Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 12 April 2015

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. Politics: American 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun control was copied or moved into Nazi gun control with this edit on 16:14, 24 March 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.

Nazi gun control in a nutshell: Since Nazi gun control is not (as of March 2014) broadly supported by scholarship in its field, this article was created to provide a forum for more extensive treatment that would be WP:UNDUE in an article about mainstream or less controversial topics. Since Nazi gun control is a small minority viewpoint, and since there is no Misplaced Pages consensus about whether or not it is historical revisionism, fringe theory, or something else, it is suggested that the proper contextual relationship between it and majority viewpoints be clear throughout.

Why this page was created

This page was created in response to apparently endless, heated debates on talk pages like those for Gun control and Gun politics in the United States. Specifically, an ArbCom was started on 5 January 2014 re: the Gun control article and questionable conduct that ensued during an Authoritarianism and gun control RfC and other discussions.

The discussion spilled over into the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, where a Split proposal was made on 29 January 2014. That fizzled out pending the ArbCom decision, but as of today (21 March 2014) the ArbCom is still open.

Where it goes, who knows, but my idea for this article is to present Nazi gun control arguments as (possibly legitimate) historical revisionism. (Personally, I consider it fringe, but my editor's gut tells me doing the article this way could cut down on future wars about other articles.) What I wrote in the Split proposal discussion was:

"So far, internal and external to Misplaced Pages, there seems to be an agreement that the Nazi gun law theory is the view of a tiny minority. Per WP:UNDUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

Some suggested that this article might be/become a POV fork, but I said then and I still believe that it's a WP:SPINOFF, though it might be acceptable under one of the other acceptable types of forking, like WP:SUBPOV.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I will... I created this article in good faith.

Lightbreather (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not create spinoff articles to present fringe theories. This issue has no significance whatsoever beyond the narrow confines of the US 'gun control' debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Andy. I do not question your good faith, but creating an article "in response to apparently endless, heated debates on other talk pages" does not serve an encyclopaedic purpose. It only creates a forum for "endless, heated debates". If the topic can be dealt with in a collegiate manner, it can be done on the existing pages. If not, creating a separate article will exacerbate rather than solve the problem. I think – and correct me if I'm wrong – that you believe by creating this article we can remove the content from the other articles, but I can guarantee you that's not going to happen. Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, you wrote on the Gun control talk page (in reply to my notice re: the creation of this page), "In three years it has not been possible to get a single paragraph in article that is encyclopaedic and NPOV." True! But even if you or I or another editor are able to get a single paragraph into it now that is encyclopedic and NPOV, what are the chances that it will stay that way for even a few weeks or months? Soon, someone will come along and start tweaking it and adding to it... Even as much as is in it now re: this topic is already WP:UNDUE per the majority of editors who weighed in on the subject prior to the ArbCom. It is an almost exclusively U.S. argument right now, by a small but vocal group: possibly fringe or historical revisionist, depending on who you ask.

As for endless, heated debates, better to have them here than to take up so much energy on the Gun control article, which is practically paralyzed over this one issue. By giving the hypothesis its own article here, we divert the arguments from there (and other articles), for editors who want to discuss it. Until or unless more mainstream sources give this stuff credence, a separate article - this article, for reasons given above - is the best solution. Lightbreather (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying, instead of trying to improve a crap paragraph in an article, let's make a crap article and allow users to make it progressively more crap? I'd like to know which policy you're basing that idea on. Scolaire (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm proposing at all. I'm saying write an NPOV sentence in that article that links to this article, and work to make this article "not crap." (It is currently a stub - on purpose - and that's the crappiest part of it right now, IMHO.) That takes the pressure off of the Gun control page about how to develop everything else that should be there about the global/international gun control subject - but is not because of the time spent on this volatile fringe/historical revisionism (depending on whom one asks) topic.

The sentence there could be something like:

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.

So, that's actually two sentences - but it leaves the development of the controversial Nazi notion for a different, dedicated "fringe" page (until such time as there's widespread, mainstream acceptance). Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way this should go. I guess that the main criteria are wp:notability (essentially that there is suitable coverage of it in sources), whether or not it is a wp:fork (I think not) and whether it fits in the "scheme of things" with respect to other related articles (I'm thinking "yes" on this but am not sure.) I don't agree with the nutshell nor that the "why this article was created" constitute a reasons for existence, but if the other criteria are met, no such argument is required. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete article. This article is radically against multiple policies. First, the title does not reflect the scope, which includes "other authoritarian regimes". Second, the scope carefully excludes the Nazi gun policy that more likely did have a substantial effect: disarming citizens in occupied countries. Third, the content is not NPOV, as it categorizes all discussion of the subject as either revisionist or conspiracy-related. Fourth, this article is meant to be either a POV fork, or the sole solitary place where this information can be dumped without summarizing it anywhere else. Those reasons are off the top of my head, and doubtless more can be listed upon further contemplation if such were needed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If the scope includes 'disarming citizens in occupied countries', per WP:NPOV the article would have to point out that this has been normal policy in practically every case of a country being militarily occupied - and nothing whatsoever to do with 'authoritarian regimes'. This is what occupying powers do - as in the obvious example of the allied occupation of Germany after WW2. Where the death penalty was a possible sanction for infringement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to delete the article for a variety of reasons, but I'm happy to wait for the ArbCom decision first. As for usual practice in occupied countries, we'd have to follow reliable sources wherever they go. For example, those sources might point out that disarming an occupied country is much easier and much more effective if the previous tradition of gun-ownership was negligible----or not. They might point out that the Nazis disarmed occupied countries for a longer period of time than the norm---or not. They might indicate that US practice in Iraq and Afghanistan was identical to that of the Nazis in Poland --- or not. They might assert that disarming an occupied populace is much easier if the occupied country provides lists from their gun registration agencies --- or not. They might say that even a small oversight by a disarming army of occupation can result in major damage to that army via assassination of its officers---or not. I really have no idea. Let's not debate the fine points of the holocaust unless we have to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Wow, I'm about as anti-deletion as it gets, but in addition to being a mess, I'm not sure this article serves any kind of positive purpose other than giving the editors involved in the Gun Control content discussions a new place to debate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete article. Here we go again with another POV fork, filled to the brim with Original research, written exclusively by a single editor. This article, as it stands, ignores 20 or more Misplaced Pages policies. NOTE: Before anyone places a deletion tag, I strongly suggest that you read this first. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

Misplaced Pages works by a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. That means that you can copy or adapt content, but you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. In Misplaced Pages:Merging it specifies how to do this. Save the edit, leaving the following edit summary (as required by the Creative Commons Share-alike 3.0 license):

Merged content from ] to here. See ].

This edit, this one and probably others, including the expansion of refs, have clearly been copied and adapted from Gun control but there has been no attribution. Please remove all affected content at once. It can be replaced if proper attribution is given, and it would be polite to leave a note at Talk:Gun control to let editors there know that you are copying their work. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't done yet, but I should have given the attribution first. I apologize. I added the "copied" box to the top of the talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That'll do fine. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Given the above discussions, it seems evident that there is little support for this article - I have therefore added a proposed deletion template. If the PROD is declined, I will take this to AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Some people actually supported the idea of this article, depending on the decision of the ArbCom, which is supposed to be revealed tonight.

I would prefer that this fringe crap (IMO) not be in/on Misplaced Pages at all, but the the people who support it are just gonna keep pushing it and pushing it, so I'd rather they have a dedicated fringe/historical revisionism article than to keep disrupting every gun-control related WP article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't create articles on fringe subjects just because contributors refuse to work within policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. They create them to keep them from getting weight in non-fringe articles. As I said, I'd just as soon we didn't have an article like this, but it's OK under WP:FRINGE... as long as it's identified as fringe and editors don't try to drag more than a mention of that fringe into any other article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a long-winded debate. If you wish to contest the proposed deletion by removing the template, you are entitled to do so - at which point I will take the article to AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mercy, Andy! I was only explaining why it was created. If it gets deleted, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Preserved material

Some of the material I moved here today from the "Studies, debates, and opinions" section of the "Gun control" article was already here. I am preserving it here, just in case.

Modern proponents of the security-against-tyranny argument claim that the Nazis could have been inhibited by a more well-armed population (that claim is controversial)...

The following was inside the end parenthesis, after "controversial," in "Notes" format:

In response to arguments that German gun control laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, writers such as Bernard Harcourt agree that gun laws and regulations were used in the genocide of the Jews, but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. Gun control activists further argue that the use of Nazi allusions by gun rights activists is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and groups such as the Anti-Defamation League also say that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis. However, not all Jews feel that way.

1. Halbrook, Stephen (2000). "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17: 484.
2. Halbrook, Stephen (2006). "Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor Harcourt". Texas Review of Law & Politics. 11.
3. LaPierre, Wayne (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Regnery. pp. 88–87, 167–168.
4. Harcourt, Bernard (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review: 670, 676, 679. "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide....istorians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich."
5. Aronsen, Gavin (January 11, 2013). "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
6. Seitz-Wald, Alex (January 11, 2013). "The Hitler Gun Control Lie". Salon.
7. Frank, Monte. "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights", The Guardian (July 13, 2013).
8. The Anti-Defamation League (January 24, 2013). "ADL Says Nazi Analogies Have No Place In Gun Control Debate". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved February 2, 2013.
9. Coscarelli, Joe. “Jewish Firearms Group Compares Bloomberg Gun Control to Genocide, Nazis”, The Village Voice (March 9, 2011).
10. “Rabbi Defends Comparison of Gun Owners to Holocaust Victims”, WFLD, Channel 32, Fox News, Chicago (May 3, 2011).

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unused bibliography

• Aronsen, Gavin (January 11, 2013). "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
• Bard, Mitchell (2001). The Complete history of the Holocaust. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 9780737703733.
• Bard, Mitchell (2008). 48 hours of Kristallnacht: night of destruction/dawn of the Holocaust: an oral history. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press. ISBN 9781599214450.
• Brown, R. Blake (2012). Arming and disarming: a history of gun control in Canada. Toronto Ont.: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442646391.
• Chapman, Simon (2013). Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control. Sydney: Sydney University Press. ISBN 9781743320310.
• Frank, Monte (July 13, 2013). "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media.
• Halbrook, Stephen (1985). That every man be armed: the evolution of a constitutional right. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0826308686.
• Horwitz, Joshua; Anderson, Casey (2009). Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472021994.
• Polsby, Daniel D.; Kates, Don B. (1997). "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly. 75 (3): 1237–1275.
• Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, N.J: Transactions Publishers. ISBN 9781412821292.
• Seitz-Wald, Alex (January 11, 2013). "The Hitler gun control lie". Salon. Salon Media Group.

Move

I have moved the article to a title that more accurately reflects its contents. I would have preferred to delete this article, but apparently it will be the only place at Misplaced Pages for well-sourced content deleted everywhere else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll give more details later, but I'm not sure the new title is better than the old one. Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe

The lead says: "Many consider Nazi gun control to be a fringe theory because it is not supported by history, Holocaust, legal, or political science scholarship." There is no source cited there or anywhere else that supports the "fringe" label. If a historian who is a reliable source can be found that describes the hypothesis as fringe then it needs to be cited here. The hypothesis is speculative, and it's very difficult to prove or disprove speculation; in other words, it may well be that this hypothesis is not falsifiable, in which case "fringe" may or may not be the right word for it. Additionally, I don't think we ought to be saying that the stuff Halbrook wrote is not "scholarship", unless we have a reliable source saying that it's not "scholarship".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The hypothesis is fringe because it isn't taken seriously by academic historians of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - the relevant academic field. And I would remind you that not only was this very issue central to the ArbCom case - which made entirely clear that "placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles" was sanctionable - but that ArbCom has previously made it very clear on previous occasions that undue promotion of fringe topics in general is likewise sanctionable. If it is your intention to attempt to Wikilawyer around policy by arguing semantics, I should warn you that I will have no hesitation in bringing the matter before ArbCom again if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that if we call the hypothesis fringe then we need a footnote, preferably a historian calling the hypothesis false. I will install a "cn" tag if no source is provided. A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. Can we not come up with a footnote that says the mainstream historical view is that disarming the Jews made no difference? Can we not come up with a footnote saying the mainstream historical view is that the resistance in other countries would not have been stronger if the populace had had more gun rights prior to invasion by the Nazis?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made my position clear - promotion of fringe theories unsupported by the relevant academic field is contrary to policy. ArbCom has already made it clear that they are of the same opinion. I have also made clear my position that this article should be deleted. I am not interested in further debate, and have no intention of getting sucked into another round of circular arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be deleted, don't worry Andy. The mob has been aroused, and the reliably sourced information will soon be gone from Misplaced Pages entirely. This article is merely a transit station on the way to oblivion. Cheer up. And stop accusing me of promoting anything here. This is an interesting subject that has appeared in reliable sources and ought to be covered neutrally rather than censored to death. Asking for a damned footnote is not equal to promoting fringe theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I shall nominate the article for deletion as soon as the ArbCom case closes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Hypotheses? Um...no. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

The last sentence of the lead says: "Many consider Nazi gun control to be a fringe theory because it is not supported by history, Holocaust, legal, or political science scholarship." A footnote to this sentence of ours says:

First of all, instead of "Many consider" we ought to have written that political scientist Harcourt considers....

Also, I don't think that we characterize Harcourt fairly. Harcourt does not dispute, for example, that Halbrook "presents the first scholarly analysis of the use of gun control laws and policies to establish the Hitler regime and to render political opponents and especially German Jews defenseless." That's hardly an accusation that Halbrook & company are fringe nutcases as we imply at the end of the lead. Far from dismissing this all as nonsense, Harcourt calls for study by historians (Harcourt admits that he is not a historian). Harcourt calls for historians to seriously consider this hypothesis, both in the title of Harcuort's article ("....Call to Historians"), and elsewhere ("What we really need now is more historical research and serious scholarship.").

I realize that people who would like to ban guns want Harcourt to have dismissed Halbrook as a fringe nutcase, but clearly Harcourt did not do so, and so I will remove the last sentence of the lead until someone can provide proper sourcing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've been told many a time, before: We don't delete it; we tag it as needing citation. Lightbreather (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did tag it. Then a source was provided. And the source did not support the sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the user that added the source. I browsed through the article and found one. I just disliked seeing that tag. I didn't even look at the source, just picked one up. I apologize for this and want you to know that it was my mistake. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hat note and lead

I think this edit is problematic. It's important to say up front that the theory has not been proven to the satisfaction of most mainstream scholars. Moreover, simply wiping from the lead their characterizations ("questionable", "dubious", "tendentious") is not a good idea. What's going to happen with edits like this is that the article is going to end up even more to the editor's disliking than it was in the first place. That's just the way it works with controversial articles like this. Administrators will swoop in and editors will be blocked (at least). Look at the warnings atop this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all I'm going to revert those characterizations, you added them today, and it is what I would consider Undue weight and sort of cherry picking terms from articles characterizing their disagreement. Consensus should be gained for that Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'll be expanding upon this very soon. —Godsy_CONT) 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you prefer the "fringe" characterization that has been all over the article for many months? Because that's where this article is headed, very fast, although I won't be the one to make any changes like that. You've removed the statement that, "Most mainstream sources consider this claim to be historically 'dubious', 'questionable', and 'tendentious.'" The three cited sources were cited in the lead for months, and now you've taken them out. I disagree with that. You want the lead to only cite Halbrook and Cottrol, neither of whom opposes the theory that the Misplaced Pages article is describing? That's grossly undue weight, and is totally different from how the lead was prior to your edits today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:Though I think due weight should be given to the view that this isn't a mainstream theory, I think the last sentence of the lead "The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship." clearly conveys that. This article is about the theory, if it is Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories truly, I might personally question whether this should be included in the encyclopedia. As long as it is included however, my statements should hold true. Though the dissent definitely warrants a mention in the lead and a section of it's own, but spreading liberally through the entire article is undue. I think the "About" should be neutralized to something like "This article is about a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes". Perhaps that should be removed altogether and just have the redirect for German gun laws there. just because something is theorized doesn't convey that it is true. It has a potential to be true but that can be said of most counterfactual ideas. —Godsy_CONT) 00:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, you should probably be aware that the subject matter of this article has been the subject of considerable discussion, including an ArbCom case (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control), and while ArbCom doesn't rule directly on content matters, it was clear from the evidence presented that the 'nutshell' note at the top of this page regarding the position of mainstream scholarship regarding the issue is an accurate reflection of the situation. To be specific, there is no meaningful support for the 'Nazi gun control theory' as promoted by (mostly U.S.) pro-gun activists amongst the relevant academic field - recognised academic historians of the Holocaust. Accordingly, it is a fringe theory, and Misplaced Pages has a duty to describe it as such. 'Neutral point of view' does not involve the entirely undue promotion of pseudohistorical fringe theories regarding one of the defining historical acts of the twentieth century created by partisan activists for the self-evident purpose of influencing another debate about another issue in another time period entirely. These are the facts of the matter, and you would do to reflect on them before engaging on the issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding to what AndyTheGrump said, Godsy, if you'd like the article to be deleted, I'm sure you can get plenty of support for that, as indicated at this talk page above. However, if the article remains (which I think it ought to), then we need to at least put some footnotes in the lead other than footnotes to sources that have no difficulty with this controversial theory. For example, you could reinsert the footnotes (i.e. the ones that you deleted) at the end of the sentence that says: "The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your views of the matter AndyTheGrump, I am not here to form an opinion (or to reflect) on the matter itself. The theory itself should be described, who peddles or believes in it or not is not my concern. Anything I suggest to change will be based on my interpretation of Misplaced Pages Polices and guidelines. @Anythingyouwant, I agree with you, though not in the from that you added before. I'm sure we can come to an accord on how to add that though. —Godsy_CONT) 00:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, you repeatedly removed those footnotes from the lead, so please feel free to put them back into the lead. If you put them back and I don't like the way you've done it, then I'll say so here at the talk page. Make sure you say in your edit summary that you're merely putting back what you previously removed (that should protect you from any accusation of edit-warring).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

{{About|a theory not widely supported by scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}. would that be acceptable to you Anythingyouwant? And yes, I'll add the other back shortly. —Godsy_CONT) 01:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with how the hatnote is now. The present version of the hatnote seems preferable to the one you propose, but I wouldn't object to either. My advice is to leave alone what you can live with, because other editors will not be as flexible as me. The main thing I'm asking you to do now is reinsert some footnotes into the lead, so that 100% of the footnotes in the lead are not supportive of this theory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Added the footnotes back in, does that sound alright to you? I can also reposition it within the lead as well.—Godsy_CONT) 01:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe tomorrow I'll make some slight edits (e.g. change "Pro-gun" to "pro-gun").Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, with a few other small fixes. —Godsy_CONT) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory should be described, certainly - in terms that make it entirely clear that it is a partisan theory concocted by pro-gun activists, and unsupported by academic scholarship. As Misplaced Pages policy requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the hat note

First of all the hat note is used improperly in this article per WP:TRHAT- it is tendentious material: having a tendency; written with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one; implicitly or explicitly slanted. Even if it is not considered that, it would fall under WP:LEGITHAT, not belonging in the hat note. Beyond that, I think the information expressed in the hat is already given due weight (if not overly so) in the article. I would propose to change the language in the hat note to {{About|a theory not widely supported by scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany|Gun legislation in Germany}} OR perhaps more appropriately simply {{For|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}. The hat note is not the place for a disclaimer, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Stating that the theory (an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true) is "unproven" adds no benefit to the reader as theories are not fact, they are ideas. It is expressed clearly in the article that this is a highly criticized theory for several reasons, with two sentences in the lead and half the article (one of the two sections). The hat note in its current form is improper and is unnecessary. —Godsy_CONT) 22:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote quite properly distinguishes between historical fact (as covered in our article on gun legislation in Germany) and the subject matter here - a partisan theory put forward by pro-gun activists, unsupported by academic historiography concerning the period, and based to a significant extent on simple misrepresentation of the historical record. It is not a 'disclaimer'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note.

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: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Politics, government, and law History and geography Religion and philosophy 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.

The issue is whether the hatnote is improper in its current form.—Godsy_CONT) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, particularly the section entitled 'Statement should be neutral and brief'. Your statement is neither neutral, nor brief, and accordingly this RfC is malformed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Fixed. —Godsy_CONT) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What? You consider a 226 word statement asserting that existing content is 'tendentious material' to be 'neutral and brief'? Your understanding of the word 'neutral' clearly differs from mine... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's my comment on the issue. "RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note." is my neutral statement. If the format isn't proper at the moment, I will be working towards a fix. —Godsy_CONT) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to put a very brief statement of the issue immediately after the big yellow box.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How's that? —Godsy_CONT) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing it. Please adjust however you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —Godsy_CONT) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing other people's posts is contrary to policy, and it still fails to explain in neutral terms what the issue is, and what the options are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out proper format, sorry if anything went amiss. None of the statements setting up the RFC are mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• Proposal/Support (from above) First of all the hat note is used improperly in this article per WP:TRHAT- it is tendentious material: having a tendency; written with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one; implicitly or explicitly slanted. Even if it is not considered that, it would fall under WP:LEGITHAT, not belonging in the hat note. Beyond that, I think the information expressed in the hat is already given due weight (if not overly so) in the article. I would propose to change the language in the hat note to {{About|a theory not widely supported by scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}} OR perhaps more appropriately simply {{For|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}. The hat note is not the place for a disclaimer, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Stating that the theory (an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true) is "unproven" adds no benefit to the reader as theories are not fact, they are ideas. It is expressed clearly in the article that this is a highly criticized theory for several reasons, with two sentences in the lead and half the article (one of the two sections). The hat note in its current form is improper and is unnecessary. —Godsy_CONT) 23:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Would the following be better? "This article is about a widely-rejected theory according to which the Holocaust might have been prevented if the Jews had not been disarmed. For...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it would still be an improper use of the hat note. —Godsy_CONT) 23:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't support your brief version ("For the history of German gun laws see Gun legislation in Germany") because the reader would be competely mystified about why this article isn't part of the history of German gun laws.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also be okay with the removal of the hat note completely. I do think it is related because people may want to see what the German gun laws were, since claims about them being related to something else are being made in this theory. Maybe it would be better in a related article section. I seriously doubt anyone could confuse this theory for the German Gun laws of the past, as theory is in the article title itself.—Godsy_CONT) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. The guideline WP:LEGITHAT seems pretty clear that "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." But perhaps there is an exception somewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The hatnote explains what this article is about - a pseudohistorical partisan theory - and directs readers looking for the actual history of firearms regulation in Germany to the relevant article. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

While it may do that, it is violates WP:LEGITHAT (perhaps even WP:TRHAT) making it an improper use of a hat note and against policy. —Godsy_CONT) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, no it isn't, and please sign your posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You can state that, however unless you know of a policy I am unaware of, or would like to clarify, it is an infringement. —Godsy_CONT) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Merely asserting that it violates policy doesn't make it so - it is up to you to demonstrate the fact, rather than merely asserting it, and then demanding that others prove you wrong. And I'd like to know how a hatnote could distinguish topics without describing them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do demonstrate that above at length citing policy. You express your opinions about it, citing no policy. WP:Hatnote is clear what a hat note is and is not. If I can clarify anything more for you, let me know. —Godsy_CONT) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to cite policies the hatnote doesn't violate. And you have yet to explain how a hatnote can distinguish between topics without describing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

By that line of thinking, {{About|a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}} which complies with WP:NPOV and WP:TRHAT (which the current version does not), would be acceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it too, by having a description in the hat note AND having it filled with partisan unnecessary language. It is a theory and by the very definition does not need proven (theory NOT scientific theory). The view that it is not mainstream is expressed in the lead, and in 1 (an entire section) of the 2 sections of the article, it is undue in the hat note because of that in itself and specifically per the WP:TRHAT and/or WP:LEGITHAT policies (whichever way you view it). If that isn't demonstrated and clear to you, then to quote you AndyTheGrump, "Your understanding of the word...clearly differs from mine." —Godsy_CONT) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the language is partisan. In my opinion, it accurately describes the subject matter of this article - a fringe theory about firearms regulation in Nazi Germany concocted for the purpose of influencing the gun debate in the United States. Though 'theory' is actually stretching it rather, since it isn't so much a theory as outright misrepresentation of the facts, combined with inherently unverifiable (actually meaningless) assertions regarding how things might have been different had they been different. That is what the article is about - and a hatnote distinguishing this article from our historical one needs to state what the subject is. Evidently you are under a misapprehension common amongst new contributors - that WP:NPOV policy somehow dictates that we give 'equal weight' to both sides when discussing controversial topics. We don't, when one is fringe partisan propagandising, and the other is the position adopted by the academic mainstream. Articles reflect the academic consensus, and the consensus on this topic is clear enough. Accordingly, that is what the hatnote should describe, if it is to accurately summarise what the article is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Hatnote the governing policy of hat notes, is at odds with the language (whether it is partisan or not is an opinion). Though it may possibly be true, it does not belong there. "Unproven" is redundant to theory AND "a small minority of scholars" does not belong there per WP:LEGITHAT (on the assumption it does not fall under WP:TRHAT looking at it from what I take to be your point of view). I understand that WP:NPOV doesn't give opinions equal weight. With this being an article on the theory itself (not a section in a larger topic) an impatial tone is necessary. —Godsy_CONT) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

So your position is that a hatnote which accurately describes the content of the article is a violation of policy? Interesting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Misplaced Pages:Hatnote isn't a policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Guideline", my point remains the same however. My position is that a hat note should follow the guideline. While the theory may be used as partisan propaganda, it doesn't necessarily discredit the theory as a whole. Who agrees with it or not is irrelevant really, as this is a theory. If the article were under its former name "Nazi gun control", then there would be a lot more issue and ground to stand on with the description. This is not WP:PSCI, because as I stated before this is not a scientific theory, it is Counterfactual history (an idea).—Godsy_CONT)

Nope. You don't get to Wikilawyer around the requirement that this article complies with WP:NPOV policy - which requires that partisan fringe viewpoints be described as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of its "WP:FRINGELEVEL", the place to express that is not in the hat note, per the guideline. And this article complies with the WP:NPOV policy that requires more weight be given to certain views over others (if not overly so in some respects). —Godsy_CONT) 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV policy applies everywhere - including hatnotes, obviously. Your argument that the hatnote should misrepresent the article content is a novel one (at least as far as I'm aware), but not one that seems likely to convince anyone, I'd have thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We differ in the idea of what would misrepresent the article content. I never stated the WP:NPOV policy did not apply. —Godsy_CONT) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Regardless of its "WP:FRINGELEVEL", the place to express that is not in the hat note". That clearly reads to me like a proposal that we ignore the self-evident fringe nature of this so-called 'theory' when we summarise it in the hatnote. Something that you have repeatedly argued. In direct contravention of WP:NPOV policy. Per policy, the hatnote must describe the article as written - not another one that you'd clearly prefer to have in its place. If you want to argue for changes in the article body, feel free to do so (but not in this thread, it is confusing enough already). Meanwhile, the hatnote will, per both WP:NPOV policy and common sense, tell our readers what the article is actually about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea is covered specifically in WP:LEGITHAT. The hat note is not the place to express extra info about the mainstream prevailing opinion (or to be redundant). I'm not expressing an opinion on the articles content at this time (nor should you assume what it would be). And the current hat note does not accurately describe the article in the its current state.—Godsy_CONT)

• Comment Sorry that I have not read all the discussion. I notice that similar articles, such as Moon landing conspiracy theories do not have hatnotes. It would seem odd to have one for that article because it would seem to give legitimacy to a fringe view and wonder if it is necessary here. TFD (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that notion, I don't think it is necessary. —Godsy_CONT) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting comment, TFD. Seems to me that the hatnote here could at least be shortened, because it is large and obtrusive. For example: "This article is about an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." A hatnote on an article like this isn't completely unprecedented (e.g. see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories). Perhaps we could imitate that one instead of shortening the present hatnote: "For the prevailing historical account of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany". That would clue the reader in to the fact that this article is not part of any prevailing historical account.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be the opposite of an improvement. I'm not going to even address unproven, because it is redundant to theory. "This article is about a theory supported by a small minority of scholars". It is already quite clear that this is not fact, merely a "theory" by the title. This would be in the spirit of a disclaimer, which Misplaced Pages does not have per WP:NODISCLAIMERS. "This article is about a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." That would be a concise and clear hat note (though I'm trending toward the view one may not be necessary). —Godsy_CONT) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Such proposals are often based on wild claims about archaeological finds, cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, and narrative accounts that seem to be about trans-oceanic voyages.

Claims of contact other than the Norse settlement of Greenland and the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement in Newfoundland are generally controversial and considered debatable. These claims are often based on circumstantial or ambiguous evidence. The scientific responses to such pre-Columbian contact claims range from dealing with it in peer-reviewed publications to outright dismissal as fringe science or pseudoarcheology."

Those are direct quotes from the article you cited and these are the hat notes- "For the prevailing model(s) describing the geographic origins and early migrations of humans in the Americas see Settlement of the Americas." "For more details on Native American genetic heritage, see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas." Now that serves a purpose, directing readers to the prevailing models of the topic. Nazi gun control theory redirects to another topic, not so closely related (and with the use of unnecessary language and rhetoric). I would also like to point out that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories is a scientific theory, while this article is not, therefore it's not held to the same standards.

Now I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I can see the idea that linking to German gun laws could create a false sense of validity for the theory. While I think that it simply directs readers to the other article, I can follow that other line of thinking to a certain point. {{For|a historical account of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}, perhaps that would be acceptable. —Godsy_CONT) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, that last suggestion does not give the reader any idea why this article is not a historical account. Try this: "This article is about a widely-rejected theory. For a mainstream history, see Gun legislation in Germany." That seems entirely concise and accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The definition of theory- "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" covers that, renders those phrasings redundant, and adds the notion of unnecessary potential bias to the language you're suggesting. —Godsy_CONT) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get that definition from? Here is the lead definition at dictionary.com: "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Merriam Webster — an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events; an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true; the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.

From your source a "guess or conjecture" is also a possible definition. The second definition is also close to that "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

What I take from it is a separation between theory and scientific theory. I don't see this being touted as scientific theory, more as an idea. On an note unrelated to this rfc I think a section in the article about what the theory says/is titled "Overview" or something may be due (that is if this idea is even rigidly defined).

P.S. Einstein's theory was scientific and so is that (the scientific theory) form of use. —Godsy_CONT) 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would personally suggest this: "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control laws had a measurable impact in facilitating the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." 184.162.103.228 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote reminds me of the quote from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Imagine a hatnote at "Moon landing conspiracy theories" saying, "Contrary to what CONSPIRACY THEORISTS believe, MAN REALLY DID LAND ON THE MOON!!! For the true story of what REALLY happened, see "Moon landings."" That approach makes the reader doubt the official story. TFD (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the comments immediately above by TFD and IP 184, perhaps this would be an improvement: ""This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." That's shorter (24 words compared to the present 36), but seems just as informative, and seems to address the Misplaced Pages guidelines mentioned above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• Stub-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment