Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 7 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun show loophole 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, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Does the article title "Gun show loophole" violate the neutral point of view policy? A1: There have been a number of discussions about this matter, but there has not been a consensus to rename the article: Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#POV-title Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#Pejorative Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 1#Train station loophole Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2#"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015 Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 7#Merger proposal to Universal background check (6 April 2015) Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 7#GA Review Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 7#Title not consistent with Misplaced Pages, NPOV Talk:Gun show loophole#How should this term be labeled? Talk:Gun show loophole#Requested move 24 October 2024 Talk:Gun show loophole#Requested move 2 November 2024 Talk:Gun show loophole#Proposed changes to lead

	Gun show loophole has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2015 Peer review Reviewed February 26, 2015 Peer review Reviewed October 24, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Gun politics Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. This article is supported by Gun politics task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun shows in the United States was copied or moved into Gun show loophole with this edit on 12:09, 25 June 2014. 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.

EXPERT from POLITIFACT deleted: Misplaced Pages Bias Caught Red-Handed Once Again

If the purpose of Misplaced Pages were actually to be informative -- rather than to be a dishonest, biased tool of left-wing activism -- an informative quote published by POLITIFACT would be a jewel of an addition to an article on public discussion about the "Gun Show Loophole"

But the biased activist censoring Misplaced Pages removed the expert opinion provided:

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."

When people hear about the gun show loophole they want to look it up and find out more.

It should not matter what your position is on the topic.

Misplaced Pages should leave the reader more informed -- not radicalized -- about the topic of the gun show loophole.

References

1. Sherman, Amy (January 7, 2016). "PolitiFact Sheet: 3 things to know about the 'gun show loophole'". Retrieved 11 August 2019.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Excessive trivia and advocacy (clean-up banner)

Hi, Kamenev, please discuss your specific recommendations or desired changes here, or per WP:BRD, feel free to make the desired edits and wait to see if any of them are reverted in which case we can circle back to this section to try and find some consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, DN. Three of the sections amount to restatements of what could be one History section, but with divergent and excessive detail. I'll do my best to make the edits. Will also be adding relevant sources on latest effort by Biden Administration to change the definition of "in the business," which relates to the topic. User:Kamenev (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the previous version with consensus per WP:BRD. So far, I'm not seeing much in the way of improvements here. It's been a few days and there hasn't been any additional changes to address the alleged "advocacy and trivia". For example, how does adding a non-neutral descriptor, such as "controversial", to the lead somehow "Neutralize the obvious advocacy"? This is not suitable for the lead, as it provides no informative value and is purely an opinion. Writing that the term is "meant to convey" advocacy for universal background checks instead of simply saying what the higher quality sources say, also seems to utilize SYNTH. You have seemingly increased advocacy for a non-neutral tone by writing... "Because the term is one of advocacy, it is often used in ignorance of the current state of federal gun law". The italicized portion you added is clearly not reliably sourced. I will leave the banner to encourage ongoing participation. DN (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding citations for "ghost gun loophole" - possibly for See Also and or spin off article

NYT Biden admin considering regulations on gun-parts, similar to finished products.

Guardian US implements new rule to close loophole on untraceable ‘ghost guns’

The Hill New Biden administration guidance closes ‘ghost guns’ loophole in federal rule...DN (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

bipartisan safer communities act updates

Some recent citations that may be DUE...I'm still not clear on what specific changes are made under this new law, if anyone is interested in helping to clarify that.

WaPo April 2024 " the Justice Department has finalized rules to close a loophole that allowed people to sell firearms online, at gun shows and at other informal venues without conducting background checks on those who purchase them." "The rules clarify who is required to conduct background checks and aims to close what is known as the “gun show loophole” — which refers to the reality that gun-show sellers and online vendors are subject to much looser federal regulations than vendors who sell at bricks-and-mortar stores."

ABC News April 2024 " It requires that anyone who sells guns for profit to have a license and that buyers be subject to a background check, including at firearms shows and flea markets. The administration had been working on the rule since last spring. Once publicized, it will take effect in 30 days

I've only gleaned a few notable bits here, but if anyone has sources with more detailed info as to how this relates to GSL, this would be a good place to discuss them.

Cheers. DN (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@DN: Hello! As you know, and as discussed in the article, under federal law, gun dealers are required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). When an FFL holder sells a firearm, they're required to do a background check of the buyer, using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). By contrast, private sales, i.e. sales between individuals, do not require a background check under federal law (though some states do require it). This is the so-called "gun show loophole".

Under the new rule, more people than before will be required to have an FFL if they want to sell any guns. Therefore the effect will be that there will be fewer gun sales conducted without background checks, thus significantly reducing -- some would say closing -- the "gun show loophole". As the New York Times explained, "Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to "predominantly derive a profit" from their actions." And as The Guardian noted, "Intra-family transfers of firearms, or occasional sales to enhance a collection, will not be presumed business transactions, a White House spokesperson said."

This is a very significant development and it definitely should be added to the article. If you look at the "Legislation" section you'll see that there's a paragraph about this from last year, when it was still in the planning stages, but now it's been implemented, and will take effect in less that 30 more days, apparently. So that section could be updated, but, that's a subsection of the "Government studies and positions" section. This has now moved well beyond studies and positions, so it should have a more prominent place in the article, in my view -- maybe in the "Provenance" section, maybe somewhere else. I would also think it should be mentioned in the lead section.

References

1. Cole, Devan; Rabinowitz, Hannah (April 11, 2024). "Biden Administration Finalizes Rule to Close 'Gun Show Loophole' in Effort to Combat Gun Violence". CNN. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
2. Thrush, Glenn; Green, Erica L. (April 11, 2024). "Biden Administration Approves Expansion of Background Checks on Gun Sales". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 16, 2024. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
3. Luscombe, Richard (April 11, 2024). "US Will Require Background Checks for Gun Shows and Online Firearm Sales". The Guardian. Retrieved April 16, 2024.

— Mudwater 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How should this term be labeled?

There appears to have been a bit of back and forth on how this term is described. While it has been labeled as "non-neutral", if there is a point to be made there please provide your sources for or against here. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Calling it "controversial" does nothing but lead the reader to take a biased position, and leaves out the political context. The ONUS is on you to seek consensus to change from the STATUSQUO, so I am reverting until a new consensus is reached, since this was already discussed at the article's inception. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to where this was already discussed in depth specifically referring to that term? If not, you risk an edit war and we can involve ANI sanction. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the archive, and I'm well aware of 3RR, so please keep things civil and don't threaten me. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW I also suggest avoiding WP:CANVAS, if you are unfamiliar with it. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed your second revert, so I have added an NPOV tag.

What was that you said about about edit warring?... DN (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that tag is needed for now while we discuss. I appreciate your doing that. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn This article was able to achieve GA status because we avoided loaded language like what you keep attempting to insert into the LEAD.

You should at least explain how this is an improvement to the LEAD and provide Neutral reliable sources that show term is "controversial" as opposed to political.

Otherwise it shall be reverted back to STATUS QUO, but leaving the tag.

You need a better reason besides "other editors did it too". DN (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, Which sources do you see in the article that justify putting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL in WP:VOICE in the LEAD SENTENCE without thorough discussion and consensus? At this point it just looks like sloppy ORIGINAL RESEARCH put there by a vandal. DN (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many such articles, but first I am doing a deep dive on the archive per your suggestion and seeing what, if any, relevant discussions may have previously occurred related to this point. Meanwhile, in response to your comment on my talk page, I would urge you to keep in mind that there is no rush as we work on Misplaced Pages. We are in the process of building consensus around this term which I believe is demonstrably disputed and therefore some form of new language is necessary in the lead. This isn't going to happen overnight. Thank you for your patience. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:TIND, which is an essay, not a POLICY.

So, in order for us to receive GA status the article had to be stable, which meant all active editors had to agree on the lead. There were many discussion on using the term "controversy". As I recall at one point I was fine with naming the article "Gun Show Loophole controversy". This was untenable however as it was non-neutral and went against MOS:CONTROVERSIAL.

I noticed in your edit summaries you keep referring to the "consensus of the other editors". This seems odd to me. We are not supposed to "represent" other editors without their explicit permission, especially if they are not actively participating. This is akin to WP:SOCK.

Aside from that, no amount of consensus can justify UNDUE and UNSOURCED material. DN (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Upon reading the comments above I think there is a case to be made for the term being "controversial".  The phrase "political term" or just "term" based on my research does not entirely capture the loaded nature of the term. (Pun unintended).

Some sources like Politico, and The Hill, refer to the term as "so-called" indirectly calling into question the existence of a "loophole".

Other sources such as CBS News refer to the term as something that "gun control advocates" most often use.

Whereas a Washington Post article features an instance where the take is that there is no "loophole" at all.

I think it is essential to introduce a clarifier in the lead to emphasise that "Gun show loophole" is not SOLELY a "political term".

I'm open to including "controversial" in the introduction, but there are other options to consider as well.

" ... is a political term predominantly used by gun control advocates"

"...is a polemical political term..."

Fenharrow (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow Maybe 10 years ago an argument could be made that it was considered polemic, but in 2024 public surveys have found that it has mostly become a bipartisan issue. I will also reiterate, we were only able to achieve Good Article Status by abiding by guidelines like MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. The majority of quality neutral sources do not use the term controversy to describe GSL these days. I suggest we ask NPOVN and see if it's even feasible. DN (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow Misplaced Pages uses news reports, but it is not a newspaper. DN (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, but I have to disagree with you on the statement that it is a bipartisan issue now (please provide sources). One of my sources points out that the term "gun show loophole" is often used by "gun control advocates," and others cast doubt on that term by using prefixes such as "so-called." Just calling it a "political term" or a "term" suggests that it is neutral when it is not, and is simply misleading. Fenharrow (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

One must also consider that calling it "controversial" or "so-called" may be considered a form of POV terminology largely preferred by pro-gun advocates such as the NRA.

The question over the existence of a "loophole" is covered in the body, but that doesn't encompass the entirety of it's definition. However, to reduce it down to a strictly "questionable or controversial existence" in the lead sentence requires one to innately presume as much from the very start.

Let's also clarify that "so-called", "controversial" and "polemic" have specific meanings and the question of their interchangeability deserves more scrutiny.

As far as I can tell, these terms still fall into the category of uninformative and unnecessary PUFFERY, which reads...

• "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Misplaced Pages contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it."

To clarify, of course the topic of gun control may still be considered divisive, but here are some sources that state background checks for private sales have become an increasingly bipartisan issue. Also see the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

• "Public opinion strongly favors background checks, with overwhelming support from both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. National polls consistently reflect widespread endorsement for measures aimed at closing loopholes in firearm sales regulations. Moreover, numerous states have taken proactive steps to address the private sale loophole, either by implementing universal background check laws or enacting legislation to tighten regulations on firearm transactions. The Center’s 2023 national survey found that 85% of Americans support universal background checks." Johns Hopkins University 2024
• "90% of Americans, regardless of political party, want universal background checks" - Mostly True. Politifact 2022
• "Eighty-three percent of respondents said background checks should be required if someone wants to buy a gun at a gun show or through a private sale." PBS 2019
• "Two measures, specifically, remain overwhelmingly popular: Eighty-nine percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support background checks for all gun purchases, including private and gun show sales; and 86 percent back “red flag” laws allowing the police to take guns from individuals found by a judge to be a danger." ABC 2019
• "Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Pew Research 2015

There is only 1 RS I have found from NBC, out of the majority (including much higher quality sources already in the article) that do not use that term.

I'm perfectly willing to take this to WP:NPOVN and see if they think it won't affect our GA status, or if it's worth ignoring Misplaced Pages guidelines over.

We can use their findings to obtain current consensus on this issue.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "gun show loophole" is also used by pro-gun advocates in a pejorative manner, and it's also why we had to decide to just stick to MOS:COMMONNAME. DN (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I have been looking through the archives of this page and I have noticed that some other editors have had similar concerns to mine (Two examples: Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2#Got controversy and https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gun_show_loophole/Archive_3#Category:Dysphemisms). Some of them did not think that the term was neutral enough, especially considering the significance "loophole" conveys.

I have observed that you have been very active on the article for some time into the past, and valid criticisms have been raised regarding the "loophole" terminology of the article. However, it seems your approach has been one of long-term persistence, but that clear consensus around this term being neutral has long been lacking. The fact that the neutrality of this article has been questioned so many times is evidence that the GA status it achieved may have not ever really been valid, and perhaps needs to be revisited soon.

I think it would be helpful to include other language. Alternatives to "controversial" might include: "disputed", "contested", or "used by proponents of gun control" (as proposed in another comment). Iljhgtn (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to take into account that I'm also the one that put the NPOV tag up to encourage discussion, instead of claiming other editors that.

Furthermore, you can see how I wasn't the only editor working very hard to bring this article to GA status.

You need reliable sources that use the term "controversial" in the context, so far I'm the only one that has provided one.

It sounds like you are using this space as a forum for commenting on me, rather than the topic at hand. If you plan to take me to ANI over any of my behavior, it is not helping your case to talk about it here. Just do it or let it go. We have better things to do.

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Review at NPOVN

Are there any objections to sending this RS (NBC) to NPOVN as the case for inserting the term "controversial" into the lead, or do we have any better suggestions? This discussion has been going for about a week now and it needs to move forward if there is still no consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• GA-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• GA-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• GA-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• GA-Class gun politics articles
• Unknown-importance gun politics articles
• Gun politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles