do with "control", yes. Are the subjects related to gun control all "political" in way or another, yes. We all seem to agree on this, but it doesn't get us any closer to a solution. Interested in trying to take a strictly clinical approach to this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How about starting by providing a reliable source that explains why and how discourse over the regulation of firearms can usefully be subdivided into 'control' and 'politics'? Or is asking for a source too 'clinical'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Andy, just curious, but how much effort have you put into finding one since you are the staunchest of the editors asking for it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. TFD (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, conversely, ask for one that says they are the same topic. WP:RS's do not write about Wikipedia disputes, which is what such a specialized question would be. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since clearly there is still a dispute over whether the articles should be merged - and there will continue to be unless and until it is demonstrated in reliable sources that there are two different subjects - the templates must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, probably inadvertently you have tried one of the oldest tricks in the talk page book. Which is to try for "my/a view automatically/by default stands unless the other guy meets a very high bar for proving his". And to illustrate, I stated the equally (in)valid converse. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in responding to your repetitive stonewalling BS. It is a fact that there is a dispute over whether the subject of the regulation of firearms can legitimately be subdivided in the way it is - and therefore the templates must remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you not be so nasty and rude? Including mis-stating and mis-characterizing my comments. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, your demand is backwards. Sources do not address the infinite pairs of topics that are disparate. Can you find a wp:rs source that says that a Ferrari is a different topic than a goldfish? A claim that they are one and them same is what would need to be supported by sources, and such would plausibly exist if such were the case. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This article clearly not a POV fork. Type Gun Control into Google and you get 700million returns! How can anyone for a second, with a straight face, attempt to argue that this does not merit it's own article????? All the major newsinfotainment providers have sections dedicated to gun control. It's a POV push to try to delete or fold this article into something else. Some people out there are trying to rebrand themselves as "gun safety" and the term "gun control" doesn't quite fit with their new brand. Tough, it's what society calls this to the tune of 700million articles! The template can go, this is an established topic and it is stand alone. Now even if in some bizzaro world this were a pov fork, it's big enough and diverse enough to merit it's own article. Look at Climate Change there is an article for global warming and an article for global cooling and an article for global warming politics. I mean, seriously, can we stop this nonsense. Gun Control is an article. It might be related to gun politics but it merits its own article.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Then it needs to follow WP:SS rather than creating a hodgepodge of NRA propaganda bullshit in an attempt to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis. — goethean 15:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I've been advocating a significant rewrite of this article for some time - just look at the archives. The problem is that it's very contentious and editing this is difficult. As an aside, I just reverted your removal of 4,000+b of data from the article. Please get consensus on the talk page before starting to make radical edits, especially deletions of this magnitude. Please don't edit war. Let's figure it out here.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We could rename this article "gun control conspiracy theories", then we could keep the nazi stuff and add door-to-door gun confiscations. TFD (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious forum about improving this article. I'm for rewriting the article. Let's get consensus on the direction of the article here and then we can edit. Ridiculous statements are not constructive. Let's be constructive.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's be constructive. I removed the Nazi material from the article. You added it back in and (somewhat hilariously) accused me of vandalism. If I vandalized the article, then you need to start a WP:AN/I thread on my vandalism. Otherwise, I will regard your accusation as just another piece of nonsensical rhetoric.

The addition of the material is indefensible. It was added in order to paint supporters of gun control as Nazis. It is NRA bullshit propaganda. Anyone replacing that garbage is guilty of flagrantly violating the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. Removal of the Nazi material is non-negotiable. — goethean 16:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, my statement was that your actions could be described as "close to vandalism" -- let's be precise but they were inappropriate because you didn't have consensus here. There are other editors here who value the large block of information you deleted summarily without consensus. Let's get consensus. Please feel free to open up a talk section on the edits your propose and see what the other established editors here have to say. Have a good day. Note, my talk page is off limits to you for use of profanity and vulgar language. Please discuss the article improvements here. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't see the letters NYC is sending out confiscating .22 bolt action rifles then. The information is sourced. MANY MORE sources are readily available User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments There have been multiple RFCs none of which indicated support for removal of this information, except for the cabal of you 3. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that's well sourced Gaijin42. It's happening in NYC. Thank you for your patience in dealing with these contentious articles. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NOT THE NYC BOLT-ACTION RIFLES!! OH THE HUMANITY... — goethean 16:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. This is not a forum for your general comments goethean. Please discuss article improvements.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, you have clearly demonstrated what I've been arguing for some time - that this article, which purports to be giving a multi-national perspective on the issue, is instead driven exclusively by U.S. discourse. This is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy, and a further reason why this article is problematic. We already have two U.S.-based articles on the subject, and there is no justification whatsoever in having more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and gun control RFC

1. Are authoritarian uses of gun control (in particular Nazi, but others as well) sufficiently sourced by reliable sources (See list of possible nazi sources [[4]])
2. Is coverage of such gun control appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article

Survey

• Yes and yes, as nominator. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to both, at least a paragraph. With all those refs it could have it's own article. Though a lot more links to (or, if not available, quotes from) sources on your talk page would help advance your argument. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• 1. Yes and 2. Yes - Well sourced examples of gun control in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (all regimes for that matter), both present and historical, are appropriate in an article of this nature.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and yes. Well sourced and relevant. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nein & Nyet. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment This is the english language Wikipedia. Please use english language. Also the use of German and Russian in a topic that touches the holocaust could seen as an affront and be misconstrued or construed as a hate speech. We might want to remove this vote in a non English language. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It would take a seriously warped mind to construe an emphatic "nyet" as "hate speech". No one is being oppressed here. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Chill out. a13ean (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda put about by fringe elements of the NRA. The suggestion that firearms regulation was in any way a significant issue in the establishment on Nazi control of Germany is entirely rejected by all serious historians - and the efforts of crude pro-gun propagandists to imply a linkage should accordingly be treated as the pseudohistorical fringe viewpoint it is. Which is to say, ignored entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gee, look at all those contemporary news sources like the new york times and le monde discussing jewsish disarmament. I had no idea the NRA had such influence back then! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is the NRA being mentioned? Andy you wouldn't be looking to suppress historical facts just because you don't agree with them would you? THis is not about politics. It's about an article, the facts, notability, and Wikipedia. If you have an agenda, please leave it hanging on the hook by the door when you came in.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have an 'agenda' - to see that Wikipedias coverage of firearms regulation issues isn't abused by factions of the U.S. gun lobby, as has repeatedly been the case here. And as for history, you appear not to know the slightest thing on the subject, otherwise you wouldn't be repeating the falsehoods already made regarding Nazi Germany - where the Nazis actually relaxed firearms regulation, except as part of a general process of removing citizenship rights from specific sectors of the population. That is the real history, as written by real historians, rather than by pro-gun propagandists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes & Yes It should be straightforward coverage of history and situations. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously not. Anyone remotely familiar with the topic can see that the "History" section was put together in order to paint supporters of gun control in the worst light possible. This is not how Wikipedia should be written. The section clearly needs to be completely re-written from beginning to end with the goal of neutral description and the use of good sources rather than the indefensible hack job we have now. — goethean 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The need for a rewrite and editing is an entirely different topic than that under discussion in the RFC which is if the information should be included (or as you argue, excluded by policy). That the current content may be poor is not a valid reason the say the information cannot be included in some other form. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, what we have here is a piece of shit article written with the very worst of intentions and which flagrantly violates Wikipedia's core policy. You insist that the very worst part of it must stay. Your insistence on keeping the very worst of a very bad article is what is standing in the way of a better article. — goethean 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - and so noted in many reliable sources [5], not even listed so far and Yes for that same reason. Ascribing scholarly articles and authors to being from "fringe elements of the NRA" would require specific and strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Collect, you know who Stephen Halbrook is, right? (...not really considered to be a neutral player in this game, to put it mildly.) Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Drmies ;) As you are no doubt aware, reliable sources are not required to be neutral or objective, but in any case, per the link in my RFC post halbrook is but one of the many sources discussing this topic :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

...and you seem to have deliberately avoided using neutral sources when plenty are available, instead using one which supports an extreme political ideology. — goethean 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Gaijin. But let me note that my "opposite" of "the Nazis used gun control to oppress the Jews" isn't "the Nazis didn't use gun control to oppress the Jews, but rather "I don't see how it matters". For starters, wouldn't we need to know what gun ownership among German Jews was, relative to that among non-Jewish Germans, so we could figure out if any of that mattered in the first place? One of your sources in that list notes that Nazis went around doing house searches for "guns and papers"--wanna guess what they were most likely to find, and what was more dangerous to own and to be caught with? (And seriously, published in a real journal or not, we should avoid citing clearly and self-identified partisan sources.) Drmies (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to say why something matters or does not matter to any observer -- only that if a scholarly source states that it appears to matter to the source, and that such a position is given due weight in the article. In the case at hand, the person does not appear to be an "NRS nutcase", and thus the claim must be presented in the article. And IIRC Wikipedia does not require all sources to be "neutral" so if you find that a strong reason, then I suggest you try amending WP:RS - I think the exercise might have interesting results. [6] presents the view that Hitler actually eased gun restrictions ("The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. " sure looks like a large percentage of the population was outright banned from gun possession from here, but YMMV). The comment about the Versailles Treaty-imposed confiscation of guns seems a tad useless in this argument, to be sure. Cheers -- WP:RS is policy whether one likes an author or not. Collect (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes --but it would have to be rewritten to include non-authoritarian regimes that practice gun control. Markewilliams (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly not Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform for fringe NRA elements trying to sell historical revisionism about gun control. MilesMoney (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes & Yes. There are two approaches to gun control. One approach would be to simply outlaw types of firearms much as land mines are being outlawed. The second is to restrict ownership and/or use of such firearms to a privileged class of individuals. Where the second type of gun control is utilized, it is entirely appropriate to describe the origins of the class differentiation and any subsequent class behavior modifications of the armed and disarmed populations. The second type of gun control will inevitably generate divergent points of view depending upon perception of the privileged class by the person stating that point of view.Thewellman (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• No and well that depends. See below. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse: My only previous involvement on this topic was as a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer, and I only volunteer to work on cases where I am neutral. I really do not favor one side or the other in this dispute. I do, however, insist that whatever the result of this RfC is, all sources used must conform to WP:RS and the article must conform to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. These are community standards and can not be overridden by an RfC on a particular dispute.

I would also strongly suggest that this should be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved administrator with experience in closing controversial RfCs, and that the closer also look at Talk:Gun control/Archive 3#RFC: Section on Association of Gun control with authoritarianism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gun Control, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control, and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13#Gun Control DR/N in order to get a fuller picture of what the community consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• No Gundamentalists in the U.S. routinely bring up the false view that the nazis came to power through gun control and people who support gun control are therefore like nazis. WP:FRINGE dictates that we do not provide parity of this view with what informed sources say. TFD (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a very strong bias you have. I agree in part that there is a nuanced and complex story to be told regarding Nazi-ism and their slaughtering of 6million souls. We can't keep one aspect of this out just because it doesn't line up perfectly with our agenda.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. Goethean's first comment in the threaded discussion pretty much sums up my thoughts on this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes the use of gun control by Nazi Germany (and other authoritarian regimes) is a historical fact, and we shouldn't censor history in order to try to paint gun control in a more positive light. Hitler and Mao are both on the record stating that the disarmament of their opposition was an important means to their political ends. ROG5728 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please cite that record, if you can. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I already cited both of those quotes earlier in this discussion. ROG5728 (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're citing table talk there, for Hitler. And it works both ways: you focus only on denying guns to certain parties, where it's just as valid to point at the other side--allowing guns to other parties. On that same talk page you said "The fact that the Nazis relaxed their gun laws for the rest of the population is not relevant to the issue of the Holocaust or the massacre of the Jews," which is nothing but an opinion, and a rather baffling one at that. You'd have to prove, if you wanted to make this stick, that disarming Jews had some kind of relevant impact on the Holocaust. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Duh and duh, otherwise known as yes and yes. Seriously? Nazis rather famously restricted the availability of guns, right? So is that not relevant to an article on policies restricting the availability of guns? Red Slash 01:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They didn't--at least not as verified by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Red Slash, even the sources cited here make it clear that the weapons were seized by pogrom, not "policy" in any civic sense related to what we call "policy". SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and yes per nominator Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• 1: No as regards Nazi Germany (as regards "other authoritarian regimes" see my comment immediately below). Any and all sources that I have seen refer to the restriction of the possession of guns by Jews in Nazi Germany, not to a general gun control policy. This is, of course, what is dealt with in the article, and this is reflected in the section heading: "Nazi disarmament of German Jews". 2: No. Keeping guns out of the hands of an ethnic minority for the purpose of their repression does not fall within the remit of the article as spelled out in the article lead. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So it is your position that in general, laws about X that are discriminatorally targeted at group Y are not actually laws about X? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a leading question and I decline to answer it. If you want to take it up in the discussion section, feel free. Scolaire (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The inclusion in the RfC questions of the phrase "in particular Nazi, but others as well" is a red herring. The ongoing discussion has hinged on Nazis and Jews, not on some vague all-encompassing concept of authoritarianism. In the article as it stands, Tsarist Russia is dealt with very differently to Nazi Germany. Whether the treatment of Tsarist Russia is appropriate is a question worthy of discussion, but the two should not be linked as they are in the two questions. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• No Coverage of Nazi gun laws is inappropriate in this article per Drmies and others. GabrielF (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have notified previous RFC commenters (both pro and con), and will shortly also notify the relevant noticeboards and wikiperojects so to get a wider audience for this discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a survey is a good idea. In addition there is well established policy such as WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and many others that support inclusion of relevant content regardless of what a majority survey would return. Frankly it's sad state of sophistry in the Wiki that we're having to talk about this.-16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanonymous (talk • contribs)

• Well, gee...let's see. What if we described Italian history by only talking about Mussolini? Would that be neutral? What if we described Spanish history by only talking about Franco? Would that be neutral? What if we described English history by only talking about the Boston Massacre? Would that be neutral? What if we only described the Republican Party by talking about Abu Ghraib? Would that be neutral? What if we described the history of the United States by only talking about My Lai? Would that be neutral? Well here we are describing the history of gun control by talking about gun control in the USSR and when the Nazis took guns away from German Jews before they gassed them in the Holocaust. And you think that that's neutral. — goethean 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we add Nazi Pro Gun Rights for Jews in the 1930s? Can you add some links here to that research please? I think we might be able to get consensus on that but remember this article is about gun control. It might be more appropriate in a gun rights page. Also please remember that 4-6 million jews lost their lives during the holocaust. Let's be respectful in dealing with this subject. It touches the personal lives of many. Joking around and nontopical entries are very inappropriate. Some editors here might have lost a family member to the holocaust and WWII or some other genocide.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

'Respect' would start by not exploiting the deaths of millions for crude pro-gun propaganda purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the Jewish community would ask that we remember these atrocities and to write about them so it's not forgotten. Regardless, according to Wikipedia rules, this merits inclusion. So your comment is irrelevant.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What rule is that? Please link to the Wikipedia policy you have in mind. — goethean 17:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm proposing that you consider beginning to follow Wikipedia NPOV policy rather than using this article as a propaganda tool. Get a history of gun control written by a neutral scholar, rather than some NRA-funded hack. Summarize it neutrally. Follow Wikipedia policy rather than taking a dump on it. — goethean 16:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is one section in the article. It would also be a noticeably lack of NPOV to describe italy WITHOUT mussolini, or spain without Franco, etc. You have repeatedly advocated the complete censorship of this material - there is the lack of NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The section is not neutral. It was designed to propagandize, not to follow Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is unacceptable. Write a neutral history section, don't pick and choose things which support an extremist ideology. — goethean 16:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, the facts of history are facts and are notable. There is no NPOV violation just because you don't like it or it uncovers some part of history that you don't like or just because it doesn't fit with your little agenda. Noting historical facts are not an NPOV violation in and of themselves.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the facts of history are facts, huh? Mussolini was Italian. That's a fact. Therefore, all of Italian history can be summarized by talking about Mussolini. And that's neutral. No NPOV violation. Okay. — goethean 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is just about gun control, you can't be serious about summarizing all of Italian history here? And no we are not defining all of Italian history as the history of Mussolini. There were just some things that happened during his time that might be notable here. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My analogy is exactly spot on, if you will take the time to read it and understand it. This article attempts to tell the history of gun control. No neutral historian would ever list Nazi Germany in a neutral, balanced overview of the history of gun control. But there it is! Because we want to paint gun control supporters as Nazis! Let's just let Wayne LaPierre write Wikipedia articles, shall we? We'd end up with a better result than this garbage that you call neutral. — goethean 17:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So add Australia or other places where gun control has brought about a more fruitful society. I don't care. I just don't want us to censor valid history. If there are peaceful stable societies under strict gun control regimes, put it in. Modern day Australia seems to come to mind. Is that in there already?-Justanonymous (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

NRA propaganda is not valid history. Start over. Use history books rather than political pamphlets. Stop defending garbage. — goethean 18:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your garbage is another man's gem, who are you to decide -- who am I to decide. That's why we have WP:RS. If it meets the standard, it can go in.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, such a list would include just about every Western country besides the US--all of them with stricter gun laws, all of them with lower gun death numbers, and all of them with better cheese and better healthcare and happier people. Such is not the way to go, esp. not since it just leads to fights over who's got the better cheese. The mention of RS is kind of a ruse--lots of stuff can be reliably sourced, but not all of it is of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Prove it Drmies, WP:RS statements please and let's make sure that the French aren't running the statistics because we can argue about methodologies, stratified random samples all day long here. You're injecting your limited Eurocentric worldview into this and it's coming across and is not helpful. Everyone knows the best wine is from Sonoma - Stags Leap and everyone knows that Wisconsin cheese is the best. Let's just try to make the article better.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm limited indeed, after fifteen years in Alabama. What isn't helpful is this constant and tedious hammering on RS. Of course reliable sources are going to show that the Nazis tried to take guns away from the Jews. Duh. What you need to produce, and that's what Goethean is rightly challenging you to do, are reliable sources (not partisan hacks who have a platform in a peer-reviewed journal) that this is in any way relevant to the topic of gun control. Plus, I haven't seen anyone say anything yet about the rest of that German legislation, though I thought I pointed out clearly enough that this wasn't simply "Nazis are taking Jewish guns". It's also "Nazis are giving everyone else free guns", so to speak. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to including that the germans gave weapons to the favored group while taking weapons away from the jews, right before they conscripted all of those favored groups to go genocidal on the jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, A lot of smart people in Alabama, no need to bash the state. It's unnecessary, it's small of you - it's a great state filled with wonderful smart people. But, you can go back to wherever place you came from if you think Alabama is beneath you. Goethen is vulgar profane. It's hard to take him seriously. As to the WP:RS, how do you propose we do it? Make stuff up on the fly? I think your bias is clear.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone here knows my bias, Justanonymous, just as everyone knows, I think, that I want what's best for the encyclopedia. I can't tell when you're joking or not, so I suppose your "make stuff up on the fly" is a joke too. I have given an assessment or two of the various sources proposed here, and I have given an assessment of what I think is an editorial problem with the section, which no one (besides Maunus), and certainly not you, has addressed. Your mantra of RS RS RS and "bring it!" is a clear indication of how seriously I should take your objections. Basically, your editorial attitude boils down to "I see something in a book that I like so I'll stick it in an article." What sucks for those editors who favor inclusion of the material is the association with such an attitude. Good day. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, You don't know me so stop trying make false guesses about me. You don't know anything about my editorial attitude so don't try to paint a canvas of me here. You're unqualified to boil down JA. And my editorial attitude is unimportant. We're going to follow all Wikipedia policies here to include RS. If you take exception to that, file a complaint and include me on it. Yes the article needs work. The article is the result of polarized editors that come and sling their mud and then we wind up in these grotesquely useless time consuming discussions that count towards your edit count. Frankly we should only count clean edits. Jabbering on here adds no value. That's why I prefer to go edit and to follow the policies. Yes it needs work, got it. Let's go make it better then. Unless you want uselessly pour a few more ink barrels here.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Depends entirely on how it is included. Disarmament of groups of citizens considered a threat to the state is much more widespread than just authoritarian states and Nazi Germany, this should be clear. As should the fact that arms are also restricted in many of the least authoritarian states in the world. most of the sources listed at Gaijin42's page are primary sources, and they would be good if Gaijon42 wanted to write abook about gun control - but they are of no value when trying to assess the notability of a particular fact. The only ones that should be counted are the ones in the section "Modern neutral gun control secondary sources", they are also the ones that should decide how the argument is included and the various views weighted. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus With respect, contemporary secondary sources (the 10-20 newspaper articles) do not suddenly become primary sources due their age. You also skipped over the bottom academic section. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical newspaper articles are not secondary sources. They are historical primary sources. So yes they do, as any historian would know. As for the last sections they look mostly like series of polemic primary sources (research articles are primary sources for their own research and views (and can be used as secondary sources for the views of others), review articles are secondary sources).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus The academic thing I think needs to be discussed in two parts 1) factual analysis of history 2) implications of #1. There is basically ZERO disagreement that the disarmament actually happened, intentionally, as part of the oppression and eradication of jews. Harcourt, arguing against halbrook directly admits this in his articles (along with the other secondary sources) . 2) You are correct that the latter part (what are the implications of these historical facts) is a source only for the views of the author, but as those represent a significant minority viewpoint, including that content as their viewpoint is part of WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The question of course is not whether authoritarian (or non authoritarian) regimes have used guncontrol. The question is how relevant that fact is for the topic of guncontrol in general. The answer to this question should depend on how much coverage e.g. Nazi gun control gets in objective reviews of the field, and how it is treated. I can imagine two views, both of which are probably notable but the second of which I think is the dominant view, namely 1. that it is relevant because it suggests that guncontrol is a characteristic strategy of a authoritarian state, and 2. that it is relevant because it is a common meme used by American opponents of restrictive gun legislation. So, yes, I think it is probably relevant, but I think that the second view is likely to be the one that should characterize the coverage. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• It would help for those of us dropping by a diff or discussion link to the uses you want to make of this material that is different from what is in thearticle already. So many articles to comment upon, so little time. (Tripled my wikipedia budgeted time again today!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion above the RFC, the opposers insist on the complete and permanent removal of the entire section and demand it not be mentioned again. More surgical changes are therefore irrelevant until the core question is answered. Gaijin42 (talk)

The history section needs to be re-written from beginning to end based on neutral sources rather than NRA propaganda. — goethean 17:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for rewriting and improving. I'm not for blanking without consensus like you did.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You committed a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's core policy. That's what you did. Own it. Take responsibility for your actions. The history section of this article is a joke. It is a joke, and you are defending it. — goethean 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I've been clear that there's always room for improvement. You blanking it summarily is unacceptable and borders on vandalism. Your profanity and vulgarity make it even more distasteful.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You say that I vandalized the article? Report me. Escalate it. Let's go. WP:AN/I. Start a thread. I'm waiting. I say you're full of it. — goethean 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read the note on my edit. I merely suggested that you were close to vandalism and you might have been over the line. It's nuanced. You gotta get better at this reading comprehension man, tone down the vulgarity and profanity, and take a chill pill -- don't blow another gasket.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're about as nuanced as brick. — goethean 19:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The second question was about mere inclusion of coverage of gun control under those regimes....the arguments against mere inclusion so far have been quite telling, essentially these are:

• All kinds of nasty stuff saying that such mere inclusion makes the article a propaganda piece.
• Impugning the motives of any editor that wants to include it.
• Answering a question that was NOT asked as if it were answer the question that WAS asked, (raising straw-man concerns) about (farther reaching) statements that such control in significant in establishing Nazi control.
• An analogy that makes no sense...that this particular instance should be censored because failure to censor it is like improperly narrowing the coverage of a topic to one non-typical item. Huh?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So, you are unable to recognize that the current version of the article is a flagrant NPOV violation. Is that what you're saying? — goethean 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. And there is nothing 'ntasy' about describing crude pseudohistorical propaganda as crude pseudohistorical propaganda. And excluding propaganda from encyclopaedias isn't 'censorship', it is appropriate editorial control. Nobody is restricting anyone's rights to publish such material - but you have no 'rights' to use Wikipedia for such purposes, any more than any other political lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have no right to redifine historical facts as propaganda because you disagree with their implications. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy and Geothean don't like it because of the points raised above. Their arguments are weak. All articles can be improved but summary blanking like Goethean did followed by profanity and vulgarity on my personal talk page is just distasteful. Now we're wasting time here. If you have RS statements and good contributions, let's discuss them here and then let's add. None have been forthcoming. The survey above is very telling. It speaks to the inclusion of this content and per Wikpedia policies it's notable. Andy and Gethean don't like it.....tough.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you must have posted in the wrong section. The RFC question is about mere coverage. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @Goethean, responding, that's actually a falsehood stated as an implied premise, and then a claim that failure to agree with the falsehood means "unable to understand" And all about a diversion to something that is not even the topic of the RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned with the objectivity of this article. I'm not going to throw around accusations about NRA membership and stuff, but I think Maunus's objections, above, are relevant. Moreover, the current note on restricted gun ownership for Jews in Nazi Germany is indeed easily read as an indictment of gun control (suggestion 1: Nazis proposed gun control, so gun control is evil), but Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act is insightful: if that article is accurate (who the hell knows, it's Wikipedia), then the restrictions on Jews owning guns really takes a serious backseat to the loosening of rules for many categories of citizens: "Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition"; the legal age was lowered from 20 to 18; permits were valid for three times as long as before; and many groups were exempt from having to acquire a gun permit. In other words, there's another quick conclusion to draw, with much more meat to it: suggestion 2: Nazis proposed gun deregulation, so gun control is good. Both suggestions are invalid, of course, but the way I see the article suggestion 1 is right there, front and center, because our article only includes one out of five main points of the 1938 law. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis of the loosen/tighten situation, which indeed is directly discussed by halbrook and harcourt's articles (harcourt arguing against halbrook) - however, easing weapon restrictions on a favored group (like the SS and SA who were completely exempt from the regulations) and then sending those same groups after the recently disarmed doesn't seem like an argument that the nazis did not in fact disarm the jews as part of their oppression. Part of the issue is the current state of the article - Older versions (say here [7] attempted to put this into context as a presentation one of the notable POVs of gun control, but certain editors continued to delete everything that was an actual argument, and left us with the abbreviated history. (And certainly that POV should be balanced by POVs about how gun control has ushered in golden eras of peace into Australia and the UK (which are ALREADY in this article!) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Admitedly, there are significant issues with the older revision I linked to there, but at a minimum the nazi-control meme is a significant minority viewpoint on gun control and excluding it is also a violation of npov (how that pov should be worded is of course a matter for the consensus to decide, but first we must settle the issue of inclusion at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The version you linked to is obviously even worse than the present version, which is a POS. "The History of Gun Control" including a large section on...."Gun control's association with totalitarianism" Gee, so gun control is associated with authoritarianism, you say? Shucks, that sounds pretty bad! Oh, and Nazis had gun control and communists did too? That does it! I hate gun control! Gee, thanks Gaijin42! You've really set me straight! I'm going to run out and buy a Luger right now! — goethean 18:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty creative....you get all of that out of mere coverage of instances of gun control. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Goethean probably put too much sarcasm in their morning coffee but, North, I don't disagree with the basic sentiment: those inferences are clearly easy to draw, even from our current version. You wouldn't want another section added, one which argued that eminently wonderful and reasonable countries like The Netherlands have very strict laws on gun control, since the suggestion clearly is that rationality favors gun control. (Which is true, of course, but that's another point!) Or, Goethean, please take it easy: no need to hand them more ammo. And that's my final lame joke for the day. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm for tightening the article up and for improving it reasonably. I'm not for deleting valid historical information even if one party here thinks that it's propaganda. I will acknowledge that we have a challenge because much of the research that is being conducted today is not being conducted dispassionately. For better or worse, many of the notable researchers have a political agenda. So we have to be very careful. That said, we shouldn't just arbitrarily delete valuable content without us reaching consensus here. That is what Goethen did that started all of this - that and a bunch of expletives from him on my personal talk page. He simply blanked 4,000+b of WP:RS content. That's not the way to do it. If it's loose, let's tighten it up. If it's biased, let's make it neutral. But we can't just blank the page and then blow a gasket when their edit is reverted.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

we have a challenge because much of the research that is being conducted today is not being conducted dispassionately

That's simply false. There are many, many neutral, mainstream, non-ideological books available on gun control. The problem is that the authors of this article decided to use none of them, instead depending on extremely ideological, non-neutral material, and writing a history of gun control that is almost funny in its departure from reality. — goethean 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

did you bother to actually check any of those sources? I think not, as The #2 book on that list (Gun Control, O'Niel) includes a chapter on the Nazi disarmamemnt.Also mentioned in the book by fisanak, and the one by davidson, so thanks for proving the point that it is covered by common gun control sources! Gaijin42 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The amount and kind of coverage to be given to "authoritarian gun control" should be based on that kind of literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS statements please. If you got it, bring it. Anger, accusations, mean spiritedness, blanking sections, vulgar profanity are not helpful and makes it hard to take the editor seriously. Open a talk section below and start discussing your edits. Vs this incessant, nonconstructive back and forth. Let's edit. Bring it!-Justanonymous (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think all those editors who are so concerned with Nazi gun legislation should probably work on the relevant sections in Gun politics in Germany--as they should on every article on gun control. After all, there is no reason to look at Nazi Germany or the USSR and exclude others unless one has already made up their mind that there is something to see there (the synthesized statement, for instance, that "authoritarian regimes use gun control to silence their opponents"). So yeah, each and every country ought to be listed, and comprehensively: there is no reason to pick one particular period over another, if one wishes to be factual and complete, and not some cherrypicking coatracker. (And this is where the RS argument is bollocks: RS doesn't allow us to select from among reliable sources.) Now, if I can assume that Gun politics in Germany is correct (and no one has said otherwise), then a "summary" of Nazi gun politics which is more representative of what that article says should run something like this:

  The 1938 German Weapons act confirmed the requirement that citizens needed permits to carry and acquire firearms. The Nazi legislature tightened the law for Jews, who were no longer allowed to manufacture and trade in firearms and ammunition. On the other hand, many requirements were lowered or relaxed: the legal age for carrying a firearm was lowered from 20 to 18, the law covered only handguns (rifles, shot guns, and ammunition were no longer regulated), issued permits were valid three times as long, and many groups (including holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members) were no longer subject to restrictions.

  Now, the article in its current state has something along those lines but still overplays the gun control angle ("... were used by Hitler's government to disarm the Jewish population"): the crucial citations are to Rudolph Rummel and Stephen Halbrook, and neither of these are acceptable, IMO, as objective and neutral. (One wonders whether we can't get some non-English sources: surely German and French historians have written on the topic--if Nazi gun control is really a topic at all.) That guns were confiscated from Jews afterward in itself is hardly surprising: I'm sure the Nazis confiscated lots of things from Jews.

  BTW, that section is a mess. I see the Harcourt citation three times in there, but cited in two different formats. Note 21, to an Alan Steinweis book, is a bare URL linking to a page among the notes that simply doesn't verity the text (on the confiscation of ammunition). Note 14 is a horribly incomplete citation to an article in a textbook of sorts which can't even avoid weasel words: "It is frequently argued that these laws...", without specifics, without citations, without anything (and look at the vagueries of the next paragraph, "Stalin and Mao are also reported to have disarmed their political opponents..."--"reported"? We can't get cold hard facts here?). Note 15, A Complete History of the Holocaust, that's a "Juvenile Non-Fiction"--not to be cited here. Note 16 is to an "oral history" (48 Hours of Kristallnacht) published by Globe Pequot Press--go look at our article and see if we should cite this here in this article. Seriously, Collect and others, RS? Have you all even looked at what is being cited in this encyclopedic article? I could go on, but this is getting tedious. The sourcing is horrible, the cherrypicking is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• One more thing, on the same topic--the Alan Steinweis link. I don't know who put this ridiculous search string, http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXm3Klg95s0C&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=NAZIS+ASK+REPRISAL+IN+ATTACK+ON+ENVOY+kristallnacht&source=bl&ots=9EoOB4nK3J&sig=Fi5lAlI78Vx3xemjB48CFZtzn74&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5uknUdWsCaWUiQLN6IGIDQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=NAZIS%20ASK%20REPRISAL%20IN%20ATTACK%20ON%20ENVOY%20kristallnacht&f=false, in the article as a reference--an amateur, I'd say (note that they inserted the title of the NYT article cited in the previous reference into the Google Book search--weird, to say the least). Now, that book is supposed to verify some numbers on confiscated weapons, but it doesn't: as far as I can tell, those numbers don't appear in that book. What is in the book, on page 39, is a brief note on the Berlin police order, November 1938, that all Jews were to hand over their weapons to the authorities; Steinweis notes that the overwhelming number of weapons in Jewish homes were daggers and pistols, mementos from WW1, and that the proclamation was really nothing but harassment and an excuse to break into Jewish homes and ransack them.

  So, what we have here is another example of synthesis, where a book (amateurishly cited and probably not read at all) is yoked to a claim of weapon confiscation. The book does not verity the stated claim in the article, and what it says on the subject has no bearing on "gun control" at all, since it concerns a police order, not a law, whose goal was not to control guns but just to harass one particular segment of the population. To use the term "gun control" when it only affects one segment of the population is ludicrous: it's not gun control, it's just antisemitism. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But Drmies, denial to one segment of the population is a common feature of gun control, e.g. in the USA. Persons who have been convicted of certain offenses, who are mentally ill, in the country illegally etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither you and I nor the Nazis thought that "Jewishness" would be in the same category as "mentally ill" or "illegal"; the legal status of Jewishness (pace Nuremberg) is simply not that of "having been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude" or something like that. They were simply trying to harass. But that's not my main point anyway; I made some others that I hope someone will address. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies unequal application of laws as a form of discrimination is quite often a very notable part of the laws. For example Suffrage#Forms_of_exclusion_from_suffrage . surely you would not argue that jim crow voter registration laws were not actually registration laws, or that dont ask don't tell wasn't discrimination because it only applied to gays? There is a very long history of gun control being used as a tool of discrimination and opression - the nazi thing certainly, but also the extensive use in the US from slave days until very recently (and ongoing) - for example, even pro-control sources describe things like the saturday night special bans as being specifically targeted at blacks (the n-town special) See our article Saturday_night_special which covers this. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• "There is a very long history of gun control being used as a tool of discrimination"--I hope you have better sourcing for that claim than this current article. You certainly can't prove it for the Nazi period--not with a bunch of articles from the NYT about what the Nazis did on this and that day. Again, cite me a neutral (better yet, non-US) scholar of Nazi history who verifies that claim. You can't synthesize it from one single item pulled from much more comprehensive legislation coupled with some cherrypicked quotes about some guns confiscated in Berlin. (And for the US, I think it's a crock of BS, but I also think we should cite neutral scholarship, not the Holbrooks of the world.)

  But again, that wasn't my main point. I find it remarkable that no one addresses them. Do I need to repeat? a. the sourcing is atrocious; b. the section places undue weight on one particular aspect: the control, rather than the utter relinquishing of gun control for others. c. there is no rationale for focusing on gun control exclusively in authoritarian states unless your POV gives you that rationale. With your claims about gun control in the US being used as a political tool you're pretty much a self-identified conspiracy theorist, and it seems clear to me that you're looking to make a statement about Nazi Germany to lend credence to a political point of view. For the record, I'll state my POV: I do not believe that gun control has been used by the state to further political goals. I also do not believe that relaxing gun laws has been used by the state to further political goals. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I think that you made many good comments regarding improvement of / issues with article quality. You also expressed hope that they would be addressed. I think that blending them into an RFC that is on a different narrower topic (mere inclusion vs. exclusion of certain instances of gun control) is giving them a higher risk of not getting utilized, but I think that we should do so, even if not within the RFC. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

North, you know I like you--probably because you're not just "North", but North eight fucking thousand! You put the pedal to the medal, BOLDly. I hope my main objection is clear: the statement is made a couple of times, off-hand and unverified, that dictators use gun laws to enforce their politics, in one shape or another. Note the easy comments about Mao and Hitler and all. But this general claim needs serious and impartial verification. A person can make a biased claim in an otherwise reliable source: "reliable" points to fact checking and such, and a statement like "dictators use gun laws etc." is always going to be a matter of interpretation based on historical data. It has to be, unless a dictator comes out and says it explicitly, which they haven't done AFAIK. So reliability is one thing, but neutrality is another--and it is one of our pillars. That's why I can't accept Halbrook et al.

Lost in the mix, though I tried to bring it up, is that loosening gun restriction could conceivably used in the same way as tightening them. Given the historical circumstances (as indicated by Steinweis), Jews in Germany, 1938, simply didn't have large amounts of firearms, and what they had was memorability (obviously I'm giving a shorthand summary, painting with a somewhat broad brush). So restricting Jewish gun ownership is probably a minor issue. Much more important, it seems to me, is loosening regulations on certain groups, and I'll synthesize a bit to show you why: hunters in Nazi Germany are much more likely to be politically aligned with the regime, since hunting traditionally is a matter of an upper class ("hunting" in the 20th century simply doesn't mean the same thing in Europe as it does in the US; for the Nazis, hunting was a way of expressing an aristocratic, Germanic heritage: see this study, pages 22, 60, 97); more importantly, the NSDAP is by definition the ruling regime. Again, loosening gun restrictions for Nazi party members is a big step, and much more important and threatening to the Jewish population. We should not forget that "gun control" doesn't just mean "restricting access": it means "governing access", and exempting certain groups from having to get a permit is a part of that governance. Which is why the summary of the 1938 law I gave above includes those points as well. If we restrict our summary to the Jews and prohibitions on gun ownership, we are slanting the historical record. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(added later)Drmies (how 'bout Drmies9000?) I agree with almost everything that you just said, but it seems to be addressing questions other then mere inclusion of this as an instance of gun control. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, you mentioned a prohibition on slaves owning guns in the US as an analogy earlier on. A full analogy would be that US slaves (analogous to Jews) were not allowed to have guns, but slave hunters and owners (analogous to NSDAP members) (or card-carrying KKK members?) could own anything they wanted. Which part of that analogy is more important? Remember that guns cost money and that NSDAP members came from a militaristic gun culture, or at least ascribed to it. I think that's what Goethean was hinting at earlier with the Luger--an officer's weapon. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about slaves. As far as I know there were no laws specifically targeting gun ownership by slaves (while they were considered property, I doubt it even occurred to anyone to try and limit via legislation ANYTHING as they were non-people). I was talking more about reconstruction/jim crow/civil rights era laws that were used as tools of discrimination/repression post slavery. If the default case is "allowed" then obviously the important part of the analogy is who is not allowed. Everyone can marry, except teh gays. Everyone can vote, except the women. In saudi arabia, everyone can practice their religion (as long as its Islam). everyone can own guns, except the jews/blacks. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But even that analogy is incomplete: not everyone in Nazi Germany except Jews could own guns: if our article is correct, most citizens would still require permits for handguns, but not Nazi party members. To stick to your other analogy, all straight citizens can marry, but Republican (or Democratic, or whatever) citizens don't have to pay for their marriage license, or even get one. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

based on your comment, I did a quick bit of research and was somewhat surprised. nazi party membership peaked at about 7% of the population, I had thought at by the end practically everyone was a member (if nothing else just to avoid suspicion) - However, I disagree that there is a flawed analogy. Nazis don't need permits. General public needs permits. Jews cannot get permits and weapons are actively confiscated. There is no argument from anyone here, nor anyone in the literature denying the basic facts: Jews had their weapons confiscated as one of the tools of repression and genocide by the Nazis. Certainly there can be disagreement as to the importance of this fact (above somewhere you attempted to argue the counterfactual of something along the lines of did it make a difference). For the most part that argument is irrelevant - is a significant minority viewpoint on the topic of gun controlthat this is a notable bit of history and should be included. The repeated accusations of fringe are ludicrous - even the detractors agree with the basic facts! Regarding the selective choice of facts in history - converting the section to actually present the POV of those who hold the position would deal with this, they made the selection of facts notable, not us. You may dislike or disagree with Halbrook, Kates, Polsby, etc - but it is undeniable that they are notable minority voices on the topic of gun control (How many cases have your preferred sources argued and won in front of SCOTUS, on the topic of gun control?, How many briefs on the topic of gun control were joined and signed by a majority of congress that they wrote?) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You may dislike or disagree with Halbrook, Kates, Polsby, etc - but it is undeniable that they are notable minority voices on the topic of gun control

So what? There are hundreds or thousands of other notable minority voices on the topic of gun control. We need to try to write a decent article rather than inserting our pet issue into the article, whether it fits or not. We need to summarize the most neutral and most authoritative sources rather than "Hey this one guy wrote this thing and I think it's just swell, so I'll insert a section about how gun control is authoritarian". — goethean 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." we do NOT pick just the one view, but represent ALL views. That you do not like sources or their POV does not make the not WP:RS and as you have already admitted, I have many sources. Your continued effort to whitewash this topic of any possible negative information is a travesty of wikipedia's pillars. There are pros and cons to every policy and listing only the pros is not neutrality. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please spare me your fake outrage. We do not need to include the theories of your pet right-wing author. This article needs to be a balanced account, rather than the atrocious right-wing view of history that you and your RFC buddies have foisted on this page in direct violation of Wikipedia's core policies. — goethean 21:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It is curious that this article discusses several examples of gun laws in certain authoritarian countries which are typically used as exemplars of evil but doesn't discuss gun laws in most contemporary nations. It is also curious that the article barely describes one of the distinctive pieces of Nazi weapons policy - that they banned Jews from owning all weapons, not just guns. I knew a man who was a kosher butcher in Germany in the 30s. He had to surrender his butcher's knives to the local officials and he was thrown into Buchenwald, although he was able to emigrate to America before the war started. After the war he wrote to the local government and asked for his knives back and, amazingly, they found them and sent them back to him. Such is German efficiency. A good story, but I think the broader point is that Drmies expresses a valid concern, if we're going to discuss Nazi weapons legislation, we should describe all of its aspects, and not just those that seem to inform contemporary debate. GabrielF (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This RfC appears to be invalid

Afterlooking in detail at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, I have come to the conclusion that this RfC is malformed, and consequently invalid, for the following reasons:

(a) The subject matter, 'Authoritarianism and gun control', appears not to have been the subject of discussion on this talk page since July. The RfC was opened out of the blue, without any prior discussion. RfCs are intended as a mechanism to involve others in an existing discussion, when debate is deadlocked. Opening one at random for no obvious reason seems to me to be an abuse of process.

(b) THe RfC statement makes no pretence at neutrality. It cites a list of 'sources' compiled entirely by the RfC opener without any prior discussion whatsoever, and asserts as fact the very issue which appears to be under debate - the degree to which there is any correlation between the regulation of firearms and authoritarianism. It should be noted that Gaijin42 is well aware that in the case of Nazi Germany, it has repeatedly been pointed out that the Nazis relaxed firearms control for large sectors of the population, and yet the RfC wording implies entirely the contrary. A RfC based on a falsehood cannot possibly be acceptable.

Given these concerns, I have to suggest that the RfC should be closed forthwith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What you are claiming as being an "assertion of fact" is not, it is posed as the first question, put into Wikipedia content terms. Whether not it exists in a suitable amount in sources. Second, it looks like what sparked the RFC was Goethen's recent attempted large deletion of this material, as the RFC followed right after that attempted large deletion. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice try. Answering the last cavil first -- I see no reason to argue that the matter is phrased in a non-neutral manner, nor has that been found a valid cause for closure historically on Wikipedia. The first cavil likewise fails -- as long as the RfC is widely responded to, the issue of whether it ought to have been "pre-discussed" is moot -- the general rule is that the broader the range of participants, the more readily WP:CONSENSUS is met, and it is that policy which is the basis for RfC n the first place. The idea that a "pre-discussion" is needed before a "real discussion" occurs has not been used in the past, but is a novel argument here. Cheers -- it looks from here that there is broad participation here, and the goal well ought be to achieve a consensus rather than make legal arguments about what is a "discussion" and what is a "pre-discussion." "RfC" means that a discussion is requested, and nothing more. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing 'novel' about suggesting that the subject of a RfC should have been discussed first, in order to ascertain what exactly should be asked. As for your ridiculous claim that the phrasing isn't "non-neutral", are you seriously suggesting that a complete misrepresentation of historical fact is appropriate in an RfC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The query is 1.Are authoritarian uses of gun control (in particular Nazi, but others as well) sufficiently sourced by reliable sources

If you feel that they are false, then you likely feel that the claims are not sufficiently well-sourced. That you resort to calling the phrasing "non-neutral" because you know the material is a "complete misrepresentation of historical fact" is, unfortunately not an exactly neutral phrasing. Would you find "Should the complete bullshit about Nazi and other authoritarian regimes using gun control be put into this article?" to be "neutral"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The article fails NPOV miserably. That's the point. In fact, it doesn't even try. A group of editors argued furiously for months to get the article to a slightly less obviously extremely biased place. Gaijin42 and North8000, of course, kicked and screamed the entire way, strongly preferring a version that was clearly an inaccurate, and false version of history.

Gaijin42 has made a few of these RFCs and they are invariably and obviously phrased to his advantage. This time it's no different. He knows that he's got dozens of RSs to back up the "facts" that he uses to buttress the extreme right-wing version of history, so he asks if he has RSs. And he asks if the section should be removed entirely. Removing the section would actually improve the article dramatically, but it's clear that that's off the table due to a bloc of editors who are determined to keep this article as some kind of talking points memo for an anti-gun control ideology. There are very serious issues with this article, and Gaijin42's RFC neatly side-steps these very serious issues, as they always do. The article is in terrible, terrible shape, and Gaijin42's RFC merely compounds these issues rather than attempting to resolve anything, as usual. — goethean 15:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I quit this article in disgust over that section months ago, and when I was notified of this RfC I was amazed to find the text in even worse shape. There's not a shred of value to it. It's all SYNTH and POV spin. This entire article should be blanked and started from scratch in an orderly way. Why not? SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Japan

The history section is light. I attempted to add the beginnings of a section on the firearms control of Japan's Shogunate. It was well referenced and is notable. While I hadn't added more to the detail of the total elimination of the firearm from Japan begining in 1607, it is inappropriate to remove well referenced material like this. There are entire histories of the shogunate and its suppresion of firearms. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section because it had one sentence on gun control, and several paragraphs on just the use of guns in Japan. I have no objection to inclusion of gun control in japan (historical or modern) but the content must be actual on the topic of gun control, not the general history of guns. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we add that section here so we can decide? We have gun articles that need additional material. Maybe it can go in one of those?-Justanonymous (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, content may be more appropriate in List_of_gun_laws_and_policies_by_country (in a subsection under Japan) - as I think the intent of this article is to be more an overview of the concept of gun control, rather than a description of specific gun control policies. (The above discussion notwithstanding, which is less about the actual use of gun control in Nazi germany, and the use of nazi germany as the most notable example of gun control as a tool of authoritarianism) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well unless this is supposed to be titled "Gun control in 20th century western countries" perhaps we should broaden the history section. I think it is entirely appropriate to add bit on Japan to the historical section. I would note that since this has nothing to do with current law (1607), it doesn't fit at all in a list of gun laws by country. How can we not have an article overviewing gun control and not mention Japan's shogunate which is the only society to have largely eliminated (even for a time) guns? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets be clear, Japan of the Edo period was a tightly regimented and centrally controlled society, an island kingdom, culturally homogenous and geographically isolated. I think there is a reason why they controlled widespread gun use sucessfully, the fact they did should be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a general topic of gun control. To an extent, there's a richer history of arms control that stretches back into antiquity that can and should be covered somewhere if not here. Guns only go back a few hundred years. At the end of the day, so long as it's on point regarding gun control, we can include an aspect of this. As I recall only Samurai could have swords in ancient times and they were at liberty to kill any peasant that gave even the most trivial of offenses....the same was true in Europe of knights and the coat of arms is what gave the knight the right to have arms. Arms control and gun control have been with us for a long long time. It's hard to talk about it because of the politics but I wish we could treat it more sensibly here. Very hard to write a quality article when there is this much animosity though. Sad. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In the "Terminology and context" section it addresses Arms control and explains that Gun control is a subset of that topic. I think if we get off that track, this is a lost cause. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

the first 3 paragraphs ( have nothing to do with gun control, they are a history of guns in japan, which is not the topic of this article. the 4th pagagraph is tangentally related to gun control (reasons samurai don't like guns) and only the 5th is actually about gun laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the article about national gun laws. It is the broader article about gun control. In Japan guns went from virtually non-existent to the critical arms technology in 50 years and then were controlled and supressed by the state. I think its important to briefly put in the first part of that history because it informs the "gun control" aspect. That is to say you can't understand why and how Japan controlled guns unless you understand the background. Others may disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sources suggestion

I'd like to offer a source of a neutral (or at least not directly gun issue involved) source of references about gun control in Nazi Germany. Karl Dietrich Bracher is a very well respected author on the subject of totalitarianism and its application in Germany. Off the top of my head, I don't know if any of his books discuss the subject of gun control, but I'm going to start looking. If someone knows of a similar source for Japan, Russia, or anywhere else, please suggest them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My RFC linked to several such sources. Here are several neutral histories, discussing the Holocaust (some specifically Kirstallnacht) and discussing Jewish gun confiscation

• http://books.google.com/books?id=KAAF8jtI6EUC&pg=PA11&dq=kristallnacht+disarmed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4QrUZ6iN8WGyQGCi4H4AQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=kristallnacht%20disarmed&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Tdn6FFZklkcC&pg=PA507&dq=kristallnacht+disarmed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k4UrUbX3O6jcyQHv2IAY&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=kristallnacht%20disarmed&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=hOLDoQ8triEC&pg=PA39&dq=kristallnacht+disarmed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z4QrUZ6iN8WGyQGCi4H4AQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kristallnacht%20disarmed&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?ei=vI2wUu2TBsH8oATZmYDgBQ&id=uXnZAAAAMAAJ&dq=Perhaps+to+help+insure+the+Jews+could+not+fight+back+in+the+future%2C&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Perhaps+to+help+insure+the+Jews+could+not+fight+back+in+the+future%2C%22

I also listed several german language holocaust histories discussing disarmament. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it is undisputed that disarmament was an aspect of the holocaust, just as it is undisputed that lots of other states have controlled their citizens access to arms. But this article is not about the holocaust, but about Guncontrol. What we need are neutral sources about guncontrol, and then we'll see if they consider the holocaust to be a relevant aspect of a discussion about guncontrol. Looking for all kinds of sources that mention disarmament or restrictive gunpolicies and then inserting them here is OR, and not how we do things here. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! How about

• http://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Guns+in+American+Society&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pp2wUsnMLqSsyAHU9IHgAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nazi&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=-fnTBbo-egUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Open+Fire,+Understanding+Global+Gun+Cultures&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6J2wUqTqI8jfoAS56YDoBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nazi&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=2zHo7woTbZsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Arming+and+Disarming,+A+History+of+Gun+Control+in+Canada&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YZ6wUq_JGI7hoATPhoKIBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nazi&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=oq39ykAGVYQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gun+Fight+-+The+Battle+Over+The+Right+to+Bear+Arms+in+America&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jJ6wUtSsH4H3oATzuoDQDg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nazi&f=false
• (The #2 result on google book search for "gun control") http://books.google.com/books?ei=qJ6wUuGhOoGFyQH-x4HoDA&id=k_bVW23cahkC&dq=Gun+Control+%28Opposing+Viewpoints+Digests%29&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=nazi
• http://books.google.com/books?ei=9J6wUoC8DJDvoASCioKICQ&id=iYMYAAAAIAAJ&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Gun+Control+and+Gun+Rights+nazi&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=nazi

Or the many others i already listed Gaijin42 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup - Scalhotrod's overt admission that he is looking for sources to cherry-pick to support the dubious premise that 'gun control' equals 'authoritarianism' is entirely indicative of the whole way this article has been concocted. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia that such behaviour has been allowed to continue as long as it has. Blatant POV-pushing like this needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's terrible behavior. Scalhotrod said that they were going to look for sources relevant to the question at hand, and you turn that into a big string of insults and accusations as if such were wrong behavior (which it isn't) . North8000 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm somewhat flattered and feel a bit vindicated. In order to earn that kind of rebuke from Andy, I must be on the right track otherwise he wouldn't be trying to undermine my idea so vehemently. I'm not insulted, I'm encouraged... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If he's not POV-pushing, then it's an potential WP:Competence issue (and not just on the part of Scalhotrod, but on the part of the authors of the Nazi material), as this is clearly not the way to write a neutral Wikipedia article on gun control. "Let's find sources that connect the topic to my pet issue!" Instead, we need to find good, general, neutral, authoritative sources on the topic of the article (i.e. Gun control), and summarize them fairly. If they don't mention your pet issue at all, then that's a great big clue that your pet issue should not be mentioned in the article. This is extremely basic and frankly weird that it needs to be explained. — goethean 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a search for suitable sources (and thus also reflecting on whether or not they exist) is a very Wikipedian way to try to address the question at hand. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR engaged in to promote fringe perspectives is not 'the Wikipedian way'. It seems evident from this thread that elements of the pro-gun lobby active here are entirely unwilling to comply with NPOV - which would start by looking for sources discussing the subject matter in general, to see how much (if any) emphasis was put on any supposed link with 'totalitarianism' - and is instead engaging in systematic behaviour to promote the views of a minority unsupported by mainstream historiography. If such behaviour continues, I have little doubt that at some point sanctions will have to be applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Peer Reviewed Sources

Some editors here don't want to accept WP:RS from reputable journals that are peer reviewed. That's plainly unacceptable. They're labeling some of those authors as "ideologues." We have to be very careful what to decide there. Some people label scientists like Professor Michael Mann as an ideologue over on the Climate change articles but if he's published in Nature or some other reputable journal, his work is accepted into the Wiki. It's not like we're accepting Professor Mann's personal blog into the Wiki, but when his work makes it through the gauntlet of the journals Nature or Science, he and his rigorous work is most welcome. I don't understand why we're trying to establish a double standard or why one editor without any backing comes on and starts labeling articles published in journals as not meeting the standard simply because he personally doesn't like the author, even if the author is a respected authority on the subject. These articles do clearly meet the standard. The particular editor doesn't like it, so he's just POV pushing. That's also unacceptable. I'm opening this up on the talk page in the hopes of avoiding yet another edit war on the article page. Can we all agree that Peer Reviewed, Reputable journals are fine as WP:RS even if the author might be seen by some opponents as biased? To an extent we all carry our biases with us but Here, we're supposed to be Wikipedians First. Or should I go tell the esteemed editors over at Global Warming that their pro AGW, peer reviewed, academically credentialed and sound sources are just ideologues and that their work doesn't merit inclusion too!? --- I'm sure they're going to come out swinging!-Justanonymous (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you made clear (a) what the source cited is, and (b) what it is being cited for. It is certainly not the case that all peer reviewed journals are considered automatically reliable, and nor is it the case that everything cited to a reliable source is itself automatically considered reliable. It all depends on context. I suggest that you first provide the relevant details here, and if we can't come to an agreement, take it to WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious he's talking about this edit. --Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the work of Stephen Halbrook on the history of gun control is comparable to the work of Michael E. Mann on climate change? If so, then you are either lying or incompetent. Michael E. Mann is considered an expert in his field, although his work is derided by ideologues who are bribed by oil corporations. Stephen Halbrook#Criticism is a right-wing ideologue who is paid to produce anti-gun control articles. He got one published in a journal, so of course we MUST quote him in this article, because this article is a clearinghouse for all of the right-wing anti-gun garbage that certain editors feel like shoveling into it. Right? — goethean 18:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He also argues and wins gun control cases in front of SCOTUS, writes briefs for SCOUTS cases that are signed by a majority of congress (that take the winning position), has written books cited and referenced hundreds of times by other gun control sources, and that receive international awards. So yes, within the topic of gun control, he is absolutely the equivalent to Mann. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Appearing before a court to make a partisan political point is not the highest honor a scholar can receive. In fact, it's not an honor or mark or distinction at all, and it doesn't mean that he's an expert. It means that he is politically useful to a group of politicians, just as he is useful to editors attempting to impose a certain ideology on this article. — goethean 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And equating this nobody with Michael E. Mann's stature in climate is nothing short of hilarious. — goethean 19:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The nobody in question has gone before the Supreme court of the United States and won. Just because you don't know him, or don't like him is no reason to bash him-Justanonymous (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment. That's not relevant in the evaluation of a scholar's level of expertise. It shows that he is particularly useful to partisan politicians, nothing more. — goethean 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not the question, can we use peer reviewed academic journals? I know you don't like or value his contributions to society and the broader debate. The point is that there are many such people out there invested in what they do and sometimes like Mann, they are working at the cutting edge of their field and they do publish in top journals. Their work should be accepted per the standard.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that this source has already been raised at WP:RSN - by Gaijin42. [8] It seems to me that, given Halbrook's overt advocacy of a particular perspective on the issue, he should be cited only as attributed statements for his own position. He can hardly be cited as an impartial scholarly source. General statements about what went on in Nazi Germany with regard to firearms regulation should be cited to sources without an axe to grind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a suggestion, we're not going to win the author issue. It's clear that Andy and Goethean don't value Halstead's contributions while they love Mann. I'm sure I can find a sampling of editors that hold the opposite view. Personally, I have no issues with Mann or with Halstead provided that the work we cite is peer reviewed in a reputable journal. A diatribe from Halstead or Mann published in a CNN editorial or lifted from Greenpeace or the NRA page would probably be unacceptable for inclusion in the Wiki. The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The next snide of-topic personal attack made by you is going to be raised at WP:ANI. I made no comment whatsoever on Mann - in fact I had to look him up to ascertain who exactly was being referred to - and your assertion that I 'love Mann' is not only obnoxious, irrelevant, and a clear attempt to sidetrack this discussion, but a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick to the question at hand then and I'll ask for the same civility from you please Andy, " The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand."-Justanonymous (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous is confusing "reliable sources" and "neutral point of view". Halbrooks's facts in his peer-reviewed article may be assumed to be reliable. In order to present his opinions, we need to assess the degree of acceptance they have in reliable sources. That is exactly the same case with Mann. Neutrality also determines what facts are relevant to the article, and that can be established by determining the weight that reliable sources provide them. You need to show that the 1938 firearms act in Germany has more significance then thousands of other firearms acts in order to single it out for inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I "love" Mann? I "love" Mann? I don't know the guy. I was addressing his status in the climate field. You (apparently) think that Stephen Halbrook's status in the field of gun control is the same as Mann's in the climate field, which is hilariously wrong. Should I make some comment about whether you are fucking Halbrook or not, just to match your comment that I "love" Mann?

The best consensus that we can reach is whether research published on peer reviewed reputable journals should be cited? That is the question at hand.

No, the question is why a group of editors insists on defending and promoting a clearly false, inaccurate and one-sided version of history in this article, and how that group's desires, which run directly, precisely against Wikipedia's most central policy, can be corrected. That's the question, everything else is a distraction. — goethean 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what is being supported. If a writer (with an axe to grind) said that 1. President Obama flew to Atlanta yesterday and that 2. The trip is basically a fund raising trip even though they claimed otherwise, they are probably suitable support for (unattributed) statement #1, but not #2. Similarly, straightforward coverage of gun control in Germany then vs. more ambitions statements like it being a tool for suppression etc. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. That is a sick fantasy promoted by an American gun promotion lobby, not by historians. — goethean 19:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an author with a JD and a PhD, who was a long-time academic before becoming a widely published author and attorney. The ref is from a peer-reviewed RS. I understand that some on the left don't agree with him or his positions but that is really beside the point. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law is a recognised authority on the historiography of Nazi Germany? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he's apparently saying its an authority on gun control. — goethean 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right, that is beside the point of fixing this hideously unbalanced article. Halbrook shouldn't be cited, because neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. — goethean 19:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhmm. Why? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. It doesn't matter. This section is about a tag about reliability. The ref is RS. This other stuff is off point. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, on your previous post:

• As defined by dictionary.com Gun Control: "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms". And the others are all similar.

And you are claiming that it would take a "sick fantasy" to say that such occurred in Nazi Germany? I think that the fantasy would be to deny the obvious, that such did occur. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said as you can see by reading my comment. Here, I'll link it. Neutral coverage of the history of gun control does not include a section on Nazi Germany. — goethean 20:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

we determine neutrality by using the reliable sources. Halbrooks MANY works are reliable sources. Excluding a particular POV which is describing an opinion about 100% established facts, because you disagree with it is the antihithesis of neutrality. You have provided zero sources to defend your opinion, just a lot of hyper melodramatic teeth-gnashing. meethings the lady doth protest too much. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you take it to WP:RSN? Oh wait, you've already done that. Didn't like the answer, I assume... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The sole comment RSN said "But the author of this article is a nationally known expert, though the position e takes is controversial. What he publishes anywhere can be used as a RS, though, as with anything in this debate, it can not be quoted as definitively settling the issue it discusses. " so no, I am quite happy with that answer. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, your linked post essentially says that gun control in Nazi Germany should not be covered, and that such is a "sick fantasy". Unlike what you implied in a subsequent post, I think that my post directly addressed that. If not, where is the disparity? North8000 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. It is a deliberate distortion to call the Holocaust an example of gun control. The people using this language, like Stephen Halbrook, make the distortion in order to paint supporters of gun control as authoritarians. How many more times would you like to go over this? — goethean 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nobody who disagrees with Halbrook on the fact of gun control being used as a tool of the holocaust. EVERY source. 100% that touch the issue admit the basic facts. Harcourt, Slate, Mother jones, take your pick. they may disagree on the effect of this within the holocaust, and may also disagree on what implications this may or may not have for modern gun control debate, but NOBODY disagrees that gun control was implemented against the jews as an intentional part of the holocaust. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The article in its present state is a hideous distortion of history. — goethean 20:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, Gaijin42 just gave you a great opportunity to present one single refuting fact and instead you retort with some vacuous curt statement, "The article in its present state is a hideous distortion of history". Very typical of you and I guess would have to take your word for it that the article is a hideous distortion Goethean and Andy because in all these posts, you've given nothing substantial except personal attacks, condemnations, threats and accusations. Unfortunately for you, we don't -- I'll take it then that peer reviewed articles used here that are well referenced and published in peer reviewed journals presented in NPOV and supported by WP:RS and that comply with Wikipedia policy are just fine here. Thank you. I think we're done-Justanonymous (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you seriously think that being 'peer reviewed' makes something automatically reliable for anything more than the author's opinions, take it to WP:RSN. Or would you rather not do that in case you get the same answer as the last time this exact same source was raised there? [9] If we cite Halbrook at all (for which we'd first need evidence from credible independant sources that the subject matter is actually relevant to the article in the first place), we can do so - as an attributed opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, the bare facts that are being referenced to Halbrook are not disputed Harcourt. Harcourt is the only source we have that questions Halbrook. In his piece, however, Harcourt acknowledges the basics of Halbrook's writing, it his conclusions that he he disagrees with. Harcourt says disarming the jews is orthogonal to the Nazi program. Harcourt disagrees vehemently with the overall argument and it's direction. In Harcourt's view Hitler is pro-gun because he lessened gun regulation for "ordinary Germans". That is an argument that we could have but it doesn't address the present issue. Even Harcourt acknowledges the core legal/policy statements of Halbrook as accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

there is zero dispute of any of the facts, and we (or at least I) are more than happy to accept the source as backing merely the opinion of the authors regarding those facts. The opposers have repeatedly stated their objection to including these opinions - if that objection is removed than certainly we have room to build consensus on how exactly to correctly attribute the opinions represented in these sources. You are proposing a bar that does not exist - There are dozens and dozens of books and articles discussing this meme - the notability of the viewpoint is inherent to the sources being published, no tertiary coverage of the source is required.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are 'dozens and dozens of books and articles' discussing flying saucers. We don't cite them regarding facts. And no, I'm not asking for 'tertiary sources'. I'm asking for independent sources for the assertion that Halbrook's opinions on Nazi Germany are relevant to a general discussion on firearms regulation. Without that, there is no justification for including his opinion at all. Find the credible independent sources covering firearms regulation in general that cover the topic on Nazi Germany in any depth, and we can then discuss whether Halbrook needs inclusion. Without such sources, the issue is moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the very definition of a tertiary source. Halbrook is a secondary source. The other gun control books are secondary sources. They are published reliable sources (at a minimum of their authors opinions) . The shared opinion is inherently notable by the publication of those multiple sources. Tertiary notability is NOT required by WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. 'Sources covering firearms regulation in general' cannot possibly be 'tertiary' in an article on'firearms regulation in general'. Please at least attempt to present a rational argument... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate way to mention Halbrook is that he speaks for American anti-gun control groups. But that's not a sufficiently notable episode in the world history of gun control to mention in this article. Out of hundreds of historians in dozens of countries, this American conservative says that the Holocaust was an example of gun control. It's simply not appropriate for an article on a worldwide phenomenon to discuss at length the theories of American anti-gun control politicians on the Holocaust, esp. when a more neutral version of the history is available already at Gun politics in Germany! It's like mentioning debunked Serbian nationalist theories in the article on the Siege of Constantinople. The article would need to be book-length for inclusion to be appropriate. — goethean 22:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Halbrook is not the only ref in that section that is dealing with the Holocaust in terms of the gun control issue. Harcourt's paper does as well, suggesting that this is a recurring theme in gun control policy discussions. It should be noted that one of Halbrook's book on this subject has been published in four languages and that he has written articles on this issue in European law journals. So I would submit that perhaps this is a significant disussion in the issue of gun control and not just in the United States. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean RJ Rummel's book, Death by Government, which is also cited in the article? That definitely sounds like the most neutral and authoritative source on the history of gun control. Definitely. — goethean 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, no. I was thinking Polsby, Daniel. "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly.p1237 and The Complete History of the Holocaust Capitalismojo (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the The Complete History of the Holocaust ever mention the phrase "gun control"? — goethean 23:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You got me. We are supposed to be discussion the tag in the section and you moved the discussion back into a broader discusion about whether there should even be such a section at all. I thought that was what the RfC above was to decide. I haven't weighed in up there yet. Lets finish the "unreliable source" tag on the law review article issue first shall we? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a veteran editor. You know well that if the cited reference does not mention the topic of the article, it violates WP:OR. And yet you don't know if the book that you just added a page number to[10] mentions the topic of the article. The cited books.google.com URL is a search on the word weapons in the book. Is the implication here that if a book on the Holocaust mentions weapons, then it can be cited as an authoritative source for the idea that the Holocaust is an example of gun control? That's a stunning violation of both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. — goethean 00:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The proper course is to ask at RS/N whether the cite given supports the claim made. If you wish to accuse any editor of "violating Wikipedia policy" then post at AN/I. The article talk page is not the place to make such claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Let's go over this conversation again. Capitalistmojo adds a page number to a citation. I ask him if the book mentions gun control at all. He doesn't know. Your position is....is what? Take it to a noticeboard? The reference is a fraud. I have removed it. — goethean 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

you are a vandal. the reference cited linked directly to a discussion of the Nov 11 law which prohibited jews from owning firearms and other weapons. You either clearly did not bother to read the source on the exact location linked, or deliberately chose to ignore the relevant content. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAME WP:DE

Yah, deleting the section under discussion of an RFC that has been in the article for many months is totally not disruptive gaming. You are not a winner. Please play again! Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Law Journal as "unreliable"

The key thing is that Harcourt is the source of the idea that Halbrook is unreliable on this issue. Deeper in his piece, however, Harcourt ackowledges Halbrooks basic facts. It is his overall conclusions he disagrees with. In his paper he says essentially "Yes, the Nazis disarmed and killed the jews but Hitler was actually pro-gun for the average German." He then explains why. He is in this argument suggesting that the pro-gun argument using the Hitler/Nazi policies won't wash.

My point here is that we have a ref from:

• a specialist lawyer,
• PhD,
• former academic,
• who has written broadly on the subject
• writes frequent academic peer reviewed articles (7 in recent years I found)
• won before SCOTUS on the issues being discussed,
• whose main critic ackowledges he got the basics right,
• writing in an academic peer-reviewed journal

Are we really having a debate about whether this law review article is an "unreliable source"? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we're trying to explain to you why the Holocaust has nothing to do with gun control. Which is what you just explained. Which is why the section on the Holocaust is inappropriate to this article. — goethean 23:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No this has been about (or was supposed to be about) the tag "unreliable source" put on a law review article. Apparently you have been talking about something else. Why don't you agree that the law review ref is RS and we can start a new section on the larger issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder "This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced, but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement." The tagged ref is being used to support the statement: "Shortly thereafter, with the addition of the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons of November 11, 1938, Jews were forbidden from possession of any weapons at all." This law review article is in fact reliable for this bare recitation of historical fact. Unless there is disagreement I will remove this tag for this statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, after my above conversation, the next thing that needs to happen is that all of the references need to be examined to see if they are as fraudulent as the one I just removed.[11] — goethean 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)