Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
Lightbreather (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 363: | Line 363: | ||
{{quote|Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. <s>The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere.</s>}} |
{{quote|Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny. <s>The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere.</s>}} |
||
Is that correct? The sentences look quite different to me.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC) |
Is that correct? The sentences look quite different to me.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:"(which does not appear anywhere above)" - Yes, it does, though the part you struck through appears in italics. Aside from that, everything you want to know is in what I've already said multiple times. Leave me alone. [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:33, 29 March 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Split proposal
I suggest the parts of this article (notably, in Security against tyranny and invasion) that have to do with Nazi laws be split into its own article titled Nazi gun laws (or whatever the consensus might be - I'm undecided). This will cut down on the edit warring that ensues when this material is put into related articles. It is notable enough to have its own article, IMO, but not enough to give undue weight in articles like this one (Gun politics in the U.S.) In articles such as this one, there should just be a brief statement that some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust - or something to that effect - and a Wikilink. Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've invited the editors whose names were on the Gun control talk page as of one-half hour or so ago. I sent each the same message: "There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you." You can see evidence of these invitations in my contributions history for 28 JAN 2014. Lightbreather (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I also put notices on the following article talk pages: Gun Control Act of 1968, Gun laws in Germany, The Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Overview of gun laws by nation, Stephen Halbrook, and Weimar Republic. Lightbreather (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is a long history in the United States of using the threat of tyranny to justify broader gun rights. Thus, we have blockquotes now in the Wikipedia article from people like Noah Webster and John Kennedy mentioning this, without referring to Nazis at all (e.g. Webster was alive 150 years before Hitler). The stuff about Nazis is only the latest manifestation of this concern. Are you suggesting to keep them together, or to split them?
- If I recall correctly, there were editors at the main gun control article who were arguing that this material should go into this article rather than that one, so I'm not sure they would agree with sending it somewhere else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I studied the page, and I only see you and User:FiachraByrne discussing how that might work. But, at any rate, I am going to invite everyone on that page to this discussion. It will take me a while, but I'm starting now. Lightbreather (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- How what might work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- That this material might go into this article (Gun politics in the U.S.) rather than that one (Gun control). Most of the discussion about where it should go - if it belonged anywhere - was about Gun politics in Germany. But if I've misread the gun control talk page, please provide some links. Lightbreather (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- There were a lot of complaints there that an "article of supposedly global scope has been dominated by the discourse of the U.S. pro-gun lobby". If we put it into an article about Germany, then the same objection would come up, wouldn't it? In any event, I'm still unsure what you're suggesting, because most of the section is about tyranny generally, not specifically about Nazis, and I don't understand if you want to get rid of that general tyranny stuff too. If you haven't yet studied it WP:Summary style may be helpful for you, as a guide for splitting off material when an article gets too big.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think that statement oversimplifies "tyrannous" for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- There were a lot of complaints there that an "article of supposedly global scope has been dominated by the discourse of the U.S. pro-gun lobby". If we put it into an article about Germany, then the same objection would come up, wouldn't it? In any event, I'm still unsure what you're suggesting, because most of the section is about tyranny generally, not specifically about Nazis, and I don't understand if you want to get rid of that general tyranny stuff too. If you haven't yet studied it WP:Summary style may be helpful for you, as a guide for splitting off material when an article gets too big.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- That this material might go into this article (Gun politics in the U.S.) rather than that one (Gun control). Most of the discussion about where it should go - if it belonged anywhere - was about Gun politics in Germany. But if I've misread the gun control talk page, please provide some links. Lightbreather (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- How what might work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I studied the page, and I only see you and User:FiachraByrne discussing how that might work. But, at any rate, I am going to invite everyone on that page to this discussion. It will take me a while, but I'm starting now. Lightbreather (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) While I appreciate the effort to find stable consensus, the proposal I'm hearing is a POV fork. I count only three sentences in that section that have anything to do with Germany, barely enough for a stub. I think the mentions of Nazi gun laws are pertinent to this subject and belong in this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- OPPOSE - POV fork and waste of time. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Uncertain - I'd like the subject treated academically. The Black Codes (United States) specifically forbade firearms from blacks. It seems that Nazi Germany went down the path of disarming Jews and others that were seen as problematic for the reich. Plato even writes of how tyrannies seek to limit arms from the people. There is a great article to be written here. It's not to say that's gun control leads to tyranny. It can, certainly but that's not the point. The point is that some people object to the content because it might portray gun control in a bad light....tough I say. At the same time I don't want to intonate that gun control in and of itself leads to tyranny either. That's for the reader to decide. We just provide the facts. Let me mull this over.-Justanonymous (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, Justanonymous, but only the Nazi stuff and, to be clear, as a historical revisionism article that includes the criticism as well as the proponents' theories. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- What historical revisionism do you see. There are documented facts. People have opinions about those facts. What is being revised? (Other than attempting to whitewash out history to say it didnt happen?) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's WP:FRINGE. Howver, I read about historical revisionism and, at least according to WP, it's not all "bad," so I chose that as a less fractious term. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's just a very politically charged issue. The actions of the Nazis are fact. The debates generally center on whether the gun control was material enough to alter the balance. Would the Warsaw Ghetto uprising have turned out differently if Jews could keep arms? What if they could keep arms together with a culture of civilian rifle marksmanship? What if? What if? To many variables. So the only thing that can be done is to leave the facts and let people make up their own minds but to me a separate article on just the Nazi materials and conjecture is probably not warranted but there is a broader article here. I worry as others have noted that it'll be a POV fork or that it'll just atrophy and die. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's WP:FRINGE. Howver, I read about historical revisionism and, at least according to WP, it's not all "bad," so I chose that as a less fractious term. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- What historical revisionism do you see. There are documented facts. People have opinions about those facts. What is being revised? (Other than attempting to whitewash out history to say it didnt happen?) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Park this pending the outcome of the ArbCom case on the other article. --Scolaire (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps split off some of it. I agree that the Nazi policy should be covered in full in Gun control in Germany. What is relevant to this article is that the gun lobby seems often to argue that control equals tyrannical government, and the pro-control lobby retort that that is nonsense. This argument should be covered with sources from both sides. One thing I noticed is that the situation in the UK is completely misrepresented. The Squires book does not permit the statement that this argument is used in the UK. It was raised just once by an organisation with no real public profile and was immediately slapped down as complete nonsense. Nor does the Gregg Lee Carter book support the notion that it was raised in the past in Britain, at least not on p891. (Each of the many references to this book ought to have its own page reference inline.) What Carter does say is that the American colonists defended their use of firearms against British tyranny, which is a completely different thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- See reply to Drmies re: the "international" implications of this stuff - at least from a WP editorial board POV. Not sure which Carter book you're referring to, but in Guns in American Society, there is a specific entry titled "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control" that deals critically with these arguments. Wherever these Nazi arguments appear, we must ensure that such criticism, which represents a strong majority view, is given its due weight. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good reference, but, our goal on Wikipedia is not to take sides, choosing to include only the arguments that deal critically with one side's arguments, but, rather, to present all viewpoints with verifiable cites, thereby allowing a reader to make their own opinion, not just the one that you might like them to take. Again, if an article speaking in WP's voice chooses to deal critically with just one side's arguments, we have actually taken sides in an argument. That is counter to WP policy. Due weight needs to be given even to viewpoints that an editor might personally find offensive. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- So far, internal and external to Wikipedia, 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. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it appears that you are equating "tiny minority" with "gun owners". But, based on the latest polling numbers, gun owners account for nearly 40% of the national population, with regional differences rising to around 60%-90% in some regions or sub-regions (i.e., the south, southwest, etc.). And, among such gun owners, there are sizable numbers of members of the NRA, JPFO, and GOA that do believe the relationship exists, and all three of these national organizations do publish articles that support belief that the relationship exists. Taking sides in the argument by suppressing one side by calling them a "tiny minority" when they clearly are not is a tactic used to suppress unpopular viewpoints. Again, we need to include the views of major national organizations (NRA, JPFO, GOA) that collectively do have millions of members, and which represent anywhere from 40% to 90% of populations (national to regional). Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if anyone here has understood my point. I did mean Guns in American Society. Does it say anywhere that in the UK, the argument has been used that gun ownership protects a population against tyrannous government? If so, could someone present the page reference? And is Gregg Lee Carter an expert on gun politics in the UK? My general opinion is that each country's situation should be presented in the relevant article. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it appears that you are equating "tiny minority" with "gun owners". But, based on the latest polling numbers, gun owners account for nearly 40% of the national population, with regional differences rising to around 60%-90% in some regions or sub-regions (i.e., the south, southwest, etc.). And, among such gun owners, there are sizable numbers of members of the NRA, JPFO, and GOA that do believe the relationship exists, and all three of these national organizations do publish articles that support belief that the relationship exists. Taking sides in the argument by suppressing one side by calling them a "tiny minority" when they clearly are not is a tactic used to suppress unpopular viewpoints. Again, we need to include the views of major national organizations (NRA, JPFO, GOA) that collectively do have millions of members, and which represent anywhere from 40% to 90% of populations (national to regional). Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- So far, internal and external to Wikipedia, 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. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good reference, but, our goal on Wikipedia is not to take sides, choosing to include only the arguments that deal critically with one side's arguments, but, rather, to present all viewpoints with verifiable cites, thereby allowing a reader to make their own opinion, not just the one that you might like them to take. Again, if an article speaking in WP's voice chooses to deal critically with just one side's arguments, we have actually taken sides in an argument. That is counter to WP policy. Due weight needs to be given even to viewpoints that an editor might personally find offensive. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- See reply to Drmies re: the "international" implications of this stuff - at least from a WP editorial board POV. Not sure which Carter book you're referring to, but in Guns in American Society, there is a specific entry titled "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control" that deals critically with these arguments. Wherever these Nazi arguments appear, we must ensure that such criticism, which represents a strong majority view, is given its due weight. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree/Support - The parts of the article dealing with Nazi gun laws ought to be split and/or eliminated from this article. Mention of "Nazism" in an article like this one is reminescent of the kinds of debates I had about gun control as a 5 year old on my kindergarden playground. Pointing to Nazism on a politically contentious articles which aren't directly linked to WWII history is just a dumb idea, likely implemented by people trying push POV. All this said, Scolaire rightly points out that there seems to be a pending Arbcom case related to this issue. Might be wise to wait.... NickCT (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wait There is a pending Arbcom. Let's see what comes of it. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. In the grand scheme of things these laws are pretty meaningless, certainly in the narrow German context. There is no need for "Nazi gun laws"--we already have 1938 German Weapons Act (inside Gun legislation in Germany). It's pretty clear that those 1938 laws have played no historical role anywhere in the world except for in the minds of gun advocates of the Don't Tread On Me kind in the United States so it's perfectly rational to keep it in "Gun politics in the US". Drmies (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with you, Drmies, except for the "international" statement in the lead and the mention of Brazil, Australia, Canada, and the UK in the section in question - plus the sources cited with them. (Read the quotes in the footnotes.) I would bet that those "Gun politics in..." articles will be next if this stuff is allowed to stay here, starting more disruptions. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- All of the most offensive and disruptive comments at Wikipedia have used vowels, so maybe we should delete them from this article? Seriously, let's cross bridges when we come to them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ntngywnt, ncl fnd, bt yr strtchng t. I do agree that we don't need to do prophecies here. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thx mch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ntngywnt, ncl fnd, bt yr strtchng t. I do agree that we don't need to do prophecies here. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- All of the most offensive and disruptive comments at Wikipedia have used vowels, so maybe we should delete them from this article? Seriously, let's cross bridges when we come to them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with you, Drmies, except for the "international" statement in the lead and the mention of Brazil, Australia, Canada, and the UK in the section in question - plus the sources cited with them. (Read the quotes in the footnotes.) I would bet that those "Gun politics in..." articles will be next if this stuff is allowed to stay here, starting more disruptions. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly per Drmies Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. We should avoid POV forks, by WP policy. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree that this would be a POV (content) fork. The proposal is for WP:SPINOFF, though it might be acceptable under one of the other acceptable types of forking, like WP:SUBPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree/Support/But wait... - If there is enough information to create an article about the use of gun control by governments around the world and over time, then this suggestion makes sense to me. But I would like to see the outcome of the ArbCom first. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The proposal is to do only with Nazi gun laws. (Weimar Era would need to be touched upn for context.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose As far as German law, it was the totality of the anti-Semitic laws that enabled the Holocaust. Not just taking away weapons. By the time Hitler got around to the 1938 law that forbid Jews to own weapons, the Jews had already had their businesses, homes and possessions taken away, and were already excluded from the German economy and society in general. Non-German Jews were getting expelled. Americans in the gun control debate are forgetting that the Germans didn't have a Constitution with a 2nd amendment that said they had the right to bear arms. And they are forgetting the Versailles Treaty and the German 1919 law that disarmed the citizenry because of the treaty not because the Germans wanted it. And the Germans didn't invent gun registration. See English history in 1600s and colonial America. Massachusetts militia were required to turn in a list of their weapons and equipment. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with your argument, and that's where a better title would come into play, per WP:SUBPOV: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.
- What do scholars call this this theory, these proposals, that Nazi gun laws were a significant factor in the Holocaust? Lightbreather (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I imagine they'd say they were the result of a lack of historical information. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support/Irrelevant There is nothing wrong with having an article about Nazi gun laws, and it doesn't even need agreement here, just go and make it. It's a fine topic to write an article about, regardless of what happens to this article. --GRuban (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, I have no objection to an article on the nazi gun laws and the commentary thereof being created - but using such creation as a reason to remove from here I do have an objection to. Its a notable part of the US gun politics debate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- My proposal is not to remove the Nazi gun laws arguments from Wikipedia, but to remove the undue weight of those tiny but vocal minority arguments from gun politics pages like this. As I wrote above, "In articles such as this one, there should just be a brief statement that some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust - or something to that effect - and a Wikilink."
- I'm proposing a WP peace treaty, of sorts, to cut down on future conflict. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, I have no objection to an article on the nazi gun laws and the commentary thereof being created - but using such creation as a reason to remove from here I do have an objection to. Its a notable part of the US gun politics debate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wait. Not getting involved in any gun control related articles or debates until after the current ArbCom case. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- WaitFor the above reasons and I'm not so sure now is the time that contributers in this areas are redy to deal with another new big hot topic in this area. But it doesn't seem logical as described. Maybe both articles should exist, but I don't how anything that could be called a split would be logical. What should be on it here should be only to the extent that it is part of the US debate/politics, such does not seem appropriate for a new new article that has nothing to do with US debate/politics. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Split Nazi gun laws aren't relevant enough to the subject to have their own section. But they are certainly relevant enough for a Wikilink. Orser67 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree/Support/Split - Nazi gun laws should only be mentioned briefly in this article with a Wikilink to another article that deals with the topic in depth. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cancel or Re-start – The discussion is stale. It got off track from the get go. A fresh (better worded) proposal would be needed, but seriously, most of the viewpoints expressed above do not seem overwhelmingly enthusiastic. ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: Waiting for results of ArbCom
Waiting for the Gun control ArbCom results before deciding what to do about the current dispute on this page (Gun politics in the U.S.) was my original thought. Others have expressed this idea, too. But I've changed my mind for two reasons. 1. ArbCom is about behaviors, not about resolving content disputes. 2. The content disputes are causing the behavioral problems. Have in the past; will in the future. Therefore, there is no reason not to seriously consider this option now. Justanonymous and Gaijin42 claim Nazi "gun control" is a fact (see comments above). Other Wikipedians obviously do, too. Rather than keep warring about this over and over, give them a forum, per WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS. This would be a pro-active approach to the problem. Gun politics is a controversial enough topic without dragging Nazi gun control into it every time the subject is broached on a related page.
That said, I'm not in a hurry to do this, I just think it would be a good solution to a problem that is not going to go away - even if every involved party in ArbCom is banned or blocked. Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Nazi argument - if any - that belongs in this article
It was said yesterday on the Gun control talk page, "I'm glad that everyone agrees the argument is notable within the US." This was toward the end of another long discussion about Nazi material.
I want to start a discussion here in anticipation of the ArbCom conclusion, and I want to start it by saying that I have seen no agreement on what - if anything - should be said about the Nazi argument in this or any other gun related article. I've seen lots of arguments, lots of suggestions, but no agreement on anything. Lightbreather (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to wait at least a day or two, given the imminence of the ArbCom conclusion. For now at least, the horse seems dead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per a request at my user talk page, I'm glad to clarify that the immediately preceding comment was in response to Lightbreather's comment of 15:38, 21 February 2014, and that it refers to anyone who does not want to wait a day or two for the ArbCom decision before re-starting this particular discussion. The link is meant to be lighthearted rather than insulting, and it is often linked during similar Wikipedia discussions.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've never seen it used in a lighthearted fashion. I am a joker myself, but I've found jokes don't translate well in forums such as these, so I mostly try to keep it professional. And when I do mean for something I say to be lighthearted, I used the good ol' smiley or winky emoticons - just to be sure. :-) Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's where WP:AGF comes in. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've never seen it used in a lighthearted fashion. I am a joker myself, but I've found jokes don't translate well in forums such as these, so I mostly try to keep it professional. And when I do mean for something I say to be lighthearted, I used the good ol' smiley or winky emoticons - just to be sure. :-) Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per a request at my user talk page, I'm glad to clarify that the immediately preceding comment was in response to Lightbreather's comment of 15:38, 21 February 2014, and that it refers to anyone who does not want to wait a day or two for the ArbCom decision before re-starting this particular discussion. The link is meant to be lighthearted rather than insulting, and it is often linked during similar Wikipedia discussions.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
May be, but on Feb. 1 I asked you to stop editing and wait for ArbCom results:
- Archive 2 shows that I raised objections on Jan. 6 and again on Jan. 8. Both discussions start with "POV shift." You and I had discussions both times. There was no groundswell to keep it. You and **** and **** outvoted me. That's not consensus. I asked to have it removed it until the ArbCom about behaviors re: this material on Gun control is concluded and it's been properly discussed here. I'm asking again for you to do that now. Lightbreather (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Others have advised this, too. Feb. 1 is the last time I edited this article. You've made at least 50 edits since then. Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- You just wrote: "You and Gaijin and Sue Rangell outvoted me. That's not consensus." You're correct that consensus does not mean votes, but that 3-1 !vote was backed up by policy arguments, and many other editors have considered the same issue too. You raised this exact question (i.e. whether there was consensus) at ArbCom, so let's let them answer. I don't feel that going through the same process over and over again at this talk page will be helpful, because it will just lead to some editors saying there's consensus and another editor saying there's no consensus. After the ArbCom decision, which seems imminent, then we can take a fresh look at the matter, and maybe use a different process to resolve the matter. There has been peace and quiet here at this talk page for weeks, and I don't see a need to restart now when the decision is imminent. I would add that you have a very good chance to prevail at ArbCom, given that you are not an involved party (and given my own cynicism about that committee).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- You wrote, "but that 3-1 !vote was backed up by policy arguments, and many other editors have considered the same issue too."
- 1. I went back and read the related discussions. I see NO policy arguments. Which discussion and policy arguments are you referring to? I do see a mention of WP:PRESERVE, which is meant to preserve appropriate content, and which gives ways to preserve besides simply keeping (controversial, debated, questionable) material in the article.
- 2. I agree that others have considered the same issue - and not come to a consensus. I believe that was part of what brought about the ArbCom. Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're asking me to investigate and provide links to what was said on January 6 and January 8. My response to you is that on those dates only a small part of the discussion took place. It's been going on for many weeks, both here, and at Talk:Gun control, and at ArbCom. I don't see any need for me to provide diffs to you for only those two dates that you have selected, and not for all the others. I already said to ArbCom: "On January 6, 2014 Lightbreather wrote: 'I propose we let this article sit for a week (with the exception of removing material added to the lead) or two while all parties digest how to make this newly merged article NPOV.'[2] At that time, the article contained considerable material about the Nazi argument.[3]" In other words, you asked on January 6 for people to meditate for a week or two, and now you're asking me for diffs from only two particular dates before that period was through.
- I would prefer not to argue with you now about whether certain points were previously argued adequately on certain specified dates. You've had ample opportunity to present evidence against me at ArbCom, and I addressed your arguments there as well as I could. Generally speaking, the material in question is sourced to reliable sources, and it is presented in a neutral manner. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- All I'm asking is for others not to say things that aren't backed up by evidence. I looked at all the related discussions - not just Jan. 6 and Jan. 8 - and I don't see evidence of consensus, backed by policy or otherwise, for the material. Again, that's why there's an ArbCom, IMO. As for "sit for a week," that was before I had any experience with ArbCom and how long it can take. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, in all the discussions thus far about the Nazi material, you see no policies cited for inclusion? That's extremely, extremely incorrect. For example, during your survey regarding splitting off the material, various policies were cited (including explicit wikilinks to WP:SS and WP:POVFORK).[4] You may not think the Nazis were tyrants,[5] or think that other editors have been trying to follow policy, but it's just not true. I have tried very hard to present this sensitive material per WP:NPOV, and have worked very hard to provide reliable sources per WP:RS, including external links in the footnotes for easy verification. In order to address concerns about WP:Undue, I moved a bunch of material from the main text to a note, completely removed reference to JPFO, and have otherwise tried very hard to follow policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- The only reason I brought this up was because you wrote: "You're correct that consensus does not mean votes, but that 3-1 vote was backed up by policy arguments." I saw no consensus backed up by policy arguments. When the Nazi material was added to this article (and Gun control, for that matter) there was no consensus backed up by policy arguments.
- Also, please don't misrepresent my opinions about Nazis. In fact, please strike that comment. It was uncivil and uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- The section where you say you were outvoted appears to be here. Those who disagreed with you cited policies including WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, and WP:CRUSH. As for me, I said (in that section) that I did not feel safe conversing with you, because you incorrectly stated that I had introduced the Nazi material using the edit summary "Canada" when in fact there was already Nazi material in the Wikipedia article.
- Regarding allegedly misrepresenting your opinion, I initially said: "I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous." Amazingly, you denied it: "I think that statement oversimplifies 'tyrannous' for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree." Feel free to retract, but I did not misrepresent anything. These quotes are typical of the difficulty of reaching agreement with you about anything here at this talk page, even the most obvious possible historical fact in the universe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are misrepresenting my opinion. What's more, it is unnecessary for this discussion - so why did you include it, and why are you insisting on including it? There is zero good faith to be gleaned from its mention or inclusion. I am asking you a second time: Please remove it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I quoted you verbatim. I mentioned it because it is an amazing thing you said, and is something that I also pointed out to ArbCom explicitly in the evidence I presented. Moreover, it goes to the relevance of including Nazi material in the tyranny section. You disagreed when I said "I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous." If you would like to continue this discussion at your user talk page or mine, feel free, but I don't think this is a good conversation to continue here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are misrepresenting my opinion. What's more, it is unnecessary for this discussion - so why did you include it, and why are you insisting on including it? There is zero good faith to be gleaned from its mention or inclusion. I am asking you a second time: Please remove it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, in all the discussions thus far about the Nazi material, you see no policies cited for inclusion? That's extremely, extremely incorrect. For example, during your survey regarding splitting off the material, various policies were cited (including explicit wikilinks to WP:SS and WP:POVFORK).[4] You may not think the Nazis were tyrants,[5] or think that other editors have been trying to follow policy, but it's just not true. I have tried very hard to present this sensitive material per WP:NPOV, and have worked very hard to provide reliable sources per WP:RS, including external links in the footnotes for easy verification. In order to address concerns about WP:Undue, I moved a bunch of material from the main text to a note, completely removed reference to JPFO, and have otherwise tried very hard to follow policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- All I'm asking is for others not to say things that aren't backed up by evidence. I looked at all the related discussions - not just Jan. 6 and Jan. 8 - and I don't see evidence of consensus, backed by policy or otherwise, for the material. Again, that's why there's an ArbCom, IMO. As for "sit for a week," that was before I had any experience with ArbCom and how long it can take. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- 2. I agree that others have considered the same issue - and not come to a consensus. I believe that was part of what brought about the ArbCom. Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Since you can't seem to imagine a way that you might be misrepresenting me, consider the paragraph before your ridiculous "PS." You wrote:
- I'm still unsure what you're suggesting, because most of the section is about tyranny generally, not specifically about Nazis, and I don't understand if you want to get rid of that general tyranny stuff too....
- P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous.
You were lumping together general tyranny and what the Nazis did! They're not even comparable! Your "PS" was false logic, and I wasn't agreeing with that. You're suggesting my refusal to agree with your PS BS was something that it is not. Now, I'm asking you a third and final time to remove the Nazi comments you've directed at me and my character. After you've done so, I will remove my objections to them, and my requests to remove them. Lightbreather (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- My PS was emphatically not BS, and no one should disagree (as you did) that the Nazis were tyrannous. Feel free to retract. Anyway, I have other places to be now than this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
ANI thread
I have restored the comments of mine that Lightbreather has deleted. I also started an ANI thread about it. And once again, I urge Lightbreather to acknowledge that the Nazis were tyrants. This is very relevant to whether they ought to be included in the subsection on tyranny. That they were tyrants seems like a very obvious fact, but I can provide plenty of references if necessary. Just like Stalin and Mao and many others through the ages, Hitler was a mass-murdering tyrant, and I don't see any valid reason to deny that plain fact. I do not think for a moment that Lightbreather has any sympathy for such tyrants, but I do think that characterizing the Nazis as other-than-tyrants is an extremely poor justification for excluding them from the subsection on tyranny.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since you insist on keeping your misrepresentation of what I said three weeks ago, I am presenting the facts again, here, for the record.
-
- 1. In a Split proposal I started here on 29 JAN 2014 you (Anythingyouwant) said: "I'm still unsure what you're suggesting, because most of the section is about tyranny generally, not specifically about Nazis, and I don't understand if you want to get rid of that general tyranny stuff too....[6] P.S. I'm assuming everyone here agrees that the Nazis were tyrannous."[7] To which I replied: "I think that statement oversimplifies 'tyrannous' for this argument, so for this argument I do not agree." No one else said anything about your comment or about mine.
- 2. You felt my comment was worth mentioning in the ArbCom about Gun control, where you wrote on 3 FEB 2014, "During the discussion about that split proposal, Lightbreather explicitly disagreed that the Nazis were tyrannous." It was a misrepresentation, but I figured the ArbCom admins would figure that out, so I decided not to make a big deal about.
- 3. The reason that I started the Nazi-argument-if-any-that-belongs-in-this-article discussion (above) two days ago? Because the preceding day it was said on the Gun control talk page, "I'm glad that everyone agrees the [Nazi material] argument is notable within the US." In reply, in this discussion, you chose to write, "You may not think the Nazis were tyrants," and to link to the diff for my 3-week-old comment in the split discussion. Of course, I asked you to remove the unnecessary and, IMO, misrepresented reference. You refused - three times. Your final comment included this gem: "... no one should disagree (as you did) that the Nazis were tyrannous. Feel free to retract." So I deleted the uncivil portion of your comments myself, per WP:WIAPA and WP:RPA.
- 4. You started an ANI and accused me of vandalism. What's more, you said that you were "surprised" by my original statement, that it was "weird," and possibly done "to gain advantage in a content dispute." Each time (three times) linking to my 29 JAN comment again - even after three explanations by me and one by an admin, you still didn't seem to get it. So I wrote:
- Were the Nazis tyrants? They were sick, twisted mass-murderers, and to lump what they did in with the "general tyranny" (his words, not mine) of King George's taxation without representation or current attempts to pass stronger gun regulations is beyond inappropriate.
- 4. You started an ANI and accused me of vandalism. What's more, you said that you were "surprised" by my original statement, that it was "weird," and possibly done "to gain advantage in a content dispute." Each time (three times) linking to my 29 JAN comment again - even after three explanations by me and one by an admin, you still didn't seem to get it. So I wrote:
- Based on the opinion of another editor who is an involved party in the ArbCom, you restored your comments here. I'm not going to remove them again. But I am leaving this detailed reply because I think those comments - not neener-neeners, but Nazi allusions - were unnecessary to the discussion and uncivil.
- Finally, in this ANI thread subsection, you write, "Hitler was a mass-murdering tyrant." Bingo. If your original question had been, "PS: I think all here agree that Hitler was a mass-murdering tyrant," that would not have received the reply that your original question did. What the Nazis did was so awful we had to create a new word for it: genocide. We had to convene a world court to try the crazy bastards.
- Read the WP article tyrant. Any mention of Hitler or Nazis? How about the WP article Hitler or Nazism. Any mention of tyranny? That's because calling Hitler or Nazis tyrants is like calling Al Capone and the mafia bullies. You just can't put Nazis in the same category as King George or Dianne Feinstein. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather, I thought User:Beeblebrox had some very good advice about letting this matter rest for a little while.[8] However, I do not want to be seen as disrespectful to you, by not responding to you now. Sad to say, there have been many Genocides in history, long before the Nazis. Are you aware of those tyrants?
I previously said that I assumed everyone agrees that Hitler was a tyrant. You explicitly disagreed. If I misunderstood you, that misunderstanding certainly was not intentional. Your response still dumbfounds me. I do not see any way that a knowledgeable person would disagree in the way that you did, and in the way that you still do. Your more recent comments about it indicate that you are willing to classify Hitler as a “mass-murdering tyrant” but not as simply a “tyrant”. Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, in response to that apparent position of yours, I respectfully offer a few reliable sources, and would be happy to offer hundreds more if you would like, to justify including mention of the Nazis in our article section about “tyranny”:
- Pick, Daniel. The Pursuit of the Nazi Mind: Hitler, Hess, and the Analysts (Oxford University Press, 2012): “The question of whether it was better to mollify or confront the Nazi tyrant divided public and parliamentary opinion in European capitals and in Washington.”
- Chirot, Daniel. Modern Tyrants: The Power and Prevalence of Evil in Our Age (Princeton University Press, 1996): “The suffering they imposed is sufficient to make us accept the idea that Hitler and Stalin were tyrants.”
- McKale, Donald. Nazis After Hitler: How Perpetrators of the Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012): "Hitler's second book, a sequel to Mein Kampf dictated by the tyrant in 1928 but never published by him, revealed the Nazi leader's belief even before he seized power in Germany in 'the necessity of a future major conflict with the United States….'"
- Hershman, D. Jablow. A Brotherhood of Tyrants: Manic Depression and Absolute Power (Prometheus Books, 1994): “Not only is the tyrant the sole significant human being in his mental universe, his is the only will. Speaking to the Nazi Party, Hitler said: ‘Nothing happens in this movement except what I wish’”
Moreover, I would like to respectfully point out to you that there have been many “mass-murdering tyrants” both before and after Hitler. For example, Stalin caused a famine that killed between two and eight million people (1932-1933). The Khmer Rouge (mentioned in this Wikipedia article) killed between one and three million people (1975-1979). There were fewer people in the world, and less technology, before the twentieth century, so the tyrants accomplished less killing. The extermination of the Dzungars resulted in half a million deaths, from 1755 to 1758. The Circassian Genocide caused between 400,000 and 1.5 million deaths from 1817 to 1864. British General Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet explicitly advocated using smallpox-infested blankets to kill native Americans at the Siege of Fort Pitt. Alas, I could go on and on.
In summary, I still do not agree with you that mentioning the Nazis in the tyranny section is the least bit inaccurate, inappropriate, or against policy. But ArbCom will weigh in soon, and then perhaps you will be left to edit this article as you wish.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, you "do not want to be seen as disrespectful to [me], by not responding to [me] now"? If this stuff you just wrote was meant to be a sign of respect... well, I disagree, and I'll say no more. Lightbreather (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- LB, Do you realize that you are making a case to have a special section just about the Nazis? I don't think that would be productive. I think it's best to simply give them a mention in a "tyranny" section. Genocide and "ethnic cleansing" have been practiced all throughout history, and sadly, continues to this very day. Hitler was no more evil than Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Vlad Dracula, or Alexander the so-called great. They all tried to take over the world while bathing in the blood of their victims. Hitler is just the most recent in memory, and even that memory is quickly and sadly slipping into the annals of ancient history. In one or two hundred years Hitler will be remembered as just another in a long list of tyrants. Just my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Close, Sue. Very close. But based on the dirth of reliable, verifiable, high-quality sources presenting this as a real, significant example of "gun control" as "tyranny," no. My opinion is still what it was when I started the Split proposal as a way to end this edit warring:
- I suggest the parts of this article (notably, in Security against tyranny and invasion) that have to do with Nazi laws be split into its own article titled Nazi gun laws (or whatever the consensus might be - I'm undecided). This will cut down on the edit warring that ensues when this material is put into related articles. It is notable enough to have its own article, IMO, but not enough to give undue weight in articles like this one (Gun politics in the U.S.) In articles such as this one, there should just be a brief statement that some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust - or something to that effect - and a Wikilink.
- There is already a Wikilink to Halbrook's book, Gun Control in the Third Reich. Since he is basically the gun-rights champion who started this theory, perhaps "Gun control in the Third Reich" would be the appropriate (companion) article. (Rather than "Nazi gun laws," as I originally suggested. It would also probably help with Halbrook's book's sales ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Close, Sue. Very close. But based on the dirth of reliable, verifiable, high-quality sources presenting this as a real, significant example of "gun control" as "tyranny," no. My opinion is still what it was when I started the Split proposal as a way to end this edit warring:
- I don't think there is enough material in the main text of this article about Nazis to justify a separate section, and adding more about them would violate WP:Undue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The amount in this article is already UNDUE, which is why I proposed a split three weeks ago. (See reply just made to Sue). Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there is enough material in the main text of this article about Nazis to justify a separate section, and adding more about them would violate WP:Undue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is the relevant material in the main text of the Wikipedia article:
“ | Modern proponents of that viewpoint often claim that the Nazi government was a type of tyranny that purportedly could have been inhibited by an armed population (that claim is controversiala[›]), and they often discuss a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews but instead had to cope with gun ownership among suppressed populations.[118][119][120] However, the anti-tyranny argument pre-dates the Nazis....Historians have tended to not address gun regulation under the Nazis, and its significance is disputed;[122] according to Robert J. Cottrol:[123]
Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies?.... |
” |
I don't think this is enough for a separate article, per WP:Summary style. If there were a separate article , this would be a good length for a summary. We've been through this before. Why can't we now enjoy our weekends and await the ArbCom decision? Incidentally, Halbrook didn't start the thing. John Dingell and others were discussing it decades earlier.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You've only included part of the Nazi material you've added to the article - like the undue "international" concerns - not to mention the sources you and others have brought up before claiming that it's notable. It's notable for its own article on a controversial therory. Here? "Some gun rights advocates believe that Nazi gun laws contributed significantly to the Holocaust" - plus a Wikilink. That's all there should be, at most, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where are Nazis mentioned elsewhere in the main text of the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I have just shortened the Nazi material further, so this is all there is in the main text:
“ | Modern proponents of that viewpoint often claim that the Nazi tyranny could have been inhibited by a more well-armed population (that claim is controversiala[›]), and they often discuss a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and other suppressed populations.[118][119][120][121] ....Historians have tended to not address gun regulation under the Nazis, and its significance is disputed;[122] according to Robert Cottrol:[123] Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies?.... | ” |
I also added a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership info - for if/when it comes up again
I am glad that Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is currently NOT in this arcticle, but if/when it comes up again, here is some fairly current info about its size.
Its IRS EIN is 39-1732344. Its 2012 Form 990-EZ PDF is available at guidestar.org. (You need an account, but there is a free version.) That report shows Program service revenue of almost $127,000. (Zip for Grants and contributions.) At $25 annual membership, and assuming all its income is membership fees, that makes a little over 5,000 members. (The weird thing, they don't list the income as membership dues.)
From my experience with nonprofits, there are probably members who give more than $25/year (and probably some lifetime members who aren't required to give annually), and there are probably other sources of income, so I'd be surprised if they actually have 5, 000 active members. By comparison NRA Program service revenue for 2011 (latest report available on Guidestar) was almost $110 million, and Grants and contributions revenue was almost $60 million. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be best to not mention JPFO in this article with regard to tyranny or Nazis, for three reasons. First, it is relatively small and unknown. Second, if we mention it then we would have to explain that not all its members are Jews, which would take up even more undue space in this article. Third, a more acceptable option would be, e.g., to simply wlink JPFO in the "See also" section. That's why I removed JPFO. I would not say that the editor (not me) who inserted it was misbehaving or anything like that, but the better choice would be to omit it. That information could go at the article about the JPFO, however.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that info should go into the JPFO article. I only shared it here because how "big" (or not) the org is was an issue in a recent discussion on the Gun control talk page, so I expect it will come up again here, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding was that it was the third largest such group in the US. Where did that original figure come from? It seems to me that something should be placed into the article (it doesn't matter what, it doesn't have to be the JPFO) A) that balances out the "All Jews are offended" content within the Nazi material, or B) Remove the material claiming such, or C) Remove the Nazi material altogether. Playing the "Jew Card" is as offensive as playing the "Nazi card". The entire thing is offensive to me. We don't need to fight WWII again, follow? What I would REALLY like to see, if I were to rewrite the whole thing myself, would be to have a section on totalitarianism, with the Nazi material given a mention, along with others who used gun control to further their oppression, rather than simply keep the streets safe. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- All governments forbid at least some people they consider undesirable to keep and bear arms. In the U.S. for example, prisoners are not allowed to keep and bear arms, yet they retain other rights such as habeas corpus'. In fact, habeas corpus is only relevant for prisoners as writs can only be issued for people believed to be prisoners. You would need to show that the Hitler argument has attracted any significance in rs. The Hitler argument is that Hitler brought in gun control laws so he could disarm Jews. But there was already a gun control law and Hitler eased the law by lowering the age of gun ownership from 20 to 18 and eliminating the long gun registry. TFD (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't this Wikipedia article presently cite many rs? We aren't trying to show that the "Hitler argument" is correct, only that it is often made. Is Wikipedia supposed to determine which arguments are correct and then exclude all description of the others? That would be especially difficult here, because historians have not much addressed this argument.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sue, if you can find a reliable source that says JPFO is the third largest pro gun rights group in the US, and that its members include a substantial percentage of Jews, then that might be of interest. As things stand, I don't see sufficient material in reliable sources to include JPFO here beyond listing the wikilink in the "see also" section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea where that figure came from, and I can't be arsed to trace it down. The JPFO material can be completely removed as far as I am concerned. I am more interested in completely re-writing the section as I described above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sue, as best I can tell, you are primarily concerned with the sentence in the note (i.e. not in the main text of this Wikipedia article) which says: "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". That's emphatically not the same thing as if the ADL were instead saying that "reporting or describing these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis". Otherwise ADL would consider its own statement as offensive to victims of the Nazis.
- I therefore don't see any need to balance the ADL statement in order for us to continue briefly describing the Nazi argument. However, if there is noteworthy balancing material out there in reliable sources, then I'd also be glad to include that too, in proportion to its prominence. I'll look around.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. I have just added to the Note in this Wikipedia article a very brief sentence: "However, not all Jews feel that way.[1][2]"
- [1]Coscarelli, Joe. “Jewish Firearms Group Compares Bloomberg Gun Control to Genocide, Nazis”, The Village Voice (March 9, 2011).
- [2]“Rabbi Defends Comparison of Gun Owners to Holocaust Victims”, WFLD, Channel 32, Fox News, Chicago (May 3, 2011).
- Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think it reads pretty well now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea where that figure came from, and I can't be arsed to trace it down. The JPFO material can be completely removed as far as I am concerned. I am more interested in completely re-writing the section as I described above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- All governments forbid at least some people they consider undesirable to keep and bear arms. In the U.S. for example, prisoners are not allowed to keep and bear arms, yet they retain other rights such as habeas corpus'. In fact, habeas corpus is only relevant for prisoners as writs can only be issued for people believed to be prisoners. You would need to show that the Hitler argument has attracted any significance in rs. The Hitler argument is that Hitler brought in gun control laws so he could disarm Jews. But there was already a gun control law and Hitler eased the law by lowering the age of gun ownership from 20 to 18 and eliminating the long gun registry. TFD (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding was that it was the third largest such group in the US. Where did that original figure come from? It seems to me that something should be placed into the article (it doesn't matter what, it doesn't have to be the JPFO) A) that balances out the "All Jews are offended" content within the Nazi material, or B) Remove the material claiming such, or C) Remove the Nazi material altogether. Playing the "Jew Card" is as offensive as playing the "Nazi card". The entire thing is offensive to me. We don't need to fight WWII again, follow? What I would REALLY like to see, if I were to rewrite the whole thing myself, would be to have a section on totalitarianism, with the Nazi material given a mention, along with others who used gun control to further their oppression, rather than simply keep the streets safe. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that info should go into the JPFO article. I only shared it here because how "big" (or not) the org is was an issue in a recent discussion on the Gun control talk page, so I expect it will come up again here, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
New Wikipedia article about Nazi gun control
Here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- And discussion here [9] and here [10] and here [11]. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed
Per the "International debate?" discussion [12] on the Gun control talk page, and on the facts to follow, the second, italicized of these two statements in this article should be removed:
- Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny.[1][2] The latter motivation is not confined to the United States.[3][4][5][6]
- ^ Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011): The greatest fear for ... the [U.S.] pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny.... They [the NRA] promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.
- ^ Wilson, Harry. Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, pp. 20-21 [re U.S. gun laws and politics] (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
- ^ Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007): [T]he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism.
- ^ Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany."
- ^ Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012): "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germans and Stalinist Russia."
- ^ Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012): "Comparing British gun control policies with Nazi rule prompted a wide spectrum of commentators to criticize the SRA."
Citations 1 and 2 are about the U.S. gun control debate. Citations 4 and 5 (Chapman and Brown) are discussed in "International debate?" on the Gun control article (link at top of this discussion). Citation 3 is about a U.S. pro-gun lobby (specifically the NRA) pushing the Nazi gun control argument in Brazil. Citation 6, like 4 and 5, when read in context of the text immediately surrounding the quote, also does not support inclusion of an int'l Nazi GC argument. Rather, it's an example of what Harcourt summarized succinctly when he wrote:
- In much of the literature and argument, the references to Hitler and Nazi gun laws are often dressed in Second Amendment rhetoric. The message, in essence, is that the founders specifically crafted the Second Amendment to protect the Republic from dictators - and that Adolf Hitler proved the founders right.
- "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) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- That you do not like an argument, or think that it was made in bad faith, does not change the fact that the argument was made in multiple countries, and responded to in multiple countries, and documented in reliable sources published in multiple countries. Wikipedia, much like the rest of the world, does not restrict itself to topics that LightBreather approves of. Your WP:OR and opinion does not overrule multiple WP:RSGaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Gaijin. Lightbreather, the sentence that you would like to erase is this: "The latter motivation is not confined to the United States." If you would like to argue that this is not amply supported by the cited sources, then we could discuss that. If you would like to argue that it is not relevant to the present article, then we could discuss that too. But as far as I can tell, you haven't made any such argument.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you guys want me to copy the arguments that were recently made re this subject, instead of agreeing that the links I've given prove them, OK. I will stop and do that for you. Give me 10 minutes or so to put them (arguments) together. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your arguments do not contradict the sources which clearly document the argument being made and responded to outside the US. The statement in the article is a 100% uncontravertable fact. Is the argument not as common outside the US? probably. Has it not gained as much notability or had as much effect? also probably. But We are not stating anything untrue, and adding that extra level of nuance would require sourcing. If you think there is a statrement that can be sourced that adds that nuance, propose it. But removing content DESCRIBING an argument, where we have multiple sources providing that description, because you disagree with the argument itself or its effectiveness is not within policy. The argument is made outside the US. period. Its use outside the us is documented by reliable sources on the topic of gun control. period. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- After a lengthy Gun control talk page discussion titled "International debate?" (copied below), in which many policies and guidelines were discussed by multiple editors, you agreed to drop the international debate argument.[13] I thanked you for that decision,[14] and I'm asking you to stand by it here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your arguments do not contradict the sources which clearly document the argument being made and responded to outside the US. The statement in the article is a 100% uncontravertable fact. Is the argument not as common outside the US? probably. Has it not gained as much notability or had as much effect? also probably. But We are not stating anything untrue, and adding that extra level of nuance would require sourcing. If you think there is a statrement that can be sourced that adds that nuance, propose it. But removing content DESCRIBING an argument, where we have multiple sources providing that description, because you disagree with the argument itself or its effectiveness is not within policy. The argument is made outside the US. period. Its use outside the us is documented by reliable sources on the topic of gun control. period. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you guys want me to copy the arguments that were recently made re this subject, instead of agreeing that the links I've given prove them, OK. I will stop and do that for you. Give me 10 minutes or so to put them (arguments) together. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Gaijin. Lightbreather, the sentence that you would like to erase is this: "The latter motivation is not confined to the United States." If you would like to argue that this is not amply supported by the cited sources, then we could discuss that. If you would like to argue that it is not relevant to the present article, then we could discuss that too. But as far as I can tell, you haven't made any such argument.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Copy of Gun control talk page "International debate?" as of 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
International debate? Copied here from Gun control talk page "International debate?" of March 20-26 I removed "and others in the international[1][2] 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)
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)
"Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler [...] [Discussion of multiple Australians making the argument]". 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)
Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 24 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)
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)
|
--Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here is a link to a related discussion, [19] which I hope I don't have to copy here, because it's not all about the "internation debate?" arguement. (Also, I understand that in this discussion I proposed waiting "a week or two" before deciding how to proceed. I'd never waited on an ArbCom before, and I don't own a crystal ball. If I knew then what I know now, there's no way I would have suggested waiting "a week or two," so I hope that won't be held against me. It's rather like a technicality.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see a basis in policy for erasing the targeted sentence. No editors, regardless of personal POV, should be seeking to convert Wikipedia articles into advocacy pieces, and that was not the purpose of the targeted sentence. Editing here isn't supposed to be some sort of contest between opposing POVs. The object is to give all sides a fair shake, by accurately describing the facts contained in reliable sources. That's my view, anyway, though I'm not so sure about the Wikipedia hierarchy's view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that it be removed because there has been no consensus to keep it, and in fact, a statement very similar to this one was agreed upon to be removed from the Gun control article. Your last statement, and this one of mine, is surrounded by a sea of evidence regarding the truth of what I'm saying. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Except that there *IS* a consensus to keep it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting that it be removed because there has been no consensus to keep it, and in fact, a statement very similar to this one was agreed upon to be removed from the Gun control article. Your last statement, and this one of mine, is surrounded by a sea of evidence regarding the truth of what I'm saying. Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see a basis in policy for erasing the targeted sentence. No editors, regardless of personal POV, should be seeking to convert Wikipedia articles into advocacy pieces, and that was not the purpose of the targeted sentence. Editing here isn't supposed to be some sort of contest between opposing POVs. The object is to give all sides a fair shake, by accurately describing the facts contained in reliable sources. That's my view, anyway, though I'm not so sure about the Wikipedia hierarchy's view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here is a link to a related discussion, [19] which I hope I don't have to copy here, because it's not all about the "internation debate?" arguement. (Also, I understand that in this discussion I proposed waiting "a week or two" before deciding how to proceed. I'd never waited on an ArbCom before, and I don't own a crystal ball. If I knew then what I know now, there's no way I would have suggested waiting "a week or two," so I hope that won't be held against me. It's rather like a technicality.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here [20] is what was in Gun politics in the United States (GPUS) on 28 DEC 2013, one week prior to it being merged at 22:54, 3 JAN 2014, [21] with Political arguments of gun politics in the United States (PAGPUS). - NOTE that neither of these versions of GPUS or PAGPUS mentioned an "international debate" about Nazi gun control, or cited Mackey, Wilson, Springwood, Chapman, Brown, or Squires.
- Here [22] is what was in GPUS at 22:52, 3 JAN 2014 - minutes before it was merged with PAGPUS. - NOTE that GPUS now had the following in it:
- Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny.[1] The latter concern has found expression not just in the United States, but internationally (e.g. in Brazil,[2] Australia,[3] and Canada[4]).
- What happened? In the days leading up to the opening of the Gun control ArbCom, the Nazi gun control material, including the argument that it's an "international debate," was added to this article (GPUS), which was then merged with another article (PAGPUS), and any objection was quickly dismissed based on a supposed consensus. I will not comment about the intentions of editors who pushed on as if there were a consensus about this, since I can't know if they understood that there was not, but... There was no consensus then, and there is no consensus now.
- Here [22] is what was in GPUS at 22:52, 3 JAN 2014 - minutes before it was merged with PAGPUS. - NOTE that GPUS now had the following in it:
- ^ Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011): The greatest fear for [Americans] ascribing to the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny.... They [the NRA] promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.
- ^ Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007): [T]he individual items of NRA-sponsored propaganda collectively worked to further the cause of pro-gun activists both abroad and at home. Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute. The choice of image was clearly meant to suggest a parallel between the dangers of disarmament and the dangers of Nazism.
- ^ Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany."
- ^ Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012): "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germans and Stalinist Russia."
--Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a contest about the popularity of a sentence in the Wikipedia article. The sentence or some equivalent has been in the article for months, and you presently have two editors who say it should remain because it is reliably sourced and relevant, versus one editor who says that she constitutes a consensus for removal---without giving any content-based reason for the removal. If you would please wait a week or so for the ArbCom decision, then I will probably not have the pleasure of editing this article with you anymore, and you can do whatever you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- "The sentence or some equivalent has been in the article for months," is not a valid argument for keeping it under normal editing conditions, since consensus (if there ever was one) can change. But considering the conditions under which the material came to be in the article, and the fact that many editors have not been editing it pending ArbCom, the argument that what's in it now is a product of a healthy, neutral-net-affect editing environment is insupportable. Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- You will likely have the environment you want soon enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather, as long as I'm allowed to edit this article, I will continue to strive to follow Wikipedia policies about neutrality, verifiabilty, consensus, and the rest. I honestly don't see how this edit of yours complies with any of those policies. Not one. You want to delete a very brief sentence of only nine words ("The latter motivation is not confined to the United States") that says the tyranny argument is not confined to the United States. But that statement is just the way it is; the sentence is supported by multiple sources, it's relevant, not undue weight, and even more than that there's the fact that a large supermajority of editors here has seen it the same way. Instead of walls of text, just say in a sentence or two why you're editing this way, please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus would seem to be to keep the material. In fact, only one editor is pushing to delete it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Anything, there was recent consensus - in only the last few days - on the Gun control talk page that Nazi gun control is not part of an "international debate." I even copied that discussion above, including Gaijin's agreement to stop pushing for its inclusion.[23] I thanked him for that decision,[24] and I asked him to stand by it here. I am asking you to let it go, too. This contentious point has been debated over and over and over again. The sources have been reviewed by numerous editors. There has been no consensus that this is truly an international debate, or that saying it is should be included in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather, I'm glad to consider what you have to say, but, really, we have myself, Sue Rangell, and Gaijin who have explicitly said in this talk page section that this very brief sentence ought to stay. I am asking you to let it go, at least until you persuade people so that there's consensus to remove. Is there nothing that can be done to improve this sentence in your view? Is the sentence false in your view? I have not been closely following or participating in the talk page at gun control. Was the deleted sentence only nine words long, and did it say what this sentence says? Why is it that you had "Gaijin's agreement" there but not here? The sentence here that you deleted against consensus does not discuss an "international debate", it merely says that an argument is not unique to the U.S.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Anything, I have written hundreds of words above that say what I have to say. I've provided diffs and copied the whole "International debate?" discussion from the Gun control talk page. These spell out the facts very clearly. This is about more than me and you and Gaijin and Sue, and the discussions we had when you were pushing this material into this article in the days before and after the start of the Gun control ArbCom. I can't say any more than what I've already said without repeating myself. Today, I'm concentrating on copyediting and uncontentious edits on the article. For example, I'm removing overlinks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence removed at the other article was very different from the sentence here that now says: "The latter motivation is mostly but not entirely confined to the United States.[116][117][118][119]" This sentence does not say anything about an "international debate". Just copying and pasting arguments from another article's talk page, regarding a substantially different issue, is not persuasive to me. Can't you please address what this sentence says, here at this talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Anything, I have written hundreds of words above that say what I have to say. I've provided diffs and copied the whole "International debate?" discussion from the Gun control talk page. These spell out the facts very clearly. This is about more than me and you and Gaijin and Sue, and the discussions we had when you were pushing this material into this article in the days before and after the start of the Gun control ArbCom. I can't say any more than what I've already said without repeating myself. Today, I'm concentrating on copyediting and uncontentious edits on the article. For example, I'm removing overlinks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Lightbreather, I'm glad to consider what you have to say, but, really, we have myself, Sue Rangell, and Gaijin who have explicitly said in this talk page section that this very brief sentence ought to stay. I am asking you to let it go, at least until you persuade people so that there's consensus to remove. Is there nothing that can be done to improve this sentence in your view? Is the sentence false in your view? I have not been closely following or participating in the talk page at gun control. Was the deleted sentence only nine words long, and did it say what this sentence says? Why is it that you had "Gaijin's agreement" there but not here? The sentence here that you deleted against consensus does not discuss an "international debate", it merely says that an argument is not unique to the U.S.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- "The sentence or some equivalent has been in the article for months," is not a valid argument for keeping it under normal editing conditions, since consensus (if there ever was one) can change. But considering the conditions under which the material came to be in the article, and the fact that many editors have not been editing it pending ArbCom, the argument that what's in it now is a product of a healthy, neutral-net-affect editing environment is insupportable. Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a contest about the popularity of a sentence in the Wikipedia article. The sentence or some equivalent has been in the article for months, and you presently have two editors who say it should remain because it is reliably sourced and relevant, versus one editor who says that she constitutes a consensus for removal---without giving any content-based reason for the removal. If you would please wait a week or so for the ArbCom decision, then I will probably not have the pleasure of editing this article with you anymore, and you can do whatever you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you start an RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have lots to do today, and if I did file an RFC it would most likely be a user conduct RFC. We'll wait and see what ArbCom says, and go from there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The sentence looks low key, (almost sky-is blue with it's cautious wording) and I think well sourced. The removal also removes several good sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Duplicated material
A lot of text in this article is duplicated among two or more sections. I am identifying sections like these to discuss them here. First one I'm bringing up, this one in the 20th century section:
- Besides the GOA, other national gun rights groups often took a stronger stance than the NRA. These groups criticize the NRA's history of support for some gun control legislation, such as the Gun Control Act of 1968. Some of these groups are the Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). These groups, like the GOA, believe any compromise leads to incrementally greater restrictions.[1][2]
And this one in 21st century:
- Besides the GOA, other national gun rights groups continue to take a stronger stance than the NRA. Including groups such as The Second Amendment Sisters, Second Amendment Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the Pink Pistols. New groups have also arisen, such as the Students for Concealed Carry, which grew largely out of safety-issues resulting from the creation of 'Gun-free' zones that were legislatively mandated amidst a response to widely publicized school shootings. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pitched in, with an extensive study on gun control[3] which found "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws." A similar survey of firearms research by the United States National Academy of Sciences arrived at nearly identical conclusions in 2004.[4]
- ^ Singh, Robert P. (2003). Governing America: the politics of a divided democracy. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 368. ISBN 0-19-925049-9.
- ^ Daynes, Byron W.; Tatalovich, Raymond (2005). Moral controversies in American politics. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. p. 172. ISBN 0-7656-1420-0.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. October 3, 2003. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
- ^ Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0-309-09124-4
Notes/Questions about the sources in the 20th century snippet:
- Does anyone have access to source 1 (Singh) to verify what exactly it's supporting?
- Source 2 (Daynes) did not have a URL, but I found one - which I added in the citation above - but I can't determine exactly what it's there for.
If neither of these problems is addressed, I suggest finding better sources or removing it altogether.
Comments about the text (and sources) in the 21st century snippet:
- The first sentence was obviously copied from the 20th century section and a few words modified. The second sentence isn't even a sentence. Third sentence? Eh... for now.
- The last two sentences may belong in this article, but they don't belong in this paragraph. I will try to find a more suitable place for them.
- Although the 20th century section takes a stab at presenting info about gun control/gun violence prevention groups, the 21st century section doesn't even bother. I will correct that, too.
--Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The "international" debate, at Anything's insistence
Regarding the discussion above, of 27-28 March 2014, "Suggestion that Nazi GC is an international concern should be removed" - I am copying that last two comments in it by Anythingyouwant and me here:
- Why don't you start an RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have lots to do today, and if I did file an RFC it would most likely be a user conduct RFC. We'll wait and see what ArbCom says, and go from there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
And I am following up with some developments.
- 1. He started an ANI yesterday here,[25] which has (as of the time of this post) two subsections.[26][27]
- 2. He has inserted the "international" material again.[28]
--Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you abide by an RFC if you won't abide by consensus at this talk page? Myself and three other editors (Gaijin, North and Sue) support the content. Moreover, you are not acknowledging the additional phrase that is intended to address your concerns. Did you see the additional phrase?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have written all of my reasons for removing the material in the lengthy section referred to above, plus in the "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page. I disagree that your desire to include this material in this article, plus the comments of Gaijin, North, and Sue - compared to the lengthy section referred to above, plus the "International debate?" discussion on the Gun control talk page, plus discussions of the past 2-3 months on this, all while you (and Gaijin and North) are before ArbCom - constitutes a legitimate consensus. Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why would you abide by an RFC if you won't abide by consensus at this talk page? Myself and three other editors (Gaijin, North and Sue) support the content. Moreover, you are not acknowledging the additional phrase that is intended to address your concerns. Did you see the additional phrase?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you please quote the sentence that was debated at the other article? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk)
- Dude! It's just two discussions up in the collapsible copy of the whole "International debate?" discussion from the Gun control talk page! If you want it copied to this discussion, just do it, and please quit trying to make me jump through your hoops. I mean, if I don't, are you going to challenge me to pistols at dawn? Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
As I understand, Lightbreather, you are referring to the following sentence (which does not appear anywhere above) that you edited[29] at the gun control article:
“ | Gun rights advocates such as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Democratic Congressman and NRA board member John Dingell, the NRA (voiced by NRA presidents Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre), Stephen Halbrook, |
” |
I am leaving out footnotes here. You appear to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong), that there was consensus for that edit at the other article, and therefore you are entitled to make the following edit in the present article despite objections from four editors here at this talk page, and support from none here at this talk page:
Although gun rights supporters promote firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, a further (and sometimes greater) motivation is fear of tyranny.
The latter motivation is not confined to the United States, though it has gained little traction elsewhere.
Is that correct? The sentences look quite different to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- "(which does not appear anywhere above)" - Yes, it does, though the part you struck through appears in italics. Aside from that, everything you want to know is in what I've already said multiple times. Leave me alone. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)