Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 22 April 2014

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

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

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

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

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun politics was copied or moved into Gun control with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives (index)

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

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

This article stinks

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Deadlocked I just found this cute little template. Wow, all the months that have gone by and we've missed the opportunity to use it.... Sigh... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazi gun control article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits without discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarizing Harcourt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed Dingell and Heston with a detailed edit summary, which I copy here: WP:UNDUE Dingell=2 sentences in a 361-pg book; Heston=1 sentence + 2 short pro-gun rally quotes in a 29-pg paper; sources support those who seriously argue/d this and wrote about it are Halbrook, LaPierre, and Zelman. Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

International debate?

Copied here from unfinished discussion of March 20-21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The handful of sources have been discussed at length here and on other talk pages. This is NOT an international debate. Period. What is in this article is already more than there should be. Everyone should remember at all times re this: the last time there was an RfC on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST Mea culpa: 19 for to 22 against having ANY of it here. I call on Gaijin and North to let this go. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Thank you, Gaijin. Well, for the first part anyway. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Since we've now established that there is no evidence of any significant international debate on the 'Nazi' issue (and no, a source telling us that the gun lobby likes to make comparisons isn't evidence of a meaningful debate - it is evidence that the gun control lobby likes to make comparisons...), can anyone explain why it deserves to be in the article at all? This is supposed to be an international overview of firearms regulation issues, not a one-sided recap of the US gun control debate - issues significance to one country alone should be dealt with in the relevant article, not here, per WP:WEIGHT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There are those pesky goalposts. Watch em move. We have not established there is no international debate, we just established that it wasn't worth fighting over the word international. In any case, please identify the policy that says "worldwide view means exclude the US". in a decently long article, a single paragraph, that has almost 3/4 of it dedicated to the other side of the argument, is a one-sided presentation? pfft. You can do better. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy has moved no goalposts. IF there ever was a "consensus" to include Nazi gun control material in this article, consider WP:CONLIMITED. But leaving that aside, the fact remains that consensus can change. So I'm going to say this again: the last time there was an RfC on it, it was 20 for to 30 AGAINST Mea culpa: 19 for to 22 against having ANY of it here. Lightbreather (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

19–22 would have been a No consensus if it had been a head-count alone, so the material would have stayed. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, can you cite policy for that? You seem to be confusing RfCs with AfDs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a difference between RfCs with AfDs regarding what would count as consensus if it were a head-count alone. Given that both of them say it's not based on a head-count alone, it seems odd that they would specify different numbers. Can you show me where they do that? Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware that RfCs aren't closed by head count alone - it is your assertion that an RfC closed as 'no consensus' would entail the material being retained that I am asking you to cite policy for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not policy-based. If there had not been a consensus to remove it people could have removed it anyway. Can we stop this silliness now? Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can - by not inventing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly! Have you nothing better to do with your day? Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy, the policy Scolaire is referring to is WP:NOCONSENSUS. It says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." 1. It says "commonly," not always. 2. It also says, "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Is this article about living people? It's not a BLP, but there are still living Holocaust survivors, and what is more contentious than comparing a subject to Nazism? 3. Then there is the fact that an ArbCom was started on this RfC before it came to a substantive close. It was closed procedurally by an Admin without analysis of consensus, pending word from the arbitrators. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to large groups of people WP:BLPGROUP nor does it apply to statements that aren't actually about that person/group, nor does it apply to things people might find offensive, but specific allegations that could cause libel, defemation, or other legal issues. WP:NOTCENSORED Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know? Are there any policies, guidelines, or essays, on the use of Nazi comparisons in articles? Also, I have to leave for the better part of the day, so I'll be absent from discussions here. Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The vote was at 19-for to 22-against when it went to ArbCom. Also, I don't need a lecture on how a simple vote does not decide a question. (I've lost count of how many times I've been the third man in a vote and, regardless of my arguments, I was told 2-to-1 is a consensus.) Anyway, that's where the vote stood when it went to ArbCom, on a controversial topic. Some of us, myself included (and you, too, if I remember rightly), asked to have the material removed while the ArbCom was open. I wanted to delete it from the start (I'll wager others included), but didn't, thinking there would be a decision within a couple of weeks, so why rock the boat. Yet every day that "material" (I want to call it crap) sits there is a day that those who support it claim silence is consensus. (I've lost count of how many times I've been told "It's been there two years," or "It's been there two months," or "It's been there two weeks" - which should mean about as much as a simple vote.)

IN FACT, I removed it a couple days ago, with the edit summary, "Bold edit to divert this material and discussions to Nazi gun control article." That is, I replaced it with a description of the controversy and a link to a page that can be developed fully to describe the controversy - and not just summarize something that a U.S., pro-gun fringe want very badly to make a part of a reasonable, global discussion. But guess what? The removed material was restored, with the edit summary, "Really?" - by the editor who started the ArbCom. Big surprise. Lightbreather (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Chapman 2013, p. 221.
2. ^ Brown 2012, p. 218.

It's an international debate, period. No amount of wikilawyering will change that.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying content

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

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

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

This is the edit (it's not that difficult to spot), much of the discussion from Re-ordering the paragraph down is where the deleted content was agreed, and here is where I said that "your 'simple sentence' is a more blatant statement of POV than any I have seen from the most biased pro-gun editor." Feigning innocence or ignorance only makes your actions more reprehensible. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'agreed content' concerning the 'Nazi' issue in this article. The inclusion of such material has always been contested, and indeed is currently the subject of an active ArbCom case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is disagreement over whether the issue should be dealt with in this article or not. As of now, it is. The paragraph that deals with is is the result of a discussion between editors that led to agreement. So yes, it is 'agreed content'. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So it was 'agreed' because the editors that agreed to it agreed to it, and those that didn't don't count because they weren't part of the agreement? Interesting logic - if by 'logic' one means 'utter bollocks'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, thank you for the first ("This") DIFF. That answers both of my questions. But for Pete's sake, let's not make this about either of us feigning anything. The reason I asked is because this is a discussion on a PUBLIC talk page, on a controversial subject. We know that people are following it now and very likely will read it in the future. Why make them dig for and assume what you're referring to? So, could you please strike the "reprehensible" remark?

Since it's not long, I'll copy the "egregious POV" statement here:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S., group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

Of course there are plenty of WP policies and guidelines on writing about controversial subjects, but here's a succint one: WP:CONTROVERSY says, "Describe the controversy." When summarizing the Nazi gun control historical revision (according to some, fringe) hypothesis, what is egregious POV about the proposed statement? Lightbreather (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Small, but vocal" is opinion not backed up by citations. "Historical revisionism hypothesis" is opinion not backed up by citations. "This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship" is opinion not backed up by citations. All of it is POV, therefore in total it is egregious POV.

I've thought about striking "reprehensible", and decided against it. You are playing a double game – insisting on the talk page that you want to be collaborative while persisting with disruptive edits such as these on the article. I want people who read this page in the future to understand this. Scolaire (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering all the sources that have been discussed by all of the editors (pro-gun and pro-control) that have been involved in the discussion, I don't think citing/editing that brief statement - or something like it that could be cited/edited collaboratively - will be difficult. Here's a start:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S. group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

1. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Germany, Gun Laws. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 314–316. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
2. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–414. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
3. Harcourt, B. E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
4. Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). "Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 721–730.

Did I miss something from ArbCom? Have they decided that whatever you and Gaijin agree to is what will stay on this page? Lightbreather (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And since you insist on making this personal, despite our private discussions, OK, here goes. If you won't strike the "reprehensible" comment, and you think I'm playing a game (which I'm not), maybe your proposals in the ArbCom workshop are just a game, since you insist on breaking many of the policies you named there. You keep up the personal attacks, and you've named yourself and Gaijin as the approved editors to "agree" that not only will Nazi gun control material stay here, but that you - "I will revert you again" - and he - "you need to discuss this with Gaijin before doing it again" and "Since it was Gaijin who wrote the first part, I think we should leave it to him to edit it appropriately" - will give the final stamp of approval on how much will stay, and how it will be written. Lightbreather (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say what I've had to say explicitly on other gun-related talk pages, which are predominated by pro-gun editors: Don't shoot the messenger. Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

During a lull in the fighting – and after I had absented myself for over two months from this page – I began a dialogue with Gaijin on a couple of matters that I felt were of major importance. North8000 joined the conversation, and anybody else might have, but nobody else did. When Gaijin had explicitly endorsed my proposals, and North had said he wouldn't oppose them despite having reservations, I edited accordingly. I believe that the result was a paragraph far better than what had been there until then. I hoped that anybody joining the conversation after those edits would follow the same, collaborative, procedure: make their proposals, make a case, make concessions where necessary, and establish a consensus which they could then implement. Of course, there's no law on WP that says everybody must follow this procedure, so in principle I had no complaint if an editor decided to follow a different path. But if one editor has the right to be BOLD, another editor (like me) has the right to revert. I made it clear that it was my intention to do so. I named nobody as "approved editors", I argued with you in respect of what I had written, and said I thought you should not argue with me, but with Gaijin, about what he had written. Gaijin took the same approach as regards one of my reverts here.

Having made my position clear, I am going to withdraw from this page again, because the atmosphere is no longer conducive to improving the article in a collegiate fashion. Goodbye, and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The subtle POV pushing is typical. The reverts are necessary. I have complained many many times, but the complaints fall on silent (or even worse, hostile) ears. The reverts preserve the consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing: Disagree. Complained frequently: Agree. Complaints fell on silent/hostile ears: Disagree. Reverts necessary, preserve consensus: Disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No more "meme," please

I have seen a disturbing trend in this discussion of referring to this whole, complicated, controversial debate as a "meme." When the average reader hears the word, they think of farcical memes like that old gem All your base are belong to us or the more recent Grumpy Cat. I think it is poor form to reduce this issue to that word. "Argument," "debate," "subject," or "topic" are all more serious, unambiguous terms for a serious topic. Lightbreather (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't want to tell people how to word their comments, but the word "meme" really minimizes the importance of the topics at hand. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Plans

I was briefly involved in this article and talk page last year, and have not been involved since then, and I have no plans to edit this gun control article ever again. But, if this article and talk page were to become less toxic, and if the current ArbCom proceeding ends with me still editing Misplaced Pages, then I would probably support a rather simple solution to this mess. To wit: leave the pertinent material as it is in Gun politics in the United States, and just replace the pertinent material in the gun control article with something like this:

I mention this here since it's been hidden at the ArbCom workshop talk page. I won't have anything further to say here for the time being, because it seems as toxic as ever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any particular plans to stop editing here. Maybe someday, when I feel these kinds of articles are complete and NPOV. But I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, or any other kind of thing could happen, so... I will respond by saying what I said yesterday on the Gun politics in this U.S. talk page. What you've written above, is an example of what Harcourt summarized succinctly when he wrote:

"Harcourt, Bernard E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 657."

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazis did not practice gun control

In a tortured literal sense of the term, one can say the nazis practiced "gun control". Similarly, one can say that disarming children, violent criminals, and prisoners is "gun control." Such a usage of the term "gun control", while technically correct in some sense, is completely out of accord with the academic and colloquial meaning of the word. It should be excluded from the article because WP:Context matters.

Adding this Nazi stuff is as ridiculous and tone-deaf as adding a section about white Afrikaaner immigrants to America to the African American article. Though they are technically 'African American', referring to them as such is misleading because that term refers to black people in the United States. Similarly, "gun control" in America refers to broad social policies aimed at reducing rates of gun ownership and gun violence. The anti-gun control folks should focus their energy citing studies that say gun control policies don't achieve their goals, or alternatively cite legal scholars that say gun control violates Constitutional rights. Describing the Holocaust as entailing "gun control" is nothing more than a smear. It's literally true in a tone-deaf technical sense, but it's false and misleading in a substantive sense. Steeletrap (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The dictionary.com definition of "gun control" is similar to the others: "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms." You are trying to fashion your own different definition that excludes types with bad purposes or indefensibly bad forms of it. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That definition is completely consistent with the one I'm proposing. The people who write the dictionary expect readers to exercise common sense. The fact is, RS do not endorse your definition, and ridicule the fringe ideological sources that do. Steeletrap (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about I just said that the definition is straight from dictionary.com. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The words of the dictionary entry can be construed to accommodate your view of "gun control", but they need not be. RS do not interpret gun control the way you do. No encyclopedia entries on the Holocaust mention gun control, and no encyclopedia entries on gun control mention the Holocaust. This is a smear campaign pushed by fringe ideological sources; it has no following in academic circles. Steeletrap (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The plain language of the dictionary is quite straightforward. And just how do you know that this is part of a "smear campaign" or conspiracy pushed by "fringe" elements. Is this some sort of WP:TRUTH that you have discovered? Could it not possibly be that others have a legitimate and thoughtful differences of opinion? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that "thoughtful" is not the same as "legitimate" in the context of WP content policy. Everything on this page is thoughtful, I believe. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it takes creativity to recognize that Nazi era gun control was "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms". Indeed, it takes creativity to assert that it wasn't "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider the Collins Dictionary definition of African American: "an American of African descent." By the 'plain language' of the definition, every American is an African American, since biology tells us we're all ultimately of African descent. Does that mean we should add Mitt Romney and Britney Spears to the African American wiki page? The dictionary provides definitions with the expectation that readers will exercise common sense, be sensitive to contextual considerations and will not be intentionally obtuse. Steeletrap (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, Steeletrap. Comparing gun control to what the Nazis did is like comparing taxation without representation with the Holocaust. And dragging any of it into the modern gun-control debate is propagandizing. Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's like citing the Nazis' economic discrimination against the Jews as an example of "economic regulation" or "tax hikes." Using a word accurately involves more than comporting with its literal dictionary meaning. The context in which one uses a word also matters, as does public and academic perception. It's erroneous and absurd to call the Nazi Holocaust an example of gun control. The people pushing this stuff misunderstand basic linguistics, and they're using that misunderstanding to push their fringe POV. Steeletrap (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The clear problem is that some people have viewed the Nazi-era firearms restrictions as being a type or form of "gun control." "Gun Control" as a political issue is recent as a phrase, and so one would not expect to find it used as a phrase before it became a cause celebre in the past few decades. That it was not used in Germany as a phrase in English is hardly a surprise. (Google translate suggest "Waffenkontrolle" as a German word for it). It is also clear, moreover, that the Nazi-era laws did increase restrictions on firearms ownership - the issue of the Holocaust is irrelevant to that simple fact. The second and separate issue is whether the stated opinion of some groups that the Holocaust was facilitated in some manner by such restrictions on gun ownership is clearly a matter of discussion and debate in the real world, and it is not Misplaced Pages which is "dragging" the issues together, but it is the responsibility of Misplaced Pages to duly note that such discussions and opinions exist -- by eliding them, we do no favour to readers seeking an encyclopedic exposition of the debate. Thus such works as Verbrechen erinnern: die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord (Volkhard Knigge, Norbert Frei, Anett Schweitzer; C.H.Beck, 2002 - 450 pages) become of more than passing interest (even if not in English) quoting Gingrich on the debate over "gun control" in a German book on the "Holocaust and genocide." Clearly with German writers noting the issue, it becomes of international interest. Balancing views that the Nazi gun restrictions were not aimed at causing the Holocaust are found and usable, but we can not actually tell readers that no one has tried, as a matter of opinion, to make the connection would ill-serve readers. We are better off presenting the position, and noting its opponents, than simply denying its existence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've stated my suggestion before - including the policies and guidelines that support it - but here it is again:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S. group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control, and gun laws in other authoritarian regimes, contributed significantly to past genocides. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

1. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Germany, Gun Laws. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 314–316. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
2. Bryant, M. S. (2012). Carter, G. L. (ed.). Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control. Vol. Volume 1. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–414. ISBN 9780313386701. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help)
3. Harcourt, B. E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
4. Spitzer, Robert J. (2004). "Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 721–730.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"It is also clear, moreover, that the Nazi-era laws did increase restrictions on firearms ownership"? No, it isn't. What is however clear is that the Nazis reduced restrictions on most German citizens owning firearms - while restricting the right (as was and still is normal practice in most countries) of non-citizens to own firearms. That this restriction affected German Jews, who the Nazis had already been systematically removing other rights of citizenship from is true - but there is no evidence whatsoever that this was done for any specific purpose beyond the general removal of rights and systematic harassment of Jews being engaged in at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"It is also clear, moreover, that the Nazi-era laws did increase restrictions on firearms ownership - the issue of the Holocaust is irrelevant to that simple fact."

False. "Counterintuitively for a dictatorship, the Nazis liberalized possession and distribution of firearms for most German citizens. While permits were still needed to buy handguns, none were required for rifles."

"Thus such works as Verbrechen erinnern: die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord (Volkhard Knigge, Norbert Frei, Anett Schweitzer; C.H.Beck, 2002 - 450 pages) become of more than passing interest (even if not in English) quoting Gingrich on the debate over "gun control" in a German book on the "Holocaust and genocide." Clearly with German writers noting the issue, it becomes of international interest."

This is a complete misrepresentation of the source, Arad, Gulie Ne'eman (2002). "II. Berichte zur Geschichte der Erinnerung : USA". In Knigge, V.; Norbert, F.; Schweitzer, A. (eds.). Verbrechen erinnern : die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord. pp. 199–219. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help),

1. Gulie Ne'eman Arad, the author quoting Gingrich, is not German.
2. The source does not discuss "the debate over gun control" (in fact the word "Waffenkontrolle" is used exactly once).
3. The appropriate footnote, if my understanding of German notations and abbreviations is correct, appears to cite Peter Novich who cites the Gingrich quote to a 1995 article in the New Republic, Newt Scoot, which leads us to Newt's source; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

We don't balance fringe views. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- The Versailles absolute disarmament was not "gun control" but a specific punitive disarming of the entire nation, and so it is not a valid predecessor for the Nazi-era laws which occurred after a rearmament ("rearmament" generally indicates an increase in the amount of arms in a nation and has nothing to do with "gen control" as an issue). One may discuss the validity of the Versailles Treaty until doomsday, but there is some validity to the argument that the gun provisions were aimed more at punishing Germany than at anything else, and had absolutely nothing to do with what we call "gun control". (See Diplomacy Henry Kissinger; Simon and Schuster, Oct 1, 2012 - 912 pages) Restricting the right of "non-citizens" who had quite simply been "citizens" is reasonably an extension of gun ownership restrictions. Note that I specifically did not say the restriction was done in anticipation of the Holocaust, as that was not the issue addressed. As for the fact that Newt Gingrich spoke in English -- that misses the point utterly -- which is that his words were found sufficiently important to be included in a German book by German authors. Lastly, as to the claim that any "fringe" view is ipso facto deletable from political articles -- I fail to find justification for such a policy argument at all. In fact, political articles are replete with "fringe views" mainly because if a view is held by a significant number of people, it has importance in the political realm. This is not the same as giving credence in Misplaced Pages's voice that (hypothetically) "all cancer s caused by not reading the works of George Gnarph" or a similar claim of scientifically determinable fact. The case at hand is one of "personal beliefs" and "de gustibus" certainly applies here. The use of WP:FRINGE otherwise would mean, for example, deletion of all minority views on politics across the board, and all minority religious views across the board. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and so we do not do that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

While the Versailles treaty was not gun control, the law that the Weimar Republic passed before the treaty came into effect that required all people to surrender all guns to the German government was gun control. The 1938 Act did not make it harder for foreigners to obtain guns, but made it easier for citizens to obtain them. And of course, the nazis would soon arm the entire male population of citizens who were not imprisoned, even giving rifles to 13-year olds. Yet no armed rebellion occurred. Indeed the argumentum ad hitlerum is fringe, and has never been defended in academic writing. TFD (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That law was mandatory under the Versailles treaty -- it was part of a general and total disarmament, and not in any sense "gun control" in a modern context. It was not an option for Weimar to object as the French already sought possession of the industrial Ruhr district as a form of "reparations". Without the Ruhr, Germany could never hope to ever pay 132 billion gold marks - or about 1000 times its GDP without the Ruhr, or so. So much for Weimar having the ability to make any decisions contrary to the wishes of France at the time. And note, I make no such argument "ad hitlerum" at all, and I am affronted you do not note the two distinct issues -- the reality that removing guns from "former citizens" was a restriction on gun ownership. The equivalent debt stress per capita on the US adjusting for the value of gold today would be on the order of $2 million per capita <g>. So much for the side issue of trying to assert that the Weimar law was comparable in any way to "gun control" as it is currently understood. (It is interesting that Germany thoughtfully reduced its armies to having nothing but NCOs to be in compliance with French demands, basically - the French were good at demands, but poor lawyers <g>. Collect (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not accusing you of defending the Hitler argument, merely saying that you think it should be included. The 1938 law btw did not remove guns from former citizens, rather it continued the restrictions already in the 1928 gun control law. (Note the 1928 Act was different from the 1919 act and not part of any disarmament.) I do not see why the 1919 German law should be seen as disarmament rather than as a gun control law, perhaps you could explain. But if it was not gun control then it weakens the Hitler argument, because it removes one of the examples, that the Warsaw Ghetto and indeed the Holocaust outside the Reich, where 95% of the victims lived, was made possible by gun control. The 1938 Act of course only extended to the Reich, not the occupied territories. TFD (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please deal with what I write before inserting poor arguments onto this talk page. There are two pieces to the puzzle -- the first is the clear increase in restrictions by the Nazis (removing all gun ownership from "non-citizens" is indeed an increase in "restrictions" especially when coped with "de-citizenizing" groups of citizens.). The second is the apparent and real use of the topic in the gun control debate in the US (and noted even in German publications) where as a political issue and not an issue of "scientific fact" we must cover it if we wish to be an encyclopedia. For example, Scientologists are a small religious group - but we present their positions on topics related to religion - we can not assert that "fringe" is a valid argument to elide a well-known argument utterly without being risible here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to say that I think that everyone would agree that it is used in gun control debate. And the most common use is mere mention for impact, not to make more complex assertions. So I think that equating the use in politics to more complex assertions is sort of going off on a tangent. Second, with respect to "it" in gun control debate, I think we're talking about coverage of that use, and I think that most would agree that that use significantly exists, at least in the USA. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's effectiveness and origin are irrelevant. It is a major issue in virtually ALL gun control discussions and should be included for that reason. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Just plain wrong. Beyond the U.S., it has hardly been raised at all. This is supposed to be an international overview... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Nazi law did not increase restrictions on gun ownership by non-ctizens, it relaxed restrictions on gun owenership by citizens. It did not for example remove all gun ownership from non-citizens, but continued to insist that foreigners had permits. If you disagree, please cite the section of the 1938 law that is any more restrictive than the 1928 law. But there are no gun rights activists in the U.S. that claim aliens have the right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

Also, while we indeed represent the religious views of Scientologists, we do not provide much mention if any of their views in articles about religion, other than Scientology-related articles. Fringe views should only be mentioned if they have significance. For example we might mention in articles about 911 that conspiracy theories challenge the official version. But in the topic of gun control, which includes countries outside the U.S., the fact that the supposedly third largest anti-gun control group in the U.S. (with about 1% of the membership of the largest group) promotes the Hitler argument hardly justifies mention, let alone an entire section.

TFD (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep. The 1928 law repealed the 1920 total prohibition of firearms possession, and the 1938 law liberalized the provisions of the 1928 law. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Except the NRA has also promoted the argument, repeatedly. Yes, this article should be a international overview. Last time I checked the US was part of "international". Its going to be a pretty empty article if no content that is representing a particular nations issues or POV cannot be included. (beyond the multiple reliable sources showing that the argument has been notable outside the US but apparently those are all just Fnords ) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Not Fnords. Misrepresentation of sources, for the purposes of synthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

sources saying an argument is wrong is not the same thing as saying an argument is not notable - quite the opposite. By responding to the argument they are directly showing its notability. As Collect has aptly argued above - pretending an argument does not exist is not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict) Yes, trying to write articles for a world perspective is not a basis for excluding covering items that occur only in or mostly only in one country. By that standard we would delete most of Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Although leaders of the NRA have made the Hitler argument in the past, I cannot find any mention of it on their website. It seems extremely tendentious too for the article to make the Hitler argument, yet fail to explains the two pieces of legislation, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Bill of Rights 1789 that actually protected the right to keep and bear arms. I mean gun rights advocates are far more likely to argue from the Constitution than they are the Third Reich. TFD (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the most common uses are more superficial than arguments. For example, there is one saying that I think I've seen 20 variants of over twenty years; to see see a zillion different versions Google "All of those in favor of gun control raise your hand" and pick "images". This is a volley for effect, not an argument. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, when every leader brings it up, its pretty safe to say its a view of the org. But more recently they were giving significant play to Halbrooks new book. regarding your statement about the two laws, I can see it two ways - In so far as they had a concrete effect on the country, that is more appropriate for that countries article. To the degree that they were inspirational/influential on the larger history of gun rights and gun control, that should be covered in this article. This is in line with my thoughts on the Nazi material as well - The practical effect of the laws (or not) is better served in the German article, or in a dedicated topic article (such as LB recently created) - But the arguments notability within the general gun control debate, and its use as a rally cry, rhetorical point, and proxy for the general tyranny argument is notable to the overall topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In making the gun rights argument, advocates normally begin with gun ownership as a right. For every mention of Hitler, there are a hundred references to the Second Amendment. But there is no argument at all outside the U.S. whether legislatures have the right to restrict ownership of arms, and even when the Bill of Rights 1689 was considered as protecting gun rights, it was protecting the rights of the majority, that is, Protestants, not Catholics or Jews, so the argument that it could have prevented a future Holocaust would have made no sense. And notice the U.S. Bill of Rights refers to the "right of the people", not the "right of minorities." And certainly arguing that one wanted to own a gun in case it was necessary to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of government leaders would hardly have made one seem responsible to own a firearm, except of course in the U.S. TFD (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's right. We might as well be discussing Nazi Bladder control, Pest control, or Birth control. This whole article is a play on words. It should be deleted. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at how stupid the arguments are here. Again, if we apply terms literally without any regard for context, we get all sorts of absurdities. (Every American is an African American because we evolved in Africa; the Nazis' stealing money from Jews is an example of a 'tax hike.'; and so forth.) Doesn't the fact that no one who has studied this matter in an academic context takes this stuff remotely seriously give you pause?

Collect actually thinks that outside of the U.S., these arguments have more credence! The only people who take this Nazi stuff seriously are U.S. gundamentalists. It has received no attention apart from derision in academic circles, including from conservative scholars. Steeletrap (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read what I wrote before figuratively inserting your foot in your mouth. As I made no such statement whatsoever, I fear that you are seeking an ad hom rather than looking at my reasoning dividing the material into two separate categories. First is that (apart from the Versailles required disarmament) the fact that laws which barred ownership by "non-citizens" coupled with "decitizenizing" people reduced the number of people who were allowed to own guns -- which I consider a "restriction". YMMV. The second has nothing to do with any editor's beliefs but with Misplaced Pages requirements -- that all positions on issues be presented in rough accord with their presence in the public debate - if we refuse to admit that some people use the argument, then we are eliding our responsibility to have an "encyclopedia" in favour of a "correct truthopedia." The German usage note was not intended to claim that it is a major issue in Germany, but that the debate has been noted in Germany, in a German book by German authors and printed by a German publisher. And when dealing with "political opinions" we are stuck with the fact that this is apparently a sufficiently widespread opinion - and the sources which deal with the prevalence of opinions state that it is an opinion held by people. De gustibus non est disputandum - we can not say "Misplaced Pages only covers correct opinions" without saying "Misplaced Pages only covers true religions" or "Misplaced Pages only covers correct political opinions." We cover them all, no matter how wrong they are. We can certainly state that "writers on the Holocaust in scholarly journals say this is bosh" with proper sourcing, but that is not the issue here. Collect (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's even received derision from William Pierce, who evidently loves Hitler more than he hates gun-grabbing liberals. Now I'm really confused!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect, first, I can't believe you just wrote "figuratively inserting your foot in your mouth." There is no other way that expression is used but "figuratively" unless you're talking about Cirque de Soliel.

Second, please check your definition of ad hominem. While unfair, mischaracterizing someone's argument is not an ad hominem. (And of course, I didn't do that.) Steeletrap (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that the 1938 Act made any changes to the right of non-citizens to keep and bear arms? It did however lower the age at which people could own firearms and eliminated the long gun registry. TFD (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Germany Citizenship Law (1935) made Jews into a peculiar group of "non-citizens" in 1935, but this did not appear to remove their right to hold arms. It was the regulations of November 1938 which specified that this particular class of non-citizen was forbidden to have arms. So until that point, clearly "non-citizens" were not barred from having arms, and after the regulation, specific "non-citizens" were barred from having arms. If the law never forbade "non-citizens" from having arms, then the regulation would have had no meaning at all. Therefore we can reasonably aver (and sources support) that Jews were allowed to have arms even after the laws of 1935, and were not forbidden to have arms until 1938 and the November "regulation". Collect (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Collect actually thinks that outside of the U.S., these arguments have more credence! The only people who take this Nazi stuff seriously are U.S. gundamentalists an ad hom attack or not? Collect (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No. It is an assertion regarding what you think. Clearly unverifiable, if taken literally, but fair comment based on your previous posts, I'd have thought. You seem to be arguing that these arguments do have a real significance beyond the U.S. context. If so, can you cite the source(s) that led you to this conclusion? So far, all we've seen have been vague passing comments in sources, and material that actually indicates the contrary position - that where the Nazi analogy has been raise at all, it has been done by marginal elements, and has been dismissed accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is in your style, I suppose <g>, to assert that editors who do not espouse much other than Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are "gundamentalists" but most folks call it "name calling." And you will note my comments above -- the Jews were not barred from owning guns when they became "non-citizens" in 1935 but were only barred latter on in 1938. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I asserted no such thing. As for your original research (if it deserves to be called 'research', rather than guesswork, which is questionable), it is of no relevance to this article. Not that it was relevant to a discussion as to whether the comments made about you were ad hom anyway. And I note that you have failed to answer my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Valid or not, this is a common (possibly the most common) argument brought up in gun control debates, and therefore needs to be included. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

query

I am sure this has been addressed before, but I am too lazy to try tracking the discussion down. purports to be an English translation of "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 11 November 1938" Is the translation accurate? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/349981/gun_control_act_1968.pdf is the congressional record from 1968 that the JPFO often mentions. The congressional translation of the 1938 law starts on page 489, so they could easily be compared. (Not claiming this is a reliable source for citing, as obviously its dropbox hosted, but no reason to doubt its authenticity for this type of casual confirmation) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The translation is AFAIK accurate, except the regulation was made under the 1938 act not the 1928 act. However the 1938 act did not give the Minister any powers he did not already enjoy under the 1928 act. He always had the power to remove the right of persons whose trustworthiness was in question (S. 16 of the 1928 act) to keep and bear arms and could have issued the regulation under the 1928 act and withdrawn the right from Jews. Curiously both the 1928 act and the 1938 act prohibit the issuing of permits to Gypsies, although neither mention Jews.

William Pierce's article "Gun Control in Germany 1928-1945" shows complete copies of the 1928 and 1938 acts, and the 1938 ministerial order, with English translations. I won't provide a link, but you can find it easily.

Also, I do not think that the 1938 act stopped foreigners from owning guns. It merely said that people who were not permanent residents (which included people stripped of their citizenship) could only be issued permits with authorization of higher bureaucrats.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically it was the Regulation of 1938 which increased the restrictions on Jews owning arms, and not the law under which the regulation was issued? Collect (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. TFD (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically Germany used regulations and not laws to increase restrictions on gun ownership? Collect (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1938 law did not "increased the restrictions on Jews owning arms." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1938 law did not explicitly target the jews, but the "trustworthiness" clauses were applied against them very broadly. The later regulation did directly target the Jews. The 38 law I think is sometimes conflated by some discussing Nazi gun control , because of the later GCA'68 claims. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although they could not legally have done that were there no gun control laws in place. TFD (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the law specifically put in an authorization for later regulations by fiat, rather than legislation. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So in the context of this article, is there any notable distinction between "regulations" and "laws"? Doesn't it all still fall under "control"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

One would think so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The law did not specifically put in an authorization for later regulations by "fiat" (aka "ministerial order"). The discretion of officials to decline permits was already part of the 1928 Act. TFD (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the law I meant, though I can see that it can be confusing since we are talking about multiple laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any law that gives discretion to a Minister in granting licenses can be used to discriminate against minorities. So on December 1938 the nazis revoked the driver licenses of Jews and therefore their right to own a car. It does not mean that vehicle and driver registration were introduced to facilitate the Holocaust or that it was an inevitable prelude, or that your state government is going to start door-to-door car confiscations any day now. Automobiles are more effective tools in evading the police than firearms. TFD (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What we are left with is simple: German laws and "regulations" as late as 1938 were used to restrict gun ownership by certain large populations within Greater Germany. That means part one of my analysis appears accepted. The issue now is about the "Holocaust connection" which is a separate issue, and one of political opinions and not of specific facts. Its inclusion here depends on whether it is considered a widespread argument in the gun control debate by some groups, not whether it is "true" or not. Collect (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how it relates to any gun control dispute outside the U.S. because first sources do not say it does and second, there is no dispute outside the U.S. over the authority of legislatures to enact gun control legislation. And if there were no Holocaust connection, then it has no relevance. TFD (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Go back to my initial post wherein I explain why the issue of "increased restrictions" can stand on its own as "fact" and allow the second issue: how to treat opinions "opinions" which may well be totally wrong is distinct from recognizing the factual nature of the first issue. Opinions remain "opinions" in the debate whether or not there is any "real connection" involved. Two distinct issues, and I believe you have now agreed on part one. Collect (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to state that the Nazi's used gun control as a means to exert control over (and/or suppress) particular segments of the population, the Jews in this case, prior to and during WW2? Just about everyone alive knows (and believes, sigh...) what happened to them during the war. Is in necessary to explicitly state it in this article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Nazis did not use 'gun control', they used guns, and a system of industrialised violence resulting in genocide. Beyond the facile propaganda of the U.S. gun lobby there are no credible sources asserting that 'gun control' was of any significance in this process. And Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the promotion of propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The nazis did not use gun control as a means to exert control over Jews. Rather the withdrawal of their privileges to own firearms was one of many of the rights and privileges available to citizens which the nazis removed. And of course Gypsies, who were also victims of nazism, had been deprived of the right to keep and bear arms under the 1928 Act and had never been allowed to have weapons. That is what rs say. TFD (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait, we can agree that the Nazis restricted (prevented, took away, confiscated, etc.) ownership of guns by the Jews and Gypsies, but we can't agree that those efforts were a form of "gun control"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. It isn't what 'we agree' that matters. It is whether it is seen as significant by reliable sources that matters. Which they don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While Andys comment above is the more Misplaced Pages Correct argument, a more intuitive approach to the issue (even though that doesn't matter much, it's the reliable sources that matter) is that although we maybe agree that the Nazis forbade ownership of cars by Jews, we're not agreeing that the Nazis were practicing "road traffic reduction measures". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not even about that. It doesn't matter if it was "gun control" or not. it doesn't matter how effective it was. It doesn't matter even if it ever happened. What matters is that it is a core argument, right or wrong, that is used against gun control in the United States, and to a much lesser extent outside the US. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First there is no argument whatsoever about the right of legislatures outside the U.S. to control gun ownership and use. Second, the Hitler argument in the U.S. is limited to extreme gun rights activists. TFD (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes no difference. It's possibly the gun-toter's #1 mantra. If it's ad hitlerum propaganda then say so, but pretending that the argument does not exist would be unencyclopedic.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The argument AFAIK was first used in 1968 when the Congress brought in a national gun control law. Opponents then said Hitler did the same thing in order to strengthen his dictatorial power and to facilitate the holocaust. But in every other country there were already national gun control laws and no categorical opposition to them. So the Hitler argument does not come up. In Canada for example, the long gun registry is a topic of dispute, but gun control per se is not. I know of no Canadian politician or notable organization who use calls for scrapping gun control laws or who uses the Hitler argument. If you think the argument has any significance, please provide a source. TFD (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The most extensive use is as a tool (posters etc., possibly with an implicit argument) rather than as an argument. For example, try googling "All of those in favor of gun control raise your right hand" and look at "images" North8000 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD: Can I get some clarification? Are you maintaining that the "Nazi Gun Control" argument does not exist in the minds of the pro-gun crowd? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

what would the rough lines of your proposed change be then? What content to what section? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Hitler analogy exists in the minds of some of the pro-gun crowd. However there is not a pro-gun crowd in the U.S. sense outside the U.S. There is no debate about whether gun legislation should be repealed, only debate about how those laws should be written. If you think that the Hitler argument exists, then please provide sources. TFD (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC is happening at US gun control article

FYI, I have started an RFC here regarding whether or not the check-against-tyranny argument for gun rights is confined to the United States or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
• RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding Nazis

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Would it be okay to insert the following short paragraph (plus appropriate footnotes) in place of the following long paragraph? INSERT:

REMOVE:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. I mentioned previously that I'd make this proposal. It's a matter of undue weight, and summary style, among other things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion Reduce the iteration of "Nazi" and try to use some more neutral language in the proposal. "German government under the Hitler Regime" would be more logical, IMO. Collect (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the promotion of pseudohistorical fringe theories entirely unsupported by academic historiography. Any inclusion of this absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum in an international overview of firearms regulation issues is entirely undue, and violates multiple Misplaced Pages policies - and I would remind contributors that regardless of any decision reached here, local 'consensus' cannot override Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy. I also just lost an hour of my life reading over the previous discussions going back about a month, and I see numerous flat assertions of the claim that this is an international debate, but the only sources provided were few and apparently grossly mischaracterized. My conclusion is that there is no justification at all for inclusion of such a claim in this article. siafu (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear, at least not for me, if you are in favor of the long or the short paragraph. Could you please clarify. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the overwhelming consensus of talk page policy-based statements over the past year. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal 2:

Six demurrals is sufficient to counter one position, I trust, as sledgehammers make for bad writing. And this also reduces use of "Nazi" in the two paragraphs. I trust this is in accord with sources. Collect (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The RFC suggests replacing the long paragraph with the short one. Are you suggesting to include both a long paragraph and a short one?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - yes. I note the sentence in the first paragraph is the historical one - and it is not fully congruent with the issues stated in the second paragraph. Linking them seems to be contrary to common sense here. Collect (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump. There is a difference between promotion and description. Misplaced Pages describes the sick Nazi ideology all over the place, but that does not mean Wikipedua is promoting it. To say that I am promoting anything here violates WP:NPA, in my opinion. Moreover, the pending RFC proposal would greatly reduce this material, not increase it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

'Sick Nazi ideology' is the subject of academic historiography. Obnoxious NRA propaganda about it isn't. And if you want argue that me objecting to the violation of WP policies is a personal attack, go ahead - but watch out for the boomerang. And as for the RfC, given that it entirely fails to offer the sole policy-compliant option at all, it is clearly invalid from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a vast number of reliable sources that discuss and describe the check-against-tyranny argument against gun control (both with and without mentioning Nazis), and you are arguing here (as best I can understand it) that Misplaced Pages should nevertheless be wiped clean of that descriptive material. I won't list the various adjectives that seem to describe your apparent position, but will say that it defies policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and the policy it is based on, WP:NPOV cover it well enough. This material does not belong in this article for the same reason that the Flat-Earth theory does not belong in our article on geology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the Nazi's fringe racial theory belong in an article about WWII?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because again it is a subject discussed by academic historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The descriptions of the check-against-tyranny argument (both with and without Nazis) occur in a vast number of reliable sources, and no one disputes that they are historically-accurate descriptions of a big chunk of the gun rights movement. More generally, you previously encouraged inclusion of such material in the US article, but maybe now you sense that it can be removed from Misplaced Pages entirely?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Foreign countries'? This is supposed to be an international topic,. in an international encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And when used after a specific country is named, it refers to countries other than that named country. Common usage of the word, in fact. Collect (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And you can cite a source for the supposed 'fact'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Only a few million usages -- is there a point to your cavil about using a standard word when referring to countries other than the country named? Collect (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
        • My objections are (a) that it isn't common usage, despite your unverified assertions, and (b) that it is utterly obnoxious for Misplaced Pages to be characterising the entire world beyond the U.S. as 'foreign'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

'other countries' would be much better IMO. The use of 'foreign' to mean a country that is not one's own is far more common than the usage Collect is stating. I've consulted OED, Google Define and Wiktionary. (OED definition available online is not yet fully updated - I can consult the print Shorter OED later if that would be helpful, but I doubt it'll be substantially different on this point). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Shorter OED agrees. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The wording incorrectly implies that people who support the right to keep and bear arms as a check against tyranny oppose gun control. In fact in DC v Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms as a check against tyranny but did not say that all restrictions on gun ownership by citizens was unconstitutional. Importantly the decision was on a D.C. law, not the Gun Control Act 1968. If that law comes before the Court, it is likely that it would be considered constitutional. The Hitler argument is that the 1968 law was similar to the 1938 Nazi law and could be used by the federal government to . It is actually an extreme articulation of the guns are a check against tyranny argument, not its main articulation. TFD (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate a bit? Which part of the proposed wording implies that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"In the United States, some gun owners say the right of private gun ownership is a check against tyranny.... Some American gun rights gun rights supporters ." The wording conflates the two views. TFD (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that they are two different views - and should be noted as such. Collect (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where those "owners" or "supporters" purportedly oppose gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Siafu. So, do you want to keep the longer paragraph? The RFC suggests replacing it with something much shorter. This stuff is almost entirely confined to the United States, and I don't think the proposed language suggests otherwise, but even if it were totally confined to the US, I would think it merits a description here, because sometimes what happens only in the US is notable globally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces the GCA68 argument is merely one part of the Hitler argument. (A part that I agree is likely wrong, based on the full text of the GCA debates, in the GCA article talk) But, the Hitler argument is merely one part of the Tyranny argument. There are numerous quotes from the founders and others through history, long before Hitler, discussing the Arms and the check on Tyranny. In the historical context at least it is indisputable that the "defense against tyranny" argument took place (indeed originated) outside the US (Blackstone for instance), but in the modern context it does become much more exclusive (possibly completely exclusive) to the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Hitler argument is not just that guns are necessary as a defense against tyranny (which probably was the reason for the Second Amendment) but that gun control laws are a violation of the Second Amendment right. You cannot argue that laws like the 1938 German law are a reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms and that they are a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. The Scalia Court for example has affirmed the right to keep and bear arms but has indicated it will allow reasonable restrictions. A U.S. court of appeal btw decided that the Second Amendment "codified a preexisting right that historically has been enjoyed by law-abiding, responsible citizens...." "" Of course the right not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech not." Thus, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess for every purpose, to possess every type of weapon, to possess at every place, or to possess by every person." TFD (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just made a bold edit to try to end this dickering. Lightbreather (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I demur on not including the fact that the argument has a long history in the US, anteceding Hitler by over a century. Collect (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I also demur on someone then boldly removing the sentence -- only to place a less accurate sentence under "history" where it is less relevant that where it was placed initially. Cheers -- BRD means you have to discuss the edit, not make more bold edits. Collect (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

United States

This section should begin by saying that the Second Amendment was decided by the Supreme Court to limit the extent of gun control laws that could be enacted. It might be noted that a tiny fringe read the Second Amendment to disallow any gun control laws aimed at citizens, although weight may not justify mentioning them.

The wording is incorrect. Jurists such as Scalia who argue there is an individual right to keep and bear arms reject the argument that there are natural rights. Instead they take an originalist view of the Bill of Rights, and see the right to self-defense as a positive law. Hence prisoners facing execution have no right to self-defense, because that was not a right already existing in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was enacted.

While Jefferson indeed quoted Beccaria, there is no evidence he endorsed it. He put many quotes in his Commonplace Book. The suggestion that he endorsed this view is part of the pro-gun movement argument and if mentioned should be described as such.

It would be better to summarize what rs about gun control in the U.S. say. The current wording is POV OR.

TFD (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Idiot question re "anchor"

Here's my idiot question for today. The article, right above the contested Nazi-gun-laws and "tyranny" section has this in it:

"anchor|Gun control in Nazi Germany"

... but the whole thing in curly brackets instead of quotes. Why? How is that used? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since section titles can change and thus their location on WP, it's used as a permanent anchor of sorts as long as the template is kept there. Its handy for contentious or often changed articles. Good question! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Works basically like \label{} in LaTeX. See Template:anchor. siafu (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nazi gun laws are not tyranny in the ancient Greek or founders' sense

Dang, guys! We're sooo close to getting this hammered out. But Halbrook's and LaPierre's Nazi gun control theories are WP:FRINGE and it's WP:SYNTH on any good, general reference editor's part to smoosh it together with the check-against-tyranny that the ancient Greeks or the founding fathers had in mind.

As long as you keep on trying to do this - without a preponderance of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources - you're going to keep running into trouble. Let it go. Develop a fringe/historical revisionism article and quit trying to legitimize and add undo weight that scholarly research and mainstream media do not support. Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not going to have another idiotic debate about what exactly we think the word 'tyranny' means - our personal interpretation of what the word means are 'completely and utterly irrelevant to the content of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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