Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 20 March 2010

Firearms Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law B‑class Mid‑importance

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

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Concealed carry for long guns

I reverted the comment that CCW permits do not apply to long guns, as it all depends. For example, under Florida law, even long guns must be concealed except when in use under a rather limited set of conditions (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc.) Especially, for example, if someone lives in a condominium, and wishes to cross common property areas, say from a parking lot to a particular condo, it is illegal to openly carry the long gun to or from a car or truck except under rather limited circumstances (during exercising legal self defense, mostly). In general, the long gun must be concealed when carried in public. However, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon of any kind, including a long gun, without a permit in public. Hence, the concealed carry permit is required to enable carrying any gun concealed in a public area. This points out the difference between a CHL (concealed handgun license) and a CCW (carrying concealed weapon) permit. The CCW applies to a wide variety of weapons, not just handguns. A CHL applies only to a handgun, and, in some case, just one particular handgun by some state laws. Yaf 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, and thanks for the explanation. I'm curious though about your example of carrying a long gun from a parking lot to a condo when in Florida. It's pretty difficult to literally conceal a long gun. Would carrying it enclosed in a case, unloaded, be legal? I hope so. -- Mudwater 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, provided you have a CCW permit! Concealment is not the same as literally concealed :-) (Thank goodness!) Specifically, the gun must be securely encased, preferably in a commercial softcase with a zipper, or stowed in a similar zippered covering for transport. This is not the same requirement as requiring the gun to be encased securely, however, in, say, an aluminum case with a lock.

Let me explain by going back to a handgun example for a moment. If a handgun is in a holster with a snapped strap, then it is securely encased, and it is legal to transport it this way in a car, with or without a CCW in Florida. This is not the same as requiring a handgun to be completely encased securely, however, with no part of it visible. For example, a soft bag opened at one end with a handgun in it is not securely encased, even though it does mean the handgun is concealed. (A Crown liquor bottle bag with a handgun in it that is concealed but which is not securely encased (there is no zipper!) is a common legal case that seems to come up about every other month in Florida!)

Likewise for a long gun, as long as it is securely encased (this doesn't even require all parts be concealed) it is considered legal for transport with or without a CCW permit. However, by the same token, if you go across a public area, you literally step into an unintended technical omission created by mistake by Florida legislators under current Florida gun law since you are now carrying a concealed weapon. The gun must be concealed in public, even if a long gun, by Florida law. A zippered case is considered to be adequate for concealment for a long gun. However, under existing Florida law, once you put the long gun in the zippered case and it becomes concealed under the law, you must have a CCW permit to possess it in public areas, such as in the commons areas of condos, and such as in the common hallways or parking lot areas of a condo. Otherwise, you have committed a felony.

There are other reasons for having a CCW that apply to a long gun, too. Having a CCW excuses one from committing a school zone gun law felony if one strays accidentally within 1,000 feet unintentionally of even a one-room school house when going around a blind curve. If you have a CCW, then this becomes a misdeameanor with a minimal fine ($25, as I recall), instead of being a major felony with prison time. Yaf 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

isn't there a difference between concealing a gun, and transporting a gun though? because even in states with concealed carry law, one must transport guns from one location to another. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Texas -- convicted felons

A recent addition to the Texas section says, "Felons are allowed to own fire arms 5 years after there probation is up, but only in their homes for personal protection." Is that correct? I thought that federal law prohibited convicted felons from owning firearms, unless they had been pardoned or otherwise had their records cleared. — Mudwater 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very suspicious, since any convicted felon is federally prohibited from purchase or possession of any firearm. If the state did pass such a law, it would be null and void under the US Constitution (Federal Supremacy clause). izaakb ~talk ~contribs 14:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question. — Mudwater 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of the Arizona section for the skinny on that. State and local police are under no obligation to enforce federal law, and they generally show little interest in enforcing federal gun laws, especially in vehemently pro-gun regions like the Deep South and Mountain West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.29.49 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

the law wouldn't be void, a felon who owns a gun 5 years after their probation is up would only be breaking a federal law, and not the state law, but a felon who broke both could be charged both under federal and state jurisdiction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove CarryConcealed.net Links

This website has not been updated in over a year and is providing outdated information. I suggest we remove all links referencing this website.--Kahman (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No responses to this? 71.251.92.25 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard

Recently a graphic of the 2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard was added to the article. I'm removing it because it violates the principle of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. The Brady Campaign scorecard is very biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective. Additionally their system of rating states is highly questionable, even if one favors strong gun control laws. This article should summarize state and local gun laws in the U.S., without evaluating or passing judgment on the laws' effectiveness or morality. It's possible that the Brady Campaign scorecard graphic would have some place in another Misplaced Pages article, but not this one. — Mudwater 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should summarize state and local gun laws, but unfortunately, it does not do that adequately. It's all trees and no forest. It details the gun laws for each state, but it does not give an overall picture of the gun laws across the country. That is what this article needs and that is precisely what the chart was intended to do.

I also think you missed the boat on the issue of neutrality. The Brady campaign certainly has a strong point of view on what gun laws should be, and their opinions related to that could rightly be called non-neutral. But that is not what the chart is about. It simply shows their assessment of the current state of gun laws.

You say that their "system of rating states is highly questionable", but you do not say what you think is questionable, nor do you provide anything to support your statement. While there has been a lot of criticism from gun rights groups in response to the Brady Scorecard, it has been directed at what Brady thinks the laws should be, not at their assessment of state laws. I think their assessment is neutral because they have no interest in misrepresenting what state laws are.

To illustrate this idea, look at the ratings of Congressman by Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union. While they clearly both have a point of view as to whether liberalism or conservatism is best, they are in general agreement on their ratings of Congressmen. If you look, for example, at their 2008 ratings of House members, you will find a 97.6% (negative) correlation between the ratings. They agree that Barney Frank is a strong liberal (ADA 100, ACU 0) and Michele Bachmann is a strong conservative (ADA 0, ACU 100). They are both neutral because they have no interest in skewing the results.

Your comment about "passing judgment on the laws' effectiveness or morality" is off the mark and somewhat over the line. Nothing in the graphic passes judgement on the effectiveness of gun control laws, much less on their morality. It intentionally avoids any language that expresses approval or disapproval of gun laws. It simply characterizes them as more or less restrictive, which I believe is quite neutral.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Brady Campaign State Scorecard violates the Neutral Point Of View policy because the Brady Campaign is strongly biased in favor of gun control and against gun rights, and this bias is built into the scorecard itself. States with more or stricter laws, as graded by Brady, get a higher score on a scale of 0 to 100, and states with fewer or less strict laws, as graded by Brady, get a lower score. If you go to their web site, the link to the scorecard says "Brady State Scorecard: Most States Have Weak Gun Laws". Each state is assigned a rating of zero to four stars. This is inherently biased, because, to a reasonable person, high scores are better than low scores, being strong is better than being weak, and more stars are better than fewer stars. (See http://www.bradycampaign.org/, http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1223/, and http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/stategunlaws/scorecard/StateRatings.pdf.)

Suppose a pro-gun-rights group rated all the states on how well they "respected the Constitution, enforced basic legal rights, and promoted the American way of life". Suppose this group gave states numeric grades, with 100 meaning the state did not have any gun control laws, and a low score meaning the state had a lot of gun control laws. Suppose they said that "most states do not respect the Constitution", and gave the states star ratings, with four stars being the highest, for having the least restrictive laws. That too would be inherently biased, and violate Neutral Point Of View, and that too should be excluded from the article.

The neutrality issue alone means the Brady scorecard should not be included in the article, but, on top of that, the scorecard is highly questionable as a rating of how restrictive or non-restrictive states' gun laws are. To the Brady Campaign, any gun control law is a good law, and so they assign points to states on the basis of how many different types of gun control laws they have. But that's not really a good measure of how restrictive a state's laws are, because different types of laws restrict firearms in different ways and with different effects. For example, California is a "may issue" state, and has issued thousands of permits allowing citizens to carry concealed guns, but Illinois is one of two states that does not allow concealed carry at all. California has state preemption of firearm laws, so cities are not allowed to ban the possession of handguns in citizens' homes, but Illinois does not have preemption and Chicago bans the possession of handguns. California does not require all people who possess any firearms or ammunition to have a police-issued firearm owners i.d. card, but Illinois does. Yet the Brady scorecard rates California as a 79, and the only four star state, where Illinois is rated 28 and gets two stars. So, even people who are strongly in favor of gun control should have serious questions about the validity of the Brady scorecard as a measure of states' gun control laws.

You're right about this article being "all trees and no forest", but that's a good thing. Gun laws are an extremely controversial topic. This article should explain the laws of each state, which are factual, and leave aside the big picture, which is a matter of opinion.

— Mudwater 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Brady Campaign does say that most states have weak gun laws, and they do rate states on their Scorecard results as zero to four stars. They undoubtedly have a strong anti-gun bias. If it was not clear that I agree with that, it should be now. But there were no stars or characterization of gun laws as "weak" in the graphic; it characterized them as more or less restrictive. Rather than focus on the source of the assessment for the graphic, I think you need to show why the graphic and the assessment it does show should not be included.

The hypothetical you tender is not analogous to this situation and thus falls flat. While pro-gun and ant-gun groups will generally agree on whether a law restricts the use of and access to guns, they do not agree on what is meant by "respect the Constitution", "enforce basic legal rights", and "promote the American way of life".

Your critique of the Brady criteria is somewhat reasonable, although your suggestion that they would assess state gun laws based on the number of laws is not; it has a ring of trying to impart irrationality to opponents that is all too common in politics today. Whether or not you agree with their goal, they are rational and they make choices to further their goal of restricting gun availability.

I understand that you feel that no-issue states should be considered more restrictive, and I would agree that Brady should distinguish between no-issue and may-issue. But the reality is that many may-issue states are de facto no-issue for most residents, so the distinction is not that great. Likewise, preemption does not make much of a difference if the state laws are already the most restrictive in the country. When you throw in purchase permit requirements, purchase limits, universal background checks, and limits on types of guns, it is hard to say that Illinois is more restrictive than California.

The fact that you personally disagree with their assessment is not grounds for removal of the graphic. Even if you were to present a reliable source that disagrees with Brady's assessment (which you have not), the appropriate action per WP:NPOV would be to include the new source, not delete the other one.

I am surprised that you think "all trees and no forest" is a good thing. If the article does not summarize the material, then in order to get an overall sense of the state laws, one would need to read through the entire article and figure it out. Avoiding useful material because someone might find controversy in it has never been part of the Misplaced Pages ethos.

I think more summary material is needed - not just an assessment of how restrictive laws are, but general descriptions of the different types of laws that exist, how they vary among the states, and how prevalent they are. There is a some of this in the lead, but it really needs more. Since this article is already quite long, perhaps it would make sense to move all the summary material to a new "parent" article that would point to this one for the details of each state. The alternative to that woukd be to break out the state details into separate articles, but I think that would result in too many small articles.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As explained in more detail in my previous comment, I'm convinced that the Brady Campaign state scorecard (1) violates the Neutral Point Of View policy, by giving higher scores to states that have what Brady considers to be more restrictive laws, and (2) is not a good overall indication of how restrictive a state's gun laws are, because it gives too much weight to how many different types of gun control laws a state has, and not enough weight to specific types of gun laws, such as restrictions on concealed carry, local gun bans, and licensing of firearms owners.

I would encourage other editors to add their opinions to this discussion. The more editors who participate, the better, in my view.

— Mudwater 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the point values that bother you? There are only two directions the points could go in, higher for more restrictive or higher for less restrictive. If you think the point values show POV, I will gladly remove them from the legend.

You have given your personal opinion that the assessment of restrictiveness in not good, but that is just your personal opinion. You have not shown any source that agrees with you. Will you please provide some?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• This has no place in the article. It is the product of an advocacy group and solely based on their opinion. As an advocacy group, they are not neutral. They have a definate agenda and their products will advance that agenda. Putting it here in a graphic form draws attention to it (which draws WP:UNDUE attention to their opinion). 02:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they are not at all neutral on whether restrictions on guns are a good thing, and the graphic does not in any way endorse their position on that. The graphic shows their assessment of the restrictiveness of gun laws, and they have every reason to provide an accurate assessment. I have not seen any reliable source that suggests that assessment is not reasonable.

As for WP:UNDUE, it does not say that an article should not give undue weight to the opinions of any particular group. Rather it says that an article should not give undue weight to a particular aspect of the subject matter. Certainly, the restrictiveness of gun laws is an appropriate aspect to cover in this article.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• But it shows their opinion, based solely on their stated agenda of stricter gun control. In other words, if it doesn't agree with their views, it scores low. That's not even remotely neutral. There is no objective, measureable standard. It's not tied to crimes rates, deaths or anything else that can be quantified. It is solely opinion. Presenting their opinion, in an eye catching graphic format, does given under weight to their POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Their opinion that stricter gun laws are good is certainly not objective, but I think their assessment of the restrictiveness of the laws is. Their goal is to restrict gun usage and it does not further their agenda to skew this assessment. Since some might interpret the score values to mean that higher numbers are better, I have removed them from the legend. Believe me, my intent in posting this graphic is not to endorse their ideas; rather it is to show which states have freer access to guns and which do not. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• How could it possibly be objective? Strict gun laws equal high scores. High score equals better. In their opinion, stricter is better. It presents the opinion of an advocacy group. And yes, it is in their interest to skew the results. If they rate a state poorly, then they sell wolf tickets about how "unsafe" a state is while they lobby for stricter laws (while ignoring that the states in the dark green tend to have lower crime rates). If you fetched a NRA type graphic showing the opposite, then it might be balanced. Otherwise, their opinions are being presented in a unduly weighted manner. You removed the legend? What good is a graphic that doesn't tell us what it means? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument based on NPOV seems tortured and off base. The NPOV policy applies to the whole article in aggregate. A quick scan of the footnotes shows a disproportionate number of pro-gun references, to the NRA-ILA, CarryConcealed.net, USACarry.com, and many others. The policy requirement here is a net neutral balance of POV sourcing, and the addition of some Brady counterbalance to the undue weight given to pro-gun sources actually would improve the NPOV balance here. Indeed, this entire article seems so far skewed off-center of POV balance point it needs some serious editing to bring it back to a neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying to other points in the thread above. The Brady graphic is describing strength of gun trafficing laws. They order this by weakest to strongest. There is nothing about other types of gun laws. There is nothing about whether weaker is good or if stronger is bad. This is not an argument about good law or bad law, it is simply a rating of weak law versus strong law regarding gun trafficking. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

your argument against the card is like arguing that quoting the score of a sports game, from one of the team's website is POV, because it lists that team's score first. The only difference is the "scorecard" in question rates laws in a subjective manner. any sort of rating system like this is open to inaccuracies, but I am not sure how skewing it would advance the Bradly Campaign's cause. Anyway, the focus should be on how they rank states. since the scorecard focuses on trafficking than it might be easily measured. after all, Wisconsin is green, despite having no concealed carry law 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. A teams score is a matter of fact. The score was whatever it was. This is a matter of opinion. The activist Brady campaign gives their opinion that a state has strong or weak laws based on criteria they made up themselves. That's hardly neutral. And yes, I'd say the same thing if this were the NRA version of the same map going up without balance. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take you at your word then. This article has 300 references. Ignoring the 200+ that point to primary sources. The remaining sources predominately point to websites of gun rights organizations. After checking for five minutes, I only found one reference to a source opposing gun violence. What is your opinion about the imbalance of sourcing in this article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That completely depends on the nature of what is being cited. If it is matters of fact, does it matter terribly whether or not the source is pro or anti-gun ownership? If we are saying that "Kansas has a X day waiting period", does it matter if that came from either side? It is a matter of fact, so I'd say it doesn't matter. Either they do or they do not have said waiting period. If we are using pro-gun sources to cite matters of opinion, then there is an issue. If you find a pro-gun source being used to support an assertion that the law in a particular state is "good" or "strong", you'd have a point. Also, your use of the phrase "opposing gun violence" is hardly neutral sounding. The implication is that if you disagree with someone like Brady et al, you support "gun violence". That's absurd. Supporting the right to own firearms (whether for sport or defense) is not "supporting gun violence". Nor is supporting the right to defend oneself. Many of these orgs are more accurately anti-gun, not just anti-gun violence. Taking away a hunting rifle isn't about preventing violence to any person. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then. At least we agree that the Brady Campaign is an acceptable source for matters of fact. When I look at their scorecard it appears that it draws from factual data. Either a state does background checks or it does not. That is a yes:no question. I am guessing that your problem is with whether doing background checks is fairly described as "weak" or as "strong". That seems moot and a straw man argument because when you check the graphic it doesn't say "weak" or "strong", rather it says "more restrictive" or "less restrictive" which are objective statements of fact and not statements of opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• More or less restrictive than what? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

More restrictive or less restrictive than the other states. This is a neutral statement of fact. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not because it still requires Brady assessment over whether or not a specific states laws are restrictive enough or not. There aren't enough colors in that graphic to address the variations between the states, so an certain amount of opinion is required on their part. That's where the issue is. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the discussion above, Mudwater and Niteshift36 have argued that the graphic expresses the opinion of Brady Campaign. Myself and JPMcGrath don't see that simply stating whether laws are restrictive is opinion. Indeed, depending on personal point of view, "restrictive" might be good, or equally, it might be bad. Clearly this is not a question of opinion, but rather it is a helpful summary of gun law status. Restoring the graphic now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• And I removed it. This sure hasn't been decided. I don't see a clear consensus here. Then, to make it more POV promoting, you put the graphic at the top of the page, not down where it was in the body. Bottom line: It is Brady's OPINION on what is restrictive enough for them and it promotes their POV. If you want to take this to the NPOV noticeboard, I'll be happy to go. But don't arbitarily decide that this matter is closed, because there damn sure isn't a clear consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring this, could you address the points above? Your argument as I read it is: Statements of "weak" versus "strong" are opinions, and opinion violates NPOV. Yet there have been no statements of "weak" or "strong", therefore you are arguing about a straw man. Please make your case based on logic, and avoid edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Before you start throwing around terms like "edit war", why don't we address your false consensus? 2 editors saying one thing, 2 saying the opposite. Yet somehow, you took it upon yourself to decide that the disputed material needs to not only be put in the article, but go at the top. Would you care to explain that to me? How about if I stop answering your questions over and over and you answer some for me. What does that graphic contribute to the article? What facts can be gleaned from looking at that graphic? If one state has a 3 day wait and no guns in public places law and another has a guns in public places law but no wait, are they rated the same or does Brady put more weight on one issue than the other? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the reasoning given by JPMcGrath above, the article could benefit from "an overall picture of the gun laws across the country" in summary. The article has too many trees to see the forest, and a broad summary as conveyed in that graph makes for a better article. The readers can read down below to get the detail you describe. The opening of the article should be for a summary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• That graphic doesn't give an overall picture of gun laws. It gives a picture of gun control laws, a set specifically chosen by Brady to represent the state of gun control laws, not gun laws. That is your strawman. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I came here following the request on WP:NPOVN#Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_.28by_state.29. Having looked at the discussion and the map in question (which I take to be this one), I think the map is a useful addition to the article. It looks like the result of a competent evaluation of gun control state laws, and it is properly attributed to the originating organization. I don't understand the NPOV concern. The map shows less restrictive laws in green, more restrictive ones in red. If anything, this projects a "green is ok, red is a problem" message, not the other way round. I could see exactly the same map produced by the NRA, in exactly the same colours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't a "competent evaluation" because it is a listing of selected control laws, carefully selected as a measure of something the activist organization is advocating, to "prove" their point of view. It is an agenda driven evaluation. And you don't see a NRA map because it would be biased as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You miss the point. I'm not suggesting to balance this map with one from the NRA. I suggest that if you see just the map and the basic legend, you wouldn't be able to tell if its from the NRA or from the Brady campaign. For me that indicates sufficient neutrality. What point do you think the group is trying to prove? "Gun freedom is still healthy in most states, but increasingly encroached upon in New England and California"? "Most of America sees no need for restrictive gun control laws?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• And you're missing the point. Let's make it simple. The map has to be attributed to Brady, therefore a reader knows it is based on their assessment. They are not neutral. Their product is not neutral. Without balance, it gives a bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that's nonsense. Attribution creates neutral statements - instead of "X", which may be debatable, we say "Y says X", which is a simple and easy to verify fact. And I have seen no factual argument why the map should not be neutral - "because it's prepared by the Brady campaign" is not an argument. 2+2 equals 4, even if Saddam claims it. To me this looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the argument against posting this. The Brady Scorecard is not scored arbitrarily, it's actually based on a set of very specific criteria that are scored the same way for every state (and that information can certainly be included in sourcing the table). So I'm not quite sure how bias plays in here. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would argue that the Brady Scorecard is an accurate depiction of how strong gun laws are from state to state. Conversely, states at the bottom of this list would rightfully be seen to allow the most "gun freedom" for residents. Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Niteshift36 suggested above that we ask the NPOV notice board for their opinion, and we did, and they see no NPOV problem. Also, another editor has shown up seeing now who sees no NPOV problem. Presently the consensus here weighs in as 4:2 that there is no NPOV problem. I don't expect that Niteshift36 will like it, but hopefully he can respect the process at Misplaced Pages includes room for disagreements where decisions are discussed on the talk page, and consensus is followed. Putting the graph back in. I encourage Niteshift36 to not edit war against this 4:2 consensus. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• And I encourage you to stop looking at this like a freakin race. You call it a consensus after a couple of hours? You can't let this run for a day and get some other opinions? So the first 2 people that came over agreed with you and you go running off, putting it in. That's just absurd. You put the RfC up to get opinions, then don't even give it 24 hours? At this point, you're making this into some sort of contest about who can get people to weigh in the fastest. Normally a RfC runs for a few DAYS, not a couple of hours. Relax, breath and take your own advice not to edit war. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on you. You have been asked several times (see above) to explain yourself and your faulty logic, and you have not yet done so. Waiting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quit waiting and read below. There's no faulty logic on my end my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I invite other editors to read what Niteshift36 has written down below, see this diff, and judge whether this is a response to the questions about his logic raised above. This is simply delaying the matter. Time has come to put the graph back in. Are there other editors willing to cooperate with this process? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Once again, you see this as some sort of race, like it has to be completed in a certain period of time. RfC auto expire in a month. You tried to end it in a couple of hours. Is it so urgent that you can't give it a few days? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said anything on this talk page for about 10 days, but I'm going to chime in again now. To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed by this whole discussion. Until now, this article has been a model of NPOV. The article just summarizes the gun laws of each state, in a neutral way. While the neutrality has not always been perfectly achieved, that's been the goal. To me it's painfully obvious that the Brady Campaign State Scorecard (1) presents an extremely non-neutral point of view, and (2) is by no means a fair or objective measure of how restrictive various states' gun laws are. I've explained why I think this in more detail in several posts earlier in this section. I feel quite strongly that, in this section and the two sections below, Niteshift36 has done a really great job of explaining these two points, and some other points as well, at considerable length, and directly answering the objections of other editors, and I'd like to thank him for his patient and articulate efforts. Frankly, he's a lot more patient and articulate than I am. Again and again he has presented well thought out arguments that support these points, and again and again a few editors keep saying that he has not answered their objections, when in fact he clearly has. The more I think about this, the more I'm taken aback by the claim that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map is objective or not a violation of NPOV. I have seen many POV edit wars on firearms related articles such as Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Right to keep and bear arms, and Gun politics in the United States. I was really hoping that we could avoid these time consuming and tedious disputes in this particular article, by making it all about "just the facts, ma'am". And I am still hoping that we can do that. If you look at the long edit history of this article, you can see that many editors have worked hard to summarize gun laws in an informative, helpful, and neutral way, and I myself have contributed more than a little to this effort. We have not always succeeded, but that was our goal. I hope that that can continue to be the goal of this article. So, please, folks. If you think that the neutrality of the article can be improved, by removing or fixing statements that are biased or unsupported, by all means let's talk about it, because no doubt there is room for improvement. But, no Brady Campaign State Scorecard map, thank you very much. — Mudwater 01:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Nightshift has been patient, but I cannot agree that he has directly answered my objections. More specifically, I summarized the arguments that NPOV and UNDUE justifies removing the graphic, and I think they clearly were lacking. Perhaps you will explain how you think they apply.

WP:NPOV says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". It also says that "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'". So how does this justify removing the graphic?

WP:UNDUE says that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". I have argued that an assessment of the restrictiveness of state gun laws in an article about state gun laws is relevant, and one assessment does not constitute undue weight. Do you think UNDUE applies?

If neither of the above applies, what is the justification for removing it?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've been trying to illustrate the NPOV problem, which leads to the undue issue. You simply don't like how I'm leading you to it. You refuse to look at the assessment itself, only the final product. Instead, you want a sound byte answer and that's it. Fine. Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep talking about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but you ignore what the policy actually says. I can find nothing in them that would support removing the graphic. If you think that they do support removal, please quote the part that you think does.

You are correct that I have added the assessment of only one group. As I said before, if there is a different perspective that you think should be included, you should add it. I even offered to add one myself if you would point me to it. You have not done that, because you cannot find another perspective from a reliable source. That is not at all surprising, because the assessment is not very controversial.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not because the Brady one is not controversial. It's because pro-ownership orgs don't tend towards "assessments". They're more concerned with what the laws actually say and what they actually mean, not how they feel about them. The other problem here is that we have 4 different discussion going on about essentially the same issue. So when I answer your question in another section (liek I did today), you give me more "you haven't addressed it" in this section. I didn't start any of these sub discussions, but I'm being asked the same damn question over and over in each one, despite having answered it today in another one of these. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion is getting a little out of control. For the record, I did not start any new sections either - I think everything I have said was in direct replay to another post. Part of this is the nature of the beast, but I suspect that the software has something to do with it. Maybe the LiquidThreads extension will help if and when it gets here.

As for the Brady assessment, I think it is not controversial, and should not be. Do you think what it shows is wrong, or do you just object to it because it is from Brady?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I really have addressed your question. My objection isn't based on the source, it's based on the content/criteria used, which are biased toward their agenda. I tried using one specific example to illustrate what I was talking about, but you didn't really address that point, rather you kept asking me the same question over and over. To be honest, I've become very aggravated with this discussion. I tried my best good faith effort to dial it back and reset a little, thinking we were going to have a productive discussion about what Salty thought should go in the tables and how he thought it should be incorporated. But I was clearly a fool for doing so because, if anything.....well forget it, I'm not going to give someone an excuse to go crying to WQA. Do whatever you two want to do to this article. I'm past giving a damn. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to try to keep personalities and personal opinions out of this. Mudwater weighed in above, thanks. The core problem here is that by policy: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The articles fails in this regard. And, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject", again it fails. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• And, as far as I understand, we are trying to address that issue in the 50 tables discussion below, aren't we? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing that relates to personalities. What I talked about was addressing objections. I have repeatedly asked him to address my objections to his claims that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE apply, and he has not done so. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• "He" has.......and "he" wishes that he could draw you a big arrow to show you because you and Salty have split this whole damn mess into 4 seperate discussions, then want me to answer the same question over and over. Stop with your "he hasn't addressed it" nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Smoke aside, I agree that Niteshift36 has not yet addressed the applicability of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as requested by JPMcGrath. It is time to conclude that either he cannot, or will not do so. How much longer must we put up with the evasion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• (And no, I didn't indent). Big surprise, one says something and the second member of the tag team parrots the same thing. What's actually starting to piss me off here is that the both of you have made this into 3 more discussions, then when something is answered one place, you ask it again in the other one and act like you never heard an answer. Both of you have just said that I have "evaded" and "refused" to address the question. Both of you are wrong. (I'll put this in bold print and maybe you'll actually see it this time) "Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up." Did you get that? Do you see where I told you why I have an issue with the undue portion? Wait, let me tell you again, so maybe, just maybe, you two won't repeat the same false allegation. I said "Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up.". Did I address my concern about undue? Yes. Did I do it BEFORE you two came in here and claimed, yet again, that I didn't? Yes. Will either of you bother to say "oops, I missed that"? Hell no. Neither of you will conceed that I did address it. You might not like the answer. You might not even think it went far enough. But it WAS addressed and you both were completely wrong to state (again) that it was never addressed and that I've "evaded" blah, blah, blah. Just to make sure you don't miss it, here it is again: "Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up.". Now, go ahead, divert off onto something else, start a 5th sub-discussion of the same issue and then accuse me there of not answering the question in that section. And to think I actually was stupid enough to believe that we were starting to make progress in one of those sections.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

More diversion, your personal opinion is not relevant here. Let's try again: Can you quote the specific words from the WP:NPOV policy that you are invoking? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not diversion. You are being completely unreasonable. It is my opinion about how it violates undue. You want some cut and paste bullshit and you refuse to accept any answer that isn't in the format you want it in. Further, I was addressing WP:UNDUE, not NPOV. You didn't even bother to read the answer enough to get that part right. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are addressing what you wish the WP:NPOV says. (and look again, UNDUE is a subset of NPOV) Again, quote the specific wording from the policy you are invoking. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift36, could you please quote the NPOV policy wording you are invoking? SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a frequent editor of this article, my opinion has been recently solicited by a party to this dispute, so here goes: I agree with JPMcGrath's assessment on 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC). In fact, many gunnies I know simply take the Brady scores and invert them to get an idea of how good a state's gun laws are. However, while not actually biased, citing the Brady Campaign ratings could still easily give many people the impression of bias, and, as they say, Caesars wife must be above suspicion. The Brady stuff should probably go, at least until it's counterbalanced with ratings from a pro-gun org.

--Hoplophile (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that neither Hoplophile, nor Niteshift36 seem to be actually reading the WP:NPOV policy which says we must give equal coverage from all significant POVs in the article, even those we disagree with. Presently there are no references to Brady, while there are scores of references to pro-gun groups. This excess referencing to pro-gun sources isn't an impression of bias, rather it is manifest bias. Further, these editors doggedly push to keep even a single reference to Brady out of the article. Using the 'Caesars wife' logic that Brady's reputation would besmirch this article. Further evidence of editor bias here. This article doesn't belong to pro-gun hoplophilic editors. Quit acting like it does. It belongs to Misplaced Pages in general. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The references from the pro-gun groups are way down on the bottom of the page where hardly anyone ever looks. The Brady map was plastered right on top of the page where it's the very first thing a person sees. This being the case, I really think we need to be more careful with it. Someone should find state ratings from a pro-gun group and post a map of that right next to the Brady map; then everyone will be happy and we'll avoid both real bias as well as appearance of bias. Sound good?--Hoplophile (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to negotiate, this is a breath of fresh air. I wonder though, why is the Brady graphic "real bias". It seems that the biggest problem now is simply the use of the word "Brady", which echo's the demonizing of Brady seen in the pro-gun advocacy press. Is there neutral sourcing that says that "Brady" is such a bad word or is this mostly the opinion of the pro-gun people? I don't see that what is being said in that graphic that is inherently controversial. We all agree for instance that California is the most restrictive state, etc.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're preaching to the choir on that. As I stated before, I don't think that the map was biased, but it would give many people the spurious impression of bias. If someone posted the same type of map with NRA or GOA ratings, without an opposing view from an anti-gun group, I'd feel the same way. Hoplophile (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are getting to the crux of the issue then, as you put it: "impression of bias". As near as I can tell, that involves advocacy readers bringing their acquired impressions here. Is this "impression of bias" found in any Misplaced Pages policy? I looked at WP:NPOV and don't see it. If it is not based on policy, then your objection is without policy merit and we should restore the graphic. Asking again, could you please cite the specific wording in the WP:NPOV policy on which you are basing your claim. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that a large number of references to pro-gun groups is evidence of manifest bias. Just as Brady is a reliable source of information on the restrictiveness of gun laws, groups such as the NRA/ILA are reliable sources for information on gun laws. In both cases, there is no reason to suggest that their opinions on policy would skew the information they provide.

As for positions on the page, the map was placed at the top of the page because it is summary information and that belongs at the top. The other information is more state-level detail, and that belongs towards the bottom. The placement is appropriate in both cases.

If someone wants to measure the prominence of material by the "good guys" and the "bad guys", however they decide who is bad and good, they would find a small amount of information from the anti-gun side in a more prominent position and a much larger amount of information from the pro-gun side in a less prominent position. That sounds somewhat balanced to me.

I understand the concern about first impressions by people who might look at this less rationally and have a "knee-jerk" reaction to a group they do not like. While it might make sense to make some changes in the presentation of information in order to lessen such reactions, I think that removing useful information would be completely counter to the Misplaced Pages ethos, and it would clearly violate WP:NPOV.

I would certainly favor the inclusion of counterbalancing information from a pro-gun group, although I suspect that ratings from a pro-gun group would be essentially the same. Just as with ACU / ADA ratings, this is not controversial.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So when is enough enough? This discussion goes on for pages, and those opposed to the graphic give personal preference reasons and fail or refuse to give specific policy based reasons for their objections. The article fails a core policy issue here is that we must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Including a non-controversial graph sourced to the Brady Center is a small step towards fixing this NPOV policy failure. Not to mention, the article would benefit from the fair overview this graphic will add to the article summary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's getting there. I think that someone needs to quote some specific language in Misplaced Pages policy (or guideline) that supports its removal. If that does not happen within a day, I think it would be reasonable to re-insert it. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, what you're saying is completely incorrect. Here's why. This article is a summary of gun laws in the United States, by state. It's all about what the gun laws are, and there are not opposing views, to be balanced, on this subject. I'll give you an example. The article says that in Idaho, no law may "permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." Either that's true, or it's not true, there are no opposing views on the subject. In fact it is true, and the statement has two references, one from the NRA, which is a pro gun rights group, and one from the LCAV, which is a pro gun control group. But both groups are reliable references for what the law says. Whether they are pro gun rights or pro gun control is irrelevant for the purpose of referencing the statement in the article, and the same is true for all the other references. Therefore your whole analysis on this talk page of how many references are from pro gun rights organizations vs. pro gun control organizations is completely irrelevant, and your statement that the article currently has a pro gun rights bias is completely false. By contrast, the Brady Campaign State Scorecard is an opinion about how restrictive -- and therefore, in the Brady Campaign's view, how good -- the gun laws of different states are. As I and other editors have explained at length in this discussion, whether you're willing to admit that we've explained it or not, the Scorecard is definitely not an objective measure of how restrictive states' gun laws are. On the contrary, it presents a highly questionable and highly flawed opinion of the restrictiveness of the states' laws, and in fact it is extremely controversial in this regard, quite aside from the Brady Campaign's strong pro gun control bias. In conclusion, the State Scorecard has absolutely no place in this article. Furthermore, the "POV" and "Synthesis" tags should be removed from the article, because the article has an extremely neutral point of view, and does not contain any previously unpublished synthesis of ideas -- and this will continue to be true as long as the State Scorecard is not added. — Mudwater 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You make your point clear, and I hear it. Still, what you are saying amounts to an assertion that Brady is a flawed and biased organization, therefore they should not be included. Where does the WP:NPOV policy say that? Please quote the specific policy wording now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, "All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's the basic concept, which needs to be understood in the context of each article. For an article like Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, it would probably mean giving roughly equal weight to the views of pro gun rights and pro gun control organizations and politicians, because that's the subject of the article. The Brady state scorecard might possibly have a place in an article like that, if balanced by opposing views. But this article is about gun laws, so, to present the material from a neutral point of view, fairly and without bias, non-factual (and highly debatable) opinions about the gun laws, such as the Brady state scorecard, should be left out entirely. That will observe the wording of the policy, quoted here, and will also observe the spirit of the policy, which is that articles should strive for neutrality, and not be subject to extraneous POV advocacy. — Mudwater 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problem with article

Consider this, the article presently shows the yes:no status of a number of categories of laws for each state:

1. State Permit to Purchase?
2. Firearm registration?
3. "Assault weapon" law?
4. Owner license required?
5. Carry permits issued?
6. NFA weapons restricted?
7. Peaceable Journey laws?

Similarly, the Brady score card is based on the yes:no status of a number of categories of laws for each state:

1. Firearm Trafficking
2. Background Checks
3. Child Safety
4. Military-style Assault Weapons
5. Guns In Public Places.

See any difference between these lists? Why did we choose one category of law and not another? Where is the neutral balance point implicated by our choice? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? Is there a difference? You mean aside from the fact that they are different? Factually stating that yes or no a state has a waiting period is much different that stating an opinion that it is "weak" or "strong". The Brady criteria is nothing more than their opinion on whether or not they approve of a states laws, based on their own activist criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking about the Brady Center's opinions. Answering my questions. Our editing of this article is framed by which laws we choose focus upon in the article. We have chosen certain laws to talk about, and have chosen certain laws to not talk about. We have chosen to favor the laws of interest to pro-gun people, and not chosen the laws of interest to people opposed to gun violence. This skew violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did answer your question. The first list is factual answers. Either a state does or does not have a waiting period etc. That is a matter of FACT. Whether an organization feels that a particular waiting period is weak or strong is a matter of opinion. Nor does that graphic address the individual laws you listed. Instead, it lumps them into a color coded mix. And what is a "good" "guns in public places" law versus a bad one? Whatever Bradys opinion is. Whereas the other list is being addressed by citing statutes. Stating what the law says is neutral. Stating what you think about the law is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that you are misunderstanding my question. I am asking why the article gives undue focus to the gun laws which are of interest to the NRA-ILA and the various open carry organization. And, at the same time this article gives little attention to the gun laws of interest to organizations who advocate for reductions in gun violence. For instance, I see little coverage of gun laws that address child safety, background checks or illegal gun trafficking. There is a special problem with the fifty tabular law summaries. Those tabular summaries focus disproportionately on laws of interest to pro-gun organizations. This seems a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just refreshed my understanding of WP:UNDUE and I have to agree with SaltyBoatr. Two important perspectives that are wholly unrepresented in deciding which state guns laws should be listed are that of law enforcement, whose professional responsibility is to reduce gun crime, and public health professionals, whose professional responsibility is to prevent gun injuries of all kinds. Police chiefs' point of view could be easily represented by consulting this document: http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/ACF1875.pdf and public health's perspective could be included by referencing this document: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=170.--PFS (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, the IACP is an activist organization of their own and their leadership is often at odds with the rank and file. They're less biased than Brady, but not neutral either. Polls have shown over and over that the rank and file in law enforcement do not support gun control laws. And the public health angle has to be looked at carefully too. Careful attention has to be looked at what their study criteria is and what their methodology was. Example, a study from the CDC some years back that considered 18 and 19 year old felons shooting each other as "children". Yet in every one of the 50 states, 18 is the age of majority. When the 18 and 19 year old ADULTS were removed from that study, the numbers dropped drastically.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget the IACP then and stop your rant about Brady, we already know that you loath them. That is not the question. The problem here is that the fifty tabular summaries of state laws presently in the article address categories of gun laws of concern primarily to gun rights advocates. While at the same time tending not to address categories of gun laws of interest to the opposite POV. Missing is coverage of several significant categories of gun laws, illegal gun trafficking laws, child safety laws, tracing of criminal use of guns and guns in the workplace/schools. This causes a clear violation of WP:NPOV because the article skews towards the point of view frame disproportionately favored by just one POV. Our duty as editors is to craft an article that fairly represents major POV's including the POV's that with which we personally may disagree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Forget your incivility, because I haven't ranted about anything. The discussion about 50 tables etc isn't in this section. Try keeping all your complaints in order. Your 50 tables objection is in Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Article_neutrality_disputed.2C_fifty_tables. Wonder if one can infer anything from your having so many complaints that you can't keep them straight. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing the process, changing the subject, incessantly, and avoiding the substance of discussion of improving the encyclopedia. Heck, you even argue the guideline of using indentation to make talk page discussions more readable. This behavior is disruptive to the goal here of writing an encyclopedia. Asking other editors: What shall we do control this disruption? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well since you went complaining to ANI, you can stop your "what are we going to do" attempts to build a "tag team". Also, I didn't argue the indenting guideline. I said it was getting tedious and I didn't care if I did it any longer. So keep your facts straight. Further, it was not me that started all these subsections and made the same conversation take place in 3 different sections. But since you did, quit complaining about it and answer in the correct place (and don't forget to indent). Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I should reiterate that I made every effort to exclude/remove anything from the graphic that expressed an opinion on whether restrictive gun laws are a good thing; I do not think such an opinion would be appropriate for this article. You could argue that it embodies an opinion on what constitutes restrictive, but I think it is pretty neutral in that regard. Brady wants to restrict gun access and usage, so they have no reason to skew that assessment. However, regardless of whether you think it expresses such an opinion, WP:NPOV says:

material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"

It further states:

An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common.

So if you believe that this material shows a point of view, you should quote sources that show alternative points of view. Deleting the material is not appropriate. You have said that you personally do not agree with their criteria, but you have not shown any sources that show a contrary viewpoint. Your personal disagreement with the viewpoint, or with the organization that is the source of the viewpoint, is not grounds for deleting the graphic.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please do not mischaracterize what I said. I haven't said that I personally don't agree with the criteria. I have correctly pointed out that their criteria is selected towards their opinion of gun control laws, not just gun laws. Their rating system is only about control law. Period. Their assessment is based on their opinion of the restrictiveness of the laws. Because that is their agenda. While you quote NPOV, you forget the other policy that goes with it WP:UNDUE. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Where is the other viewpoint about whether or not these laws are restrictive or not? This graphic isn't stating fact, like the length of a waiting period. It is depicting their assessment of whether or not a waiting period is "restrictive" or not, in their opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "control law"? That seems to be a vague term that could be applied to any law that one does not personally agree with. The issue here is gun regulation, and the Brady Scorecard (I think just about everyone would agree) is an accurate depiction of how extensively firearms are regulated from state to state. If the Scorecard was indeed arbitrary or advancing an agenda, I think you'd have a strong point, but it is based on a very specific set of objective criteria which is evenly applied from state to state. Furthermore, that criteria can be provided as a citation along with the table to make that clear. Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• A control law is simple. A law that seeks to either outright prohibit ownership, add more restrictions to ownership or provides more regulations that must be complied with to obtain a firearm. In simple English: Makes it harder to legally obtain firearms and provides more hoops to jump through. A waiting period is a means of delaying ownership. I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, but it inhibits ownership. Background checks? Again, not a bad idea, but still a means of controlling who gets guns. Child-fireamrs laws. Controlling how a firearm is stored in a private residence. Violating the law can result in the loss of firearm ownership. "Military style assault weapons" laws? Aside from the fact that they are already covered in the article, those laws are designed to prohibit ownership of certain firearms, mainly based on cosmetics. "Guns in public places"? Well who knows what that means, because it is a poorly defined criteria. The Brady scorecard doesn't deal with how firearms are regulated, it deals with how specifically selected categories are dealt with from state to state. Those categories are selected because they are measures that they back through their legislative lobbying. That is why their POV is skewed. It only focuses on specific areas that they have an agenda in. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift: Sorry, that was Mudwater that said he disagreed with the assessment. I did not intend to misrepresent your viewpoint. My apologies.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, it states:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The aspect of the subject involved here is the restrictiveness of state gun laws. I think it is hard to argue that a single assessment of their restrictiveness in an article about state gun laws is undue weight.

I do not understand how the part you quoted about neutrality supports your viewpoint. Are you aware of other "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"? If so, please add it to the article, or post a reference and I will be glad to do so. I have searched for other viewpoints on state gun law restrictiveness, and I have not found any.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The reason you don't find a lot of those is because most orgs simply cites statutes and don't make a determination about what is (in their opinion) restrictive or not. They state the law. The facts. Then let the reader decide if it is restrictive or not. How can anyone actually call Brady the least bit neutral? They're no more neutral than the NRA is. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so to summarize the NPOV/UNDUE arguments here:

• NPOV:
  • You say it violates NPOV
  • NPOV says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".
  • You say that there aren't any other viewpoints published by reliable sources (or to be precise, you say "you don't find a lot of them" and you have not provided any).
• UNDUE:
  • You say it violates UNDUE, but you quoted something about reliable sources.
  • UNDUE says the article should not give undue weight to any aspect of the subject.
  • I contend that including a single assessment of gun law restrictiveness is not undue weight.
  • You have not disputed that.

Is this an accurate summary? Or have I missed something?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tell you what SaltyBoatr, then link I found for this rating is MUCH different than the 5 simple categories you provided above. So please provide me with a specific link you are using that shows the criteria they used to arrive at the rankings shown in the graphic you are wanting to insert. That's not unreasonable to ask, is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow the link at the bottom of that page:

» Click here to download full scorecard

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Please see Help:Talk pages#Indentation. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I know the indenting nonsense. It's getting tedious and I choose not to play that game every time. If we're done complaining about silliness.....Now, as for the scorecard, that's pretty much what I found and that's a MUCH different picture than was painted with those 5 seemingly innoccous questions above. This whole scorecard is horribly skewed towards their agenda. It goes into secuity measures for stores (which has nothing to do wth this article), ammo regulation (again, seperate from guns), "childproof guns" which is an unreliable technology that has been rejected in almost every location because of the unreliability (49 out of 50 reject it) Even law enforcement, which stands to benefit from that idea (because it prevents officers from being shot by their own weapon) has rejected it across the board because no company has been able to make it reliable, they rate on magazine capacity standards. One that I loved was giving a state a zero for not having a law prohibiting the sale of a handgun to someone under 21. Um, federal laws (which apply to the state) already do that. There is no need for a state law, yet the state is penalized for not having a law prohibiting something that is already illegal. They give points for laws that are contrary to the Supreme Courts rulings. They take points for allowing concealed carry licenses, regardless of the states regulations. Why does a state that requires fingerprinting, background checks and proof of training given a zero? Because Brady has an agenda and they're using this scorecard to advance it. It rates on things in their legistaltive agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the indenting, it was not a complaint. Rather I was pointing out the indenting convention, which is there to make it easier for people to follow the threads of conversation. I am sorry you think it is nonsense. I will not bring it up again.

Regarding the rest of your message, you make some good points, but I see flaws in them as well and am tempted to address them. However your personal opinions of Brady's assessment are really just a distraction, so I will exercise restraint.

You removed the graphic from the article and have justified that removal on the grounds that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Above, I summarized your argument in a way that I believe shows that it is completely groundless. Unfortunately, you ignored it. Since you removed the graphic, I think you need to show just cause, but you appear to be unwilling to do so. So I ask you again, is the summary above accurate? Do you have anything further to add to it?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• First, the graphic was restored using the justification that it was a 4:2 !vote. This is because a RfC was started and saltyboar waited a whole couple of hours, took the first 2 responses and decided the matter was resolved. Can you honestly tell me that you think it is proper to declare a "consensus" after 3 hours? Shouldn't a RfC be allowed to run at least a full day, if not several days? So I removed it to allow the RfC to run it's course.

Regarding the actual issue, my "personal opinion" has validity, as does any other editors, because let's face it, that's how things get decided. We discuss things at AfD, RSN, BLPN etc. Got to an AfD and see some editors who are of the opinion that a subject has receieved "significant coverage" and some who believe that the subject hasn't. That is sheer opinion. Nothing more. People give their opinions and a consensus gets formed. So let's not pretend that opinions have no place on Misplaced Pages. Instead, let's look at some of them one at a time. Let's start with "childproof guns", ok? 49 of 50 states do not have a law that meets the criteria for Brady to give them points. Without going into the mechanics or the reliability issue, let's stay with the POV part. If 49 of 50 states reject this, I'd call that a clear majority, wouldn't you? The fact that Brady includes a category that 98% of the states reject as a gauge, shouldn't that call into question whether or not that is even a valid category? I believe it is reasonable to think that the inclusion of a category that 98% of the states reject (even the ones they consider some of the most restrictive) is due more to their agenda (as they have unsuccessfully lobbied for this legislation in several states) and less with it being a "what's the norm" kind of criteria. It is included because, in Brady's opinion, it's a law that they think should be on the books. Again, please let's focus on just this question...can you at least conceed that this one category is questionable? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the point of your first comment is. Note that I did not restore the graphic, either yesterday or when two weeks ago when it was removed the first time. Rather than engage in edit wars, I think it makes more sense to discuss the merits of the removal, with civility, honesty and integrity, and I have tried to do that. To me that means sticking to the issue at hand, avoiding distractions and little digs at those with whom you disagree. It also means addressing points made by your adversaries and conceding a point if you can no longer defend it.

I certainly agree that your personal opinion has validity. But whether you agree with a source is emphatically not the criteria for inclusion in an article. It seems to me that it is self-evident that cannot be the case. If anyone who disagrees can veto the inclusion, there would be little that would pass that test and there would be virtually no content. Instead, the Misplaced Pages approach is to include all significant views, as long as they are backed by reliable sources.

It seems to me that you are conflating opinions on how to follow Misplaced Pages policy with allowing personal opinions to override Misplaced Pages policy.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say that you restored it and can't even see where you drew the inference that I did. I thought when I said "saltybotr waited a whole couple of hours, took the first 2 responses and decided the matter was resolved" that is was pretty clear I was talking abot his actions. Then I asked your opinion on calling a RfC concluded after less than 3 hours.

Nor do I see where I have addressed you in less than a civil manner. If you'd like to point out where you think that happened, please do, because it wasn't intended.

Again, I invite you to reply to the specific point I started with. While you're busy telling my that I'm basing this only on my opinion, you're forgetting about the actual discussion. Rather than trying to take the scorecard as a whole, I've tried to ask you to discuss it a point at a time, so we can better decided what to do. Do you think it is a non-biased, non-agenda pushing point for Brady to penalize a state for something that has been rejected by 98% of the states? Or does inclusion of what is, at this point in history, an obscure measure that is just part of their legislative agenda, an attempt to "chastise" a state for not doning something that is, in their opinion, something the states should be doing. Are you going to discuss it, or just keep telling me it is just my opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say, nor in any way suggest, that you had said that I had restored the graphic, and I don't believe that you said that. I did not say anything that related to restoring the graphic in my previous message and I did not restore the graphic. So what I said is that I did not see the point of you bringing that up in your message to me. It did not, and does not, seem relevant to this conversation.

I also did not say that you had addressed me in an uncivil manner, nor did I mean to imply that. I am sorry my comment came across that way. What I said was that I have tried to meet those goals. The reason I made the comment was not driven by our conversation, but by some of what has occurred on this talk page. I was hoping the comment would nudge others toward those goals as well. It was not directed at you specifically.

Indeed, I have not replied to your critique of the Brady criteria. As I said before, your opinion of the criteria (and mine as well) does not matter. If you could come up with reliable sources that criticizes the criteria, that would be relevant, but you would need to produce overwhelming criticism in order to justify removing the graphic. Regardless, your opinion that it is flawed, without any reliable sources, is not a basis for removing it.

That said, since it seems important to you, I will address your comments about the merits of the scorecard, even though I believe it is not relevant, and you have not shown that it is relevant. In return, I ask that you address my comments about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which clearly are relevant, since you cited them as reasons the scorecard graphic should be removed. And if you would like me to further discuss the merits of the scorecard, I think you need to show that it is relevant.

OK, so New Jersey has a law requiring "child safety features" on newly purchased handguns and the 49 other states do not have this requirement. Undoubtedly, that makes New Jersey more restrictive in that respect, and the Brady ratings reflect that. Brady thinks that is more restrictive and thinks that is a good thing. I presume you think it is a bad thing, but do you think it is more or less restrictive? I cannot imagine that you could disagree with Brady on this point; it is clearly more restrictive. The fact that other states do not have the New Jersey requirement does not make the law more or less restrictive. The law is restrictive, and both pro-gun and anti-gun people can agree on that.

I will await your response to my NPOV / UNDUE question.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• You don't understand, this IS part of the NPOV/UNDUE issue. This is not about whether I think restrictive is good or bad. They penalize states for something that virtually the entire nation rejects. If this were a matter of 40 states had it and 10 didn't, the penalty would seem less POV. But when the national response is an overwhelming no, the fact that they penalize states for not having a law that virtually everyone has rejected (despite Brady's efforts), it stinks of POV and agenda pushing. Giving weight to a criteria that has a 98% rejection rate is giving it undue weight. 2% acceptance borders on WP:FRINGE. Consider that the claim we faked the moon landing is considered fringe, yet polls show anywhere from 6-28% of people believe they were faked. If 6-28% is still "fringe", how can we consider 2% to be "normal" enough to be something we can penalize states for not having? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please address how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE apply, in light of my summary posted above.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, I am addressing those issues. I'm sorry that you aren't able to follow the example. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue you are missing that the article must include the POV of groups with which we disagree. Your reasoning is that Brady has a flawed and biased POV. Per policy here, it doesn't matter if they are flawed, or biased. As long as it is a 'signficant view', we must include Brady's opinion even if it is flawed or biased. That is what WP:NPOV says. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whose assessment of the laws are being shown already, requiring Brady to balance? Or what graphic do you propose to give balance to the Brady one? I know what NPOV says, but the lack of neutrality becomes an undue weight issue when the information isn't balanced, especially when the info not being balanced is the minority view. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Article neutrality disputed, fifty tables

The discussion thread in the section just above has drifted off topic, so bringing focus back. Specifically, the fifty tabular summaries of the state laws focus on seven category of laws which happen to be of interest to the POV that favors gun rights. There are a number of category of laws missing, and these are those of interest to the POV most concerned about curbing gun violence. This imbalance in the fifty tables amounts to a WP:UNDUE policy violation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're not being objective in that assessment. Each of those tables contain 8 entries. 5 of those 8 actually deal with gun control measures.

1. Does the state require a permit to purchase? Requiring a permit is a form of gun control.
2. Does the state require registration? Registration is a form of gun control.
3. Does a state have an "assault weapons" law? AW laws ban certain types of firearms, certainly a type of gun control.
4. Is an owners license required? Again, this is a form of gun control.
5. Are carry permits issued? Again, the requirement of a permit is a form of gun control.

So your objection is really not well reasoned. AGF isn't a suicide pact and I'll call a duck a duck. This objection is just WP:POINTy and an attempt to disrupt. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This ad hominem is plainly uncivil and harmful to constructive work on this talk page. What does proving a personal point about "gun control" have to do with writing a neutral article, other than to act as a red herring? I am noticing the obvious here. The fifty tabular summaries of categories of gun laws cover gun law catagories of interest to gun rights proponents, and largely ignore categories of laws of interest to the opposite POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Call it an ad hominem if you want, but that won't make it so. I called your objection pointy and an attempt to disrupt. I didn't comment on you at all. If you'd like me to comment on you, just extend the invitation, then it won't be an attack. I demonstrated that 5 of the 8 categories in each of those tables is also of interest to "the opposite POV". In case you missed it, 5 of 8 is over half, which means it's NOT tilted towards gun rights proponents. Now if you'd like to stop complaining about imaginary red herrings or other diversions from the reality, maybe you could explain how having over half of the table devoted to categories of interest to gun control proponents makes this the neutrality issue you stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your logic that somehow because a law category can be described as a "control law" that therefore it represents the categories of laws of interest to the opposite POV seems contrived. What are you reading, or is this theory coming from your WP:OR? In my objection, I look at the categories of gun laws that the Brady Center gives attention, and these include Firearm Trafficking, Background Checks, Child Safety and Guns In Public Places. These four categories are missing from the 50 tables, therefore I think there is a WP:UNDUE policy violation here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, the opposite POV self describes as being organizations advocating against "gun violence". Generally the "gun control" label is favored by gun rights advocates to frame their opponent with a negative label. We should avoid that tactic here because of our duty to edit neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• What you apparently miss is that stating a group is "against gun violence" is that the very direct implication is that anyone with an opposite view must be "pro gun violence". Saying that someone is "pro gun violence" is extremely predjudicial. Or do you contend that implying someone is pro gun violence is perfectly acceptable? I'd also point out that before they changed their name to the Brady Campaign, their name originally National Council to Control Handguns, then Handgun Control, Inc. Now you can argue that they changed their name and their history doesn't matter any longer, but I think that's not very honest. They changed tactics and got smarter in the public relations, which is very smart on their part. But almost every category on that scorecard is a measure to inhibit private ownership of firearms. I also began discussing the specifics of the scorecard above. Of course you are invited to discuss the points I've raised there. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, please stop the evasion. Could we discuss the NPOV issue of the categories of laws in the tables? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Evasion? You were the one that brought up the whole "control" versus "gun violence" issue, then you call my responding to it "evasion"? Unbelievable. Can this get more transparent? And, oh yeah, I have started addressing the NPOV issue, one category at a time here: . Again, I invite you to respond to the specific example. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I followed your link and didn't see you addressing the issue of NPOV for the categories of law in the fifty tables. Please be specific. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• What specific categories do you think need listed in these 50 tables and why? And do you dispute that the 5 I detailed above aren't of interest to those who "oppose gun violence"? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I have answered these two questions before. 1) When I looked at the categories of gun laws at the Brady Campaign scorecard, I see that four out of five of their 'top level' law categories; Firearm Trafficking, Background Checks, Child Safety and Guns In Public Places are missing from the 50 tables. 2) Your reasoning of "5 I detailed above" (as near as I can tell) is not founded in anything other than your contrived personal reasoning, and therefore it is not relevant here per WP:Policy. Our duty is to look at the sourcing and try to craft an article that matches the POV balance seen in the sourcing as opposed to personal reasoning. Reread WP:UNDUE if you are unclear on that policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, some of the already present categories are addressed in the current tables. However, trying to address it by those "upper 5" creates a problem. How do we address the sub-categories? For instance, right now, the tables answer yes or no, there is a waiting period. But the Brady scorecard has 14 subcategories under that heading. So what would we answer for Connecticut, who scores points in 6 of the 14 sub categories? Are we going to make 14 subs? Or have 6 footnotes to explain CT? Meanwhile, the current table currently explains: "Certificate of Eligibility for Pistol or Revolver required to purchase handguns. Applicants must complete an approved handgun safety course, and pass a NICS background check prior to issuance of certificate. Certificate of Eligibility valid for five years. There is a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns, with exceptions for peace officers and Active-Duty military members" and cites the Connecticut statutes that apply. You have to admit, that is a fairly infomative entry, which already addresses the topic of background checks. Can you give an example of how you intend to address these states (which are the majority) that have split answers within those "upper 5" categories? Perhaps an example of how you think the table should look? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for indenting, that is helpful. I need to work on it to answer specifics, and will give it a try. In general I expect that simply adding the gun law categories that we see on the Brady Campaign to the 50 tables will be what it takes to fix that WP:UNDUE problem.

• I paapreciate your response and I do believe this can be resolved civilly, given time and discussion. I am interested in seeing how you work out what looks like a very complicated problem. The presence of the numrous sub-categories in each of the "upper 5" is going to present a challenge to be sure. And it's not that I object to all of the info from the score card, my objection is to the form. I don't believe that the graphic itself is that informative and in presenting it in a visual form is the problem because, let's face it, graphics catch the eye. As I said from the start, if there were similar graphic from the "other side", that would be fine. Likewise, I'd have far less objections to much of the info from the scorecard if it were presented either in prose or in the tables alongside the other info. That seems more likely to be balanced to me. But I would like to see what you come up with to address the sub-category issue and maybe we can figure out something workable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington State

The Washington State section contains the phrase "...interpreted the law passed as an open-carry ban that is situational to someone making a 911 phone call." In the context of this section of the article, I can't quite figure out what this phrase is meant to convey - the original writer seems to be saying that a 911 phone call demonstrates a type of situation where the bit of open carry laws are meaningful. Could it be rephrased/clarified? 76.104.188.253 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Several statements are made which appear biased and are presented without attribution or citation: "In Washington, there was a tremendous amount of disinformation among law enforcement officers, gun store employees, and firearms instructors about RCW 9.41.270." "Many law enforcement personnel, a generation removed from the events and discussions of the Legislature when the law was created and without much guidance," "Several localities (including transit agencies) who had wrongfully enforced preempted local ordinances and rules have been challenged by activists in the open-carry movement (who are most directly affected by the enforcement of such ordinances) and have since backed down from enforcement and directed their police departments no longer to enforce the ordinances and rules." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagoods (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Article sourcing, red flag

When I did a count of the 281 references of this article I see that the vast majority are links to primary sources and pro-gun sources. This is a red flag, indicating a high risk of violation of WP:NOR.

Additionally, there are about ten times more pro-gun sources than the opposite POV, which indicates a red flag for a WP:NPOV violation.

Per policy at Misplaced Pages, article should be mostly drawn from third party reliable sources, but this article is drawn from primary sources. Primary sources outnumber third party sources by five times. This indicates a red flag for WP:SYN violation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks rather extreme. On first sight it looks as if perhaps most of the primary sources are being used for excessive detail rather than original research or improper synthesis. Is that your impression also? Hans Adler 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still thinking, so my impression is not formed yet. It seems to me that this article mostly serves a purpose of being a sort of 'guide book', with the audience being mostly gun users. In the broad view it is a research paper collecting together links and summaries from primary sources, typically municipal ordinances and the like. It does seem to parallel similar works done by the NRA-ILA and the various Open Carry lobby groups. I also think that a systemic bias occurs when editors with an obvious personal bias towards 'pro-gun' sources, choose which primary sources to insert into an article. I.E. there would be a tendency to give greater attention to concealed carry permit laws, than to gun theft reporting laws for instance. That, I think is the crux of the warning of WP:SYN, where the editorial selection process bias causes the problem. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Which ones are you calling a primary source? For example, if the State of Connecticut's official website is used a a reference to quote the actual statute, are you calling that a primary source? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it a State website is not a "third party" source for information about that State's laws. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so that's where this slavish reading of primary/secondary etc. is a problem. Nobody is a better source of the states law than the state itself. You get it in full, unvarnished form. Asking that some third party read it and interpret it for you really makes no sense. The third party can be right or wrong, but it is still just their take on it. Using the state as a source for their own law is the least biased, most accurate source available. This is one of those very rare situations where I think WP:IAR applies. It would be like saying that the Farmtown Gazette is a better source for what the State of the Union speech said than the White House would be because the White House is a primary source and the Farmtown Gazette is a third party source. There is no bias in linking directly to what the state law is. The potential for bias doesn't start until some reporter/scholar/expert starts interpreting them for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, there is plenty of bias involved in the selection of the links and the omission of links to primary/secondary sources. For instance, editor bias here is plenty evident. I see dozens of links to open carry, permitted carry laws etc.. And few to none for other types of gun law such as gun theft reporting requirements, etc..

I think a link to the statutes should be considered a primary source, and the cautions in WP:PRIMARY should certainly apply there. A state-run website that synthesizes the laws for the general public should be considered a secondary source. The danger in primary sources is that an editor will synthesize the laws in an inaccurate or non-neutral way. I don't think that is a danger with the state website. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• What synthesizing? Many of these links go directly to the statute. PEriod. No interpretation. No commentary. Straight law. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article summarizes what is in the statutes, citing the statutes as the source, that is synthesizing a primary source, which is what WP:PRIMARY warns about. If it cites a state web site or the NRA/ILA site as its source, and then adds a link to the statutes for further information, that is completely consistent with WP:PRIMARY. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed there is not danger of reliability of the state website, I am simply discussing the obvious WP:OR/WP:SYN red flag when primary/secondary references outnumber third party references by a factor of 5X. And the obvious WP:NPOV red flag when advocacy sources are imbalanced by a factor of 10X. There are huge red flag concerns here with these source imbalances. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: In your chart above, did you count state web sites such as the PA State police and PA Attorney General sites as primary or secondary? If you counted them as primary, do you think I have made a good argument that such sites should be considered secondary? And if the answer to that is "yes", would it be possible to update the numbers? I realize it must have taken some time to generate those numbers, and that updating the numbers would take even more time, but I think it would be very helpful. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on my previous comment, under Pennsylvania, there are links to the State Police and Attorney General web sites. Granted, they are both part of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but they are definitely separate entities, and they synthesize the statutes in a way that makes sense for the general public. I think they clearly should be considered secondary sources.

The third source for Pennsylvania is a little odd. The title, "Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes — Uniform Firearms Act", suggests that it links to the statutes, but the link goes to http://members.aol.com/StatutesP2/18.Cp.61A.html, which is part of AOL's Hometown blog site, which was shut down 1½ years ago. Obviously, that was not a good choice for linking to the PA Statutes. But it seems completely consistent with WP:PRIMARY to add a link to the statutes in this manner, as long as the synthesis comes from the secondary sources.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are specific links. But your broad indictment is that there are too many primary sources. Looking at Florida for example, 2 of the "primary sources" go directly to the state legislatures site of the state statutes. No reporting. No summarizing. No opinion. Straight fact from the source. The 3rd "primary source" goes to the state agency that issue concealed carry licenses where it lists which states they have a reciprocal agreement with and then answers from questions based on the statutes. However, the source is being used to show states that have a reciprocal agreement, so there is no "synth" required there. Straight listing. It sounds like you'd find all 3 of those acceptable for their use, however, they fall into your graph, contributing to what you see as an imbalance. How many others are like that? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I made no broad indictment, or an indictment of any kind. In fact, while I have not really taken a position on whether primary sources are a problem, my comments would best be characterized as defending your position against what SaltyBoatr has said. What I said was that sources that I think he has counted as primary sources are in fact, secondary sources. Please re-read my comments. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• My apologies. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My starting point is the bedrock core policy: WP:V which says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I concede a fuzzy line between primary and secondary with many of these sources, but no matter to that WP:V core policy sentence which says "third party". My chart could therefore just as easily be read as "third party" and "not third party". Of course, there are some exceptions to WP:V emphasis on "third party", but my concern here is that this article bends this core policy rule way too far. Indeed adding in the advocacy sourcing, the article is 11% third party sourced and 89% not third party sourced. I object, 1:10 ratio is just too far out. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(Also, I don't see any discussion of the 5:1 ratio of pro-gun vs. con advocacy sources, that too seems way too imbalanced to meet neutral point of view policy here.) SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In context of this advocacy sourcing, it is also worth mentioning that the most frequent pro-gun advocacy source mentioned here is USACarry.com, which appears to owned by i156 Inc.. Looking at Whois you can see that this corporation also appears to be in the business of manufacturing handgun holsters, presumably with a financial interest in encouraging a movement to carry handguns, and selling handgun holsters. It seems odd and wrong that this article would be incidentally serving the purpose of promoting handgun holster sales. At the very least, this makes the encyclopedia look bad. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of discussions of the Brady graphic

I agree with Niteshift36 that the discussions have become fractured and that has made the discussion more difficult. In an attempt to ameliorate the situation, I am summarizing the areas of discussion so that there will be a single place to add further comments. Please post further discussion at the end of each related sub-section, and not in the discussion sections above.

I am certain that I will not be able to do justice to the arguments made by the removal side, but I hope to include the major areas of contention. Please feel free to correct and expand my summary, and if I have completely missed something, feel free to add a new sub-section.

These discussions started after JPMcGrath added a map to this page titled "State gun law ratings. 2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard" and it was later removed by Mudwater, who justified the removal on grounds that "it violates the principle of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view". The question to be decided is whether removal of the map was appropriate or whether it should be restored.

Participants supporting removal are Niteshift36 and Mudwater. Participants supporting inclusion are JPMcGrath and SaltyBoatr, along with minor participation from Stephan Schulz, Forward Thinkers and anonymous user 67.176.160.47.

Bias

The removal side says that the "Brady Campaign State Scorecard violates the Neutral Point Of View policy because the Brady Campaign is strongly biased in favor of gun control and against gun rights". The inclusion side says that while Brady is biased on the efficacy of state gun control laws, they are not biased on assessing the strength of those laws. Stephan Schulz says that the map's colors could be interpreted as pro-gun, and that he "could see exactly the same map produced by the NRA".

The inclusion side says that the graphic characterizes gun laws in terms of restrictiveness and takes no position on whether restrictiveness is good or bad. Niteshift36 says that the graphic shows Brady's opinion on what gun laws are "restrictive enough for them".

Niteshift36 says that there is bias because the graphic data is attributed to Brady and the reader will know that it is based on their assessment. Stephan Schulz says that the inclusion of the graphic is neutral because it is attributed.

Mudwater says that the fact that the Brady assessment assigned higher point values to states with more restrictive laws favored the anti-gun position. In response, JPMcGrath removed the point values from the legend.

SaltyBoatr says that the preponderance of references in the article are for pro-gun sites and that the article is skewed to the pro-gun point of view. Niteshift36 says that the references from pro-gun sites show matters of fact while the Brady assessments are matters of opinion.

NPOV / UNDUE issues

Niteshift36 says that the graphic violates WP:NPOV because it draws WP:UNDUE attention to the opinion of the Brady Campaign. JPMcGrath says that WP:UNDUE applies to aspects of the subject matter and not to the opinions of a particular group. Of course, new participants are welcome on either side.

Niteshift36 says that the graphic presents the assessment of and anti-gun group and it is not balanced by an assessment by a neutral party. JPMcGrath says that the assessment is not controversial and if there are other assessments that disagree significantly, they should be included, but assessments from reliable sources should not be removed. Niteshift36 says that no other assessments exist because pro-gun groups are more concerned about facts than assessments. JPMcGrath says that WP:NPOV does not support deleting sources because sources that disagree cannot be found.

Brady assessment criteria

The removal side says that the Brady assessment criteria is flawed, and that it does not accurately reflect how restrictive a state's gun laws are. Mudwater says that Brady assigns points based on the number of gun control laws and does not sufficiently weigh specific types of gun laws, such as "restrictions on concealed carry, local gun bans, and licensing of firearms owners".

Niteshift36 says that the criteria are selected based on Brady's legislative lobbying, so the criteria is skewed. JPMcGrath says that a Misplaced Pages editor's opinion does not matter, and that if there are published sources that assess state gun laws, they should be included. For this to be a basis for removal, the criteria would need to be called into question by reliable published sources.

Summary

The inclusion side says that the article is "all trees and no forest", and that it should provide an "overall picture of the gun laws across the country", which the Brady graphic provides. Mudwater agreed that it "all trees and no forest", but says that the article should avoid summaries that might contain opinion.

Talk page archiving

Per User:MiszaBot I, "Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Misplaced Pages forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." Per Help:Archiving a talk page, "... there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion.... Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to consensus for each case..." I therefore propose that this article's talk page be archived manually, not by a bot, and that it only be archived when some discussion sections are very old, or when the talk page becomes extremely long. — Mudwater 15:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unassessed Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused