Talk:Gun control/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Edit Warring, Talk Page Use, Article Block and an Olive Branch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Edit warring has resulted in the article being protected which benefits absolutely nobody. If the behavior that we are seeing here on this talk page and on the article itself continues, I have no doubt that individual editors will be blocked or topic banned or both. Getting yourself blocked will only benefit the other party as it removes your voice from the debate. We should not take the article protection lightly. It's a wakeup call that we have to change our ways:

1. We need to stop edit warring on the article -- It's a very contentious article so chances are that you removing a bunch of material or adding a bunch of material without substantial and productive discussion on the talk page will result in an edit war. Let's just not do that. We have to acknowledge that and come to grips with that fact and no matter how frustrated we are with the lack of progress on the talk, we can't just go edit war on the article because if we do, the article will be protected and some editors can get sanctions. We have to use the talk.
2. We need to get the talk page to work-- Edit warring is happening because we are not using the talk page correctly. We're just yelling at each other and at some point someone just "gets fed up" and takes matters into their own hands on the article page and they are reverted and the war starts. Beyond that, we can't come and have a brass knuckles duke it out cantina fight on the talk page because that's very disruptive to the editors who are trying to use the talk page as it was intended -- a place to rationally discuss edits. We need to make logical arguments backed by facts and if someone disagrees, they can propose a counter argument, refute the argument presented with facts or refute the central thesis, again with facts and explain where the error is. Most of us are fairly experienced editors here so we know how this works. The policies are there to help us collaborate.

The talk page guidelines are very clear and if we keep Graham's hierarchy in mind before we post anything on the talk page, it might help us move forward. I understand that it's frustrating and that some editors think that the other party is being very irrational but that is not sufficient reason to devolve our arguments to name-calling, ad hominems, etc regardless of how irrational we think the other party is.

If somebody makes a statement and you can refute it with facts, please do so: put the facts on the page with a link or a quote. Refutation makes you look stronger. Ad hominems or one liners saying the editor or a particular author us wrong or a hack or an idiot makes you look weaker. If you agree with someone, say it and leave it at that. If you can't refute or offer a rational counterargument, refrain from posting an ad-hominem --- for all you know another editor will come and refute your opponent's statement decidely. Don't debase yourself and don't disrupt the editors who are honestly trying to make progress. Yes, we're all going to lose arguments. If you can't live with compromise or with being refuted, don't edit Wikipedia -- it's just going to frustrate you. Nobody is right all of the time.

We don't always agree but in the last week or so there have been some elements of collaboration between a few but it's been hard because we're all being drowned out by edit warring and very clear violations of the community policies to include 3RR violations on the article and almost a complete disregard for our other policies here on the talk....every other post is an ad hominim, tone attack, contradiction etc. I'm not saying my hands a perfectly clean here. I acknowledge my shortcomings and it's a good time to cool down and reflect....especially with this cool down period being imposed by management. The question is are we going for Round 3, editor blocks and topic bans or can we rise above?

No, I'm not a judge, I'm not a jury, I'm not even an admin. I believe this post is relevant because it is honestly attempting to find a way to improve the article through collaboration of parties who very obviously disagree at a profoundly philosophical level. I will personally go reflect and work very hard to be a good editor on here. I promise to try to reach compromise with you if you present your arguments logically, within the confines of the policies and back them up with reliable sources.

Thank you for your consideration and for allowing me a bit of discretion.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be clearly understood that there is no room for 'compromise' concerning the portrayal of pseudohistorical 'theories' concerning the Holocaust as a serious historical argument. That isn't going to happen. They have zero academic credibility, and they simply don't belong in this article. If this article is going to cover the history of firearms regulation in Germany at all, it must do so from serious academic sources - and it must put any mention of the Nazi laws in the broader historical context of more restrictive laws under the Weimar Republic, and under postwar occupation - and must make absolutely clear that no academic credence whatsoever is attached to any suggestion that such laws had any significance regarding the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Andy. The fundamental problem is that there are a few editors who violate WP:FRINGE by pushing for the retention of material that belongs in its own article, not here. Move it out, remove it from here. MilesMoney (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Very respectfully esteemed editors, there are multiple editors on here that disagree with your thesis. All we have to do is look at the edit log that led to the article protection. If you want that content gone as you believe that's the best way to improve the article then you're going to have to come up with more than just your opinions (respected and experienced as you are). Can you provide several well cited references on why this is fringe or why it does not belong here? From my vantage and in doing a cursory search, I found Congressmen talking about this in the halls of congress since as far back as 1968 and back then there was disagreement over the role that gun control played in the holocaust. This is what Congressman Dingel was saying back in 1968 on the floor of the US Congress:

“Sportsmen fear firearms registration. We have here the same situation we saw in small degree in Nazi Germany. There they did not prohibit citizens from having guns. All they said was first of all we want to register them, and we are going to stop crime by it.”

So at a minimum this appears to be an argument that continues to this day forty years later. Now, that's just one quote from a long time ago and the topic might indeed be fringe today if that thesis has been refuted. Just provide the links to the refutations or the books where the topic has been settled. I'll do some more searches. I can't speak for my other editors but multiple other editors disagree with you and you represent one side of this, so I think you're going to have to convince at a very minimum the more senior silent eyes that are likely reading this. To be clear, I will side with whomever presents the strongest argument and I am willing to swallow my pride if I'm wrong or if I haven't dug deep enough. I will make a good faith effort to go look things up myself as well. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

U.S. congressmen are not a reliable source regarding the Holocaust. Particularly congressmen who clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. Provide evidence from serious academic sources, or stop this tendentious and repetitive stonewalling - if you wish content to be included it is your responsibility to provide the appropriate sources - which regarding the Holocaust, means the work of recognised historians. This has always been Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear AndyTheGrump, in response to my assertion and a quote from a US Congressman, you're offering back what we call in Wikipedia an "ad hominem" attack against the person's credibility without any support to back that up. My original thesis stands and your statement is a far cry from refutation. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying that your counter is weak when stacked against Graham's hierarchy which is taken from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Are you willing to go get some sources and refute what I found? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong. I might even refute myself after my more in depth research but for now, your statement is an ad homimem and not strong at all.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You want the content, you provide the appropriate sources - and stop wasting our time with irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Now you levy an ad hominem against me? I haven't asked for anything unreasonable, You levied an ad hominem against a distinguished Congressman and WWII veteran who lived during those times and then against me as your attempt at refutation? The burden is on you sir per the Wikipedia policies. I made an assertion and you do not refuse it. I take your refusal as a withdrawl from the field. Thank you. My thesis stands that at a minimum this is a topic that has been debated since 1968 at a minimum and likely since before. Since professor Halbrook in 2012 released the book, "Gun Control in the Third Reich- Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, that tells me that the debate is still vibrant today. If I'm missing something, please by all means bring it up but ad hominems are very weak and we should just not offer them. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As a leading promoter of the fringe theory, (non-historian) Halbrook's book isn't evidence for anything. See WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As an outside party, I would like to ask what you think the point of this section is and why you think an old quote from a US Congressman is relevant to a request for academic sources? Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear AndyTheGrump, in response to my assertion and a quote from a US Congressman, you're offering back what we call in Wikipedia an "ad hominem" attack against the person's credibility without any support to back that up.

False. Andy did not attack you personally or make an ad ad hominem argument. He asked you to provide evidence for the material that you want to be placed in the article. In response, you accuse him of making an ad hominem argument and attacking you, which he did not do. This is the same pattern of tendentious editing that we've seen again and again from the people who want this poorly sourced material in the article. When asked for evidence, they claim that they have been attacked. If Wikipedia had the ability to enforce its own rules, these editors would have been sanctioned already. — goethean 23:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to get the talk page into shape by throwing ad hominems at each other. The hope is that we can go back to basics and to the guidelines of our policies in an attempt to get the talk page to work. One thesis of the argument is that gun control and the third reich is a fringe topic. I did a quick search and found that a Congressman was talking about it in the halls of congress back in 1968 - hardly fringe. I also find scholars writing books about it today - and yes some don't like Halbrook but the gentleman is a scholar who has argued before the supreme court....hardly a hack. That tells me at a minimum that the subject is not fringe and is relevant today in society. There is strong disagreement here between the parties. If the subject is indeed fringe or if the subject does not merit inclusion, it should have been refuted a long time ago and we should have proof of that that the other parties can bring. AndyTheGrump can go bring the refutation and that would sway a bunch of editors to his court. But if we can't be bothered with irrelevancies or with providing our proof then it's just a battle of wills and a bunch of ad homimens....the talk page can't work that way. I can claim that "President Roosevelt was born in Kenya " but if I refuse to back up that statement and I just scream at the top of my lungs everytime somebody provides his New York Birth Certificate, then the talk page doesn't work. It's just disruption. We need to go back to the policies. If I make a ludicrous statement and I'm refuted, then I quiet down. That's the way the model is supposed to work. If Congressman Dingell is not a good source.....make your case why. It's not good enough to just say....I don't like him.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No valid source, no content. Per Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

what is your basis for that statement AndyTheGrump. What policy?-Justanonymous (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS. Obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor you were discussing this directly address this issue when he wrote "U.S. congressmen are not a reliable source regarding the Holocaust". You write "I also find scholars writing books about it today". Why are you not bringing that up instead of a quote from a speech by someone who is not a scholar? Again, what is the point of this discussion, please? Gamaliel (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

the argument being expressed here is one that has been going on for decades. That's one point. The other is that we need to provide more than ad hominems. Andythegrump was not addressing anything, he was expressing an ad homenim, "U.S. congressmen are not a reliable source regarding the Holocaust"....that's an entirely unbacked statement....he doesn't know....the congressman was giving testimony in congress....why would he be allowed to do that if he knows nothing about the subject? Andy's refutation is a one liner yep that's unbacked? But the rest of us have to provide sources? No.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No I'm afraid that does directly address the policy issue. Congressmen in general are not scholars of history that can be used as reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy, nor is their any Congressional policy or apparatus that prevents Congressmen from expounding on subjects they have no knowledge of. (FiachraByrne's comments below do a good job on this subject.) Andythegrump does not have to back this statement up, you are the one who has to back up the claim that this congressmen is a reliable scholar of history that Wikipedia editors must take notice of. Gamaliel (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is the same point as all the previous ones - to stonewall any attempt to ensure that this article conforms with Wikipedia policies on sourcing, neutrality etc, and to instead to use it as a platform for the promotion of fringe pseudohistorical propaganda originating with sections of the U.S. gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there are plenty of reliable sources already provided in the article. The information in the section is factual and neutral. And don't bother linking to WP:RS, because the content already satisfies that policy easily. On the other hand, your criteria that the info must be stated "by a historian" (as opposed to other valid reliable sources) is a bogus set of criteria that you made up to try to keep the content out of the article, and that criteria you invented has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, and if anybody wants to refute those, they need to do so with facts, vs with weak arguments or petty attacks. Justanonymous (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, nobody is obliged to 'refute' anything. If you want the article to include history, you have to cite recognised historians. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

no you don't, but if you don't refute thoroughly you lose the argument. As homenims don't count. And no, you must only cite WP:RS. There is no requirement that anybody has to have a history degree to be notable. That is nowhere in Wikipedia policies.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who wish to include content. And what exactly is it I'm supposed to be 'refuting'? That a congressman isn't a reliable source on the Holocaust? If you seriously want to include him in the article, take it to WP:RSN. Citing your source, and indicating the text you wish to cite him for. Or drop it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

it is a refutation that the topic is fringe. If congressmen were talking about it in congress 40 years ago and we're still talking about it today, it's obviously not fringe. I don't need the quote in the article. Could care less. If you think the material is fringe, you just have to prove it and I'll back you. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

my point is that I just can't back you because you say it's so even though you're an experienced editor. We need to provide proof. That's all I'm saying. And if we can't do that, we should avoid ad homenims and other weaker attacks. I respect you Andy, and you might be right. I just need more and I'm not getting that from you.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's a refutation, then it's a terrible one. Your congresscritters have spoken openly in favor of fringe and anti-scientific ideas, such as Creationism and Climate Change Denialism. They're politicians, not experts in these fields. MilesMoney (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What is it you think I'm obliged to prove, Justanonymous? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Justanonymous this is a poor argument. Congressmen, and politicians generally, may believe and espouse theories which are fringe (e.g.Paul Broun). That a theory is fringe is not decided by either its popular standing or by its espousal by persons of authority without expertise in the relevant area. A theory may be deemed fringe only in relation to the scholarly output of experts in a given area. Where a theory, as in this case, has not even been cited in the literature of those who are experts on the holocaust, one can only include that it is very fringe. So fringe, in fact, that it would be highly problematic without violating the policies governing original research and synthesis to include it in WP as we don't have a source that can really relate the fringe view to the mainstream (which is what we're supposed to do in such instances). FiachraByrne (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This matter seems to fall squarely into the realm of alternate history. What if....the Nazis had won? What if ....Oswald had not killed Kennedy? And, here, what would have happened if guns had not been confiscated from the German Jews? That is a matter of substantial conjecture and alternate history. Mainstream sources address it, but regular historians understandably stay away from it. It is a very large part of modern gun control debates internationally, which is plenty of reason for this article to briefly mention it, with emphasis on why most mainstream sources REJECT the theory. Wikipedia articles often acknowledge famous myths and falsehoods ---- and correct them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Which might be why E.P. Thompson purportedly referred to counterfactual history as 'Geschichtenscheissenschlopff' or unhistorical shit (my source for this is not very good for a such topic, The Guardian, but it certainly meets WP's reliable source criteria, so what of it). That it forms part of popular debate still doesn't make it any less fringe. A significant problem is that mainstream historical sources don't address the theory at all. However, I think you could make an argument for its inclusion in an article devoted to, say, Gun politics in the United States, where, interestingly, it doesn't appear. But reference to the use of the Hitlerian trope in the Australian debate is not itself sufficient to establish its international significance (and it obviously doesn't change its fringe status either way). As I've remarked above the Hitlerian trope did appear in the Brazil debate and, once, in the UK debate but it was without significant impact in either case. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, for a bit of information to go into this Wikipedia article, how many continents must it relate to? A German counterfactual promoted in both the U.S. and Australia sounds international to me. I cannot resist asking: must we also have Antarctica?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You guys are doing a great job killing that strawman! Who cares about the politician or his statement? There are plenty of reliable sources for the info already in the article, so the WP:RS requirements have been met. Sorry, the article does not have to cite "historians." You made up that bogus criteria and it won't get you anywhere. The article only has to cite reliable sources, and it does that already. ROG5728 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong. This Nazi gun control talking point is a historical claim, so the only way to show that it's not fringe is to show that it is at least a minor view within the mainstream of the field of history. You need historians saying it's true, or at least worth discussing at length.

Which of your sources qualifies? If none, then this matter is concluded. MilesMoney (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I like where FiachraByrne, Anythingyouwant and ROG5728 are going. My arguments might be poor and I might very well be wrong but that's the minor point here. The main point is that we have to boil it down here with rational argument. Not by simply saying that you're wrong and I'm right but by arguing with facts, examples, etc. the talk page is about us discussing the merits and about us being grown up enough to acknowledge when we've been refuted. Otherwise when the protection is lifted, we're just going to have a other edit war. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Facts would be great. Start by providing facts to show that historians view the Nazi gun control talking point as something other than fringe. We're all waiting. MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing currently in that section of the article is a "talking point" or a theory. It's all fact, and it's all supported by reliable sources. Try reading the section and tell me which part of it is "theory" and not fact. Good luck. All of the sources in the text have been accepted as reliable sources, so yes, this matter is concluded. The article does not have to cite "historians." You made up that bogus criteria and it won't get you anywhere. The article only has to cite reliable sources, and it does that already. ROG5728 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a historical claim, so it's within the field of history. Historians get to decide if the claim is accepted by the mainstream, a significant minority view, or just fringe. No amount of boldfacing can change this. MilesMoney (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Not all reliable sources are treated equally by Wikipedia, instead it relies on the best ones. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Miles. Are you making this stuff up as you go along? All the info needs is to be reliably sourced. You need to stop commenting and take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. ROG5728 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It is necessary that material be reliably sourced (or at least sourceable), but that in itself isn't a sufficient reason for inclusion. Elementary Wikipedia policy. If you want it included, cite sources (other than fringe pro-gun lobbyists) who think it relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. If the material is covered and deemed relevant by reliable sources who have taken the time to discuss it, then it should be included with due weight. It's currently only given a short paragraph, so it's not undue. ROG5728 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Relevance is determined by the amount of coverage from reliable sources. Are there a significant number of reliable sources discussing the info on gun control in Nazi Germany? Yes there are, so it's relevant information and should be included. ROG5728 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I still have no idea what the point of this section is. It just seems like an excuse for the involved parties to rehash prior arguments. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's about right. Mostly, it's so that we can keep asking for a reliable source that shows this historical claim is non-FRINGE, while they can deny the need to do any such thing (since they're not able to). MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, sorry, the hope was that we might work through our disagreements using sources and logic and with respect for our policies so that we might avoid another edit war. It's partially working. Some are talking civilly. If we don't work through this, you or someone like you is going to block the whole lot of us if the brawl breaks out again. Give us some time, most of these people truly want to make a better article. We just disagree over the details.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of this effort and you deserve kudos for it. But if you are to resolve those details, you have to have discussions focused on those details. I don't see any new or specific details here other than the Dingle quote, and I think that lack of focus is one reason this section has degenerated into general, non-specific carping. Gamaliel (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This isn't a disagreement over 'details' - it is a fundamental disagreement over the purpose of Wikipedia, and whether articles should be based on scholarship, or on material concocted for propaganda purposes. Specifically, it is a disagreement over whether Wikipedia should be presenting pseudohistorical theories regarding the Holocaust, concocted by non-historians for another debate in another time and place, as some sort of historical 'argument' concerning Nazi Germany. Wikipedia is registered as a charitable organisation, with the remit of providing encyclopaedic content on a broad range of topics. It is not a platform for a particular faction in a particular debate in a single country to present their tendentious, cherry-picked and decontextualised (see "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control". In Carter, G. L. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Volume 1) version on 'history'. They can do that elsewhere - I'm sure they can afford it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(inserted)

• Gregg Lee Carter (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–415. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.
  

As that is previewable in Google Books, I'm providing the convenience cite above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

[Responding to Grump] So, it's fine for this article to discuss reasons for gun control (e,g. "High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies...."), but no arguments on the other side can be mentioned, even to discredit them. Typical Wikipedia agenda. After all, gun control opponents are all filthy rich, so they can start their own encyclopedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think other material isn't properly sourced, or represents some sort of fringe viewpoint, please make clear what you are objecting to. And as for 'sides', my only comment will be to point out that in world terms (the scope of this article), the position adopted by the U.S. gun lobby is clearly in the minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies. That's entirely correct and well-sourced, regardless of whether gun control can in fact reduce high rates of gun mortality and injury. A primary argument doesn't have to be correct or sane or supported by experts for us to characterize it as a primary argument for or against gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

agree Andy and well said but your fellow editors arguments are not without merit. almost all communication is rhetorical in nature to some extent. It's the inherent nature of the logos, particularly these contentious articles. I mean....gun And control. Already, we're forming a mental picture from those two words alone. there is a long history of gun control of oppressed people. As others have noted, the southern US and it's black codes. The Nazi regime and not just the Jews but anybody that they though opposed them and all the conquered countries. Plato talked about it....in the context of arms. It's there. It's nasty history. Gun control hasn't always led to totalitarianism and it seems to have worked in some places. So, to me at bias is almost everywhere save for a very few articles. All I'm saying is that saying you're wrong without backing it up is not reasonable and goes against the policy and we can't be unbalanced to Anythingyouwants point. We have to make logical arguments and we have to back them up. If somebody brings reliable and reputable and relevant material, it goes in even if some of us don't personally like it. And yes, bia will be inherent to an extent. We can work to make it as NPOV as possible. But bias always creeps in. Weasel words etc. On the other hand, Anythingyouwant makes a great example just now.....we can't just put the good examples of gun control or how bad guns are without showing some of the examples of how gun control has been used to oppress...there are bad examples...all deserve admission of they meet the policy.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read a little history before posting ill-informed commentary on what the Nazis did in 'conquered countries'. They did not practice 'gun control', they practiced systematic violence, and murder on an industrialised scale, and did so without 'legislation', and in spite of it. That you are still trying to argue for this gross distortion of history suggests to me that your calls for 'compromise' are worthless. If you want to peddle this horseshit, do so elsewhere. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch your tongue there fella. Moreover, according to the lead of this Wikipedia article, "legislation" is not required for gun control to exist. What is required is a "law, policy, practice, or proposal".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, you patronising little troll, I'm not interested in debating the finer points of genocide with you. Even the craziest of crazies pushing the Nazi gun laws 'theory' have more sense than to describe industrialised murder as 'gun control'. It is utterly repugnant to basic human dignity to misrepresent the slaughter of millions in such a manner, and if you had an ounce of human decency, you would bow your head in shame for even suggesting such a thing. Peddle your filth elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's coming for you.

Andy, Goethean, milesmoney, work with me here. There are a lot of editors here and we are not of the same minds. We can't just have arguments for gun control in the article if there are valid examples of bad examples of gun control gone bad. We owe the article balance. We all need to check ourselves to make sure we're not misrepresenting reality but there are too many editors on the other camp who think this subject matter deserves a place at the table. That's why the article is protected. We can either refute thoroughly the content you don't want and get consensus on that or we have to find a middle ground.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you willing to follow WP:FRINGE? MilesMoney (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is not even a policy. And it has nothing to do with the content we're discussing, since all of it is factual and not theory. Do you even read those pages before you link them? ROG5728 (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dial it back, please. WP:FRINGE is a content guideline and as the banner at the top of that page says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". You may disagree with it but it certainly doesn't merit that response. And you are certainly by no means the only offender who has offered a disproportionate and inappropriate response to another editor's comment. I've only been following what passes for debate here for a single evening, but I'm already disgusted and I want to trout the lot of you, on both sides of this. Unless someone has something new and factual to add, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't hat this entire section. Gamaliel (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a guideline, WP:NPOV is a policy. The key issue here is whether there is any place at all for a historical theory that, as far as anyone here can tell, no historian takes seriously. Coincidentally, this theory is touted by right-wing advocacy groups. The combination of political slant and lack of academic rigor make this a WP:NPOV violation. So, contrary to what ROG said, FRINGE has everything to do with this content discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a theory. Everything currently stated in the section is fact. If anything in the section is theory and not fact, quote it here. I'm waiting. ROG5728 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was trying. Probably wrong idea sorry.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"No good deed goes unpunished." Virtual cranberry cheesecake bar for you? htom (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't apologize for trying. Not every attempt is a success. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many problems here

The recent history of this article and talk page would probably make an excellent subject of study in the future, regarding misuse of the project. I certainly don't want to subject myself to it anymore as we move into the new year. It 's over the top. And no longer on my Watchlist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree to have some main threads that stick to the top three levels of the pyramid? North8000 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should have fewer threads. I can't really spot the difference in subject of the last 6 or so.I think I can summarize all of them with "no, your argument is stupid".struck. Not constructive. I'll try something more constructive Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not neutral in this dispute myself, so attempts to help streamline it may be colored. I still want to give this a go. Without going in to the arguments being right or wrong, are the following statements correct?

• There is a dispute about the inclusion of a section that deals with the disarmament of certain parts of the population by the Nazis.
• Arguments brought forward for inclusion are
  • It is a well-known instance of gun control
  • It is verifiable that it happened
• Arguments brought against inclusion are
  • It is an insignificant with regards to the history of gun control
  • It gives undue weight to the espisode in that it makes it seem that gun-control "is what the Nazis did" which is an inaccurate representation of history

Is this roughly right? Are these the positions and the most important arguments?

Looks pretty close. There are two facets here to consider -- is the disarmament of certain groups in Germany sourced as a "fact" to reliable sources (WP:RS) - to which the answer is yes. Is the argument that this then means all such acts are sought for the same purpose properly in any article? I suggest that the article can not ascribe the same motives to any other place or legislation, as such a claim would clearly be opinion, and, if used in an article, must be ascribed as opinion to those holding it. Is there a lot of "history of gun control" which would be sourceable as fact related to other nations? Likely so (though for reasonableness I think that 1900 would be a good place to start - "arms control in ancient Rome" would be silly, and there was no widespread availability of "good arms" until the Industrial Revolution at the earliest). Elision of fact is not a solution for NPOV - it is the inclusion of other relevant facts which makes an entire article - which is the goal (WP:PIECE). Is the material too long at this point? 6 lines is not considered in general to be a huge subsection which is supposed to be a précis of the article linked thereto. If the section ballooned to 20 lines or so, then weight issues definitely kick in. I trust this is about as neutral as possible a view here. Collect (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

is the disarmament of certain groups in Germany sourced as a "fact" to reliable sources (WP:RS) - to which the answer is yes.

You can't just stick any reliably sourced fact into an article. I can't put random reliably-sourced "facts" about ravioli into this article. Thus the question is not whether your "facts" are reliably sourced, but whether they belong in this article. The proponents of the Nazi material have refused to provide evidence that this material is regularly considered part of the topic of gun control. Many of the sources provided for these random "facts" don't mention gun control at all --- anywhere in the source.

Is the argument that this then means all such acts are sought for the same purpose properly in any article?

I don't know what this means.

Is there a lot of "history of gun control" which would be sourceable as fact related to other nations?

Oh, sure, you could write a giant article on the history of gun control --- and you still wouldn't need to mention Nazis. And in fact this subject is already treated at Gun politics in Germany. Which begs the question --- why does it need to be recapitulated, in a less balanced, less neutral, highly partisan, highly controversial, more poorly sourced manner, here? I can think of an answer, but I dare not speak it.

Likely so (though for reasonableness I think that 1900 would be a good place to start - "arms control in ancient Rome" would be silly, and there was no widespread availability of "good arms" until the Industrial Revolution at the earliest).

There is no reason to have this arbitrary break. The Britannica article on gun control starts with ancient Rome. Perhaps that's where you got that idea. The reason why our article focuses laser-like on the Nazis is because in April 2013, User:ROG5728 moved the Nazi material (then titled "Associations with authoritarianism" from "Arguments" to "History", an illegitimate move which flew in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and which was achieved by edit warring and immediately after the block of another editor.

Elision of fact is not a solution for NPOV - it is the inclusion of other relevant facts which makes an entire article - which is the goal (WP:PIECE).'

You are eliding some facts here yourself, namely that there is no reputable historian who covers Nazi Germany as a part of the history of gun control, which means that removing this information of the article is not "eliding" any facts at all, any more than it is "eliding" other random facts about ravioli. You want this article to break new historiographical ground, and not in a good way. The Nazi material makes this article more partisan, less neutral, less balanced than any published account currently is. And you refuse to provide any evidence for why it should do that. — goethean 15:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Goethean. I was hoping to postpone the discussion of the dispute a little, and first agree on the locus and the arguments presented. If you defer rebuttal of arguments, and just look at dispute itself, can you find yourself in the above description of the dispute, or are there things that are very wrong or missing. Specifically, completely ignoring the in favour arguments, can your find yourself in the against arguments, or am I misrepresenting your point of view? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your summation appears to be accurate from my side. It is difficult to let stand someone's highly contentious meanderings about what constitutes a "fact" and what doesn't. — goethean 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your post seems less about anything than about an attempt to misrepresent my post. I suggest this talk page is not the place to score rhetorical points against an "enemy" of some sort. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your contentions. If I have attacked you, misrepresented you, or violated WP:BATTLEGROUND, there are people watching this page who can sanction me. — goethean 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking to resolve this conflict, this is a good moment to disengage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Martijn, your work looks like a good start, not saying that it is all inclusive. Regarding the arguments against inclusion, you seem to have selected the more reasonable, more arguable ones; such is not representative of the most prevalent "arguments to exclude" in the talk page which keep getting stated but where in depth conversation defending them as been avoided. E.G. "Unsourced" , "not sufficiently sourced", "Fringe" etc. Also you may need to eventually split it into "arguments for policy-based exclusion" vs. some higher bar which should not get unequally applied to negative instances of gun control. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll chalk you up for 'agree'. For getting things 'down to earth', let's not focus on the arguments of the side you aren't on for now. If we agree these are the central arguments, we can ignore the others. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Material purporting to represent 'history', while not only unsupported by mainstream historiography, but explicitly rejected as 'cherry-picked', 'tendentious' and 'decontextualised' by reliable sources is fringe by any reasonable definition. And as for 'higher bars', I have seen no comments whatsoever in any of the recent discussions which have suggested that there is any specific issue with sourcing etc material supporting the regulation of firearms in this article. Contributors need to remember that 'neutrality' in Wikipedia terms does not mean giving 'equal weight' to all arguments. Instead, it requires "that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since no evidence has been offered that the 'Nazi gun control' issue is anything but a fringe viewpoint propagated almost entirely by non-RS, non-historian partisan lobbyists in a single country, and since this article is supposed to be presenting an international perspective, rather than from the narrow perspective of the U.S. gun debate, to give any weight to such material - or to represent it as some sort of legitimate historical argument with any credibility - is a violation of core Wikipedia principles. It seems to me that the refusal of those promoting the 'Nazi' material here to adhere to such core principles is unlikely to be resolved on this talk page, however, and accordingly, I am in the process of considering the best way to bring such refusal to adhere to policy before ArbCom and/or the WMF, with a view to ensuring that Wikipedia no longer promotes partisan pseudohistorical propaganda relating to the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Do the above points I listed at against inclusion cover that for you, or is it missing something or saying you don't agree with? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. The material concerned is not merely 'undue', but explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship. It isn't serious historiography, and as partisan propaganda has no place whatsoever in any material purporting to describe events surrounding the Holocaust - any material in any Wikipedia article. That Wikipedia should be giving any credence to such fringe partisanship in connection to such significant historical events is entirely at odds with everything that Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, your reference to "the populations of conquered countries" seems based on a misunderstanding - the only firearms regulations discussed in the article are the laws of 1938, which (obviously) applied to German nationals. No source cited says anything about conquered populations, and no specific argument has been put forward even by the gun lobby regarding firearms regulation in such a context.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you may want to request Andy to be specific about what material that is in the article that they feel is "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" etc.. The pattern has been to either not answer that question, or to refer to material that is not in the article. (broader claims etc.) And then to repeat the accusation later. Which has been the pattern...ad infinitum. This is why I mentioned those above. In this context it was only for completeness. At the other end of the spectrum, above there are discussions of possible additions (analysis etc.). Probably too much to deal with here except to acknowledge it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The above example of repetitive tendentious stonewalling is entirely typical of what as gone on here - and what is undoubtedly going to result in this issue being raised at arbcom. North8000 is fully aware of what the material in question is, why it has been added to this article by pro-gun lobbyists (of which North8000 has been a leading proponent), and why it has been objected to. The material in question was added by proponents of the discredited, rejected and pseudohistorical 'theory' with the explicit objective of promoting the said fringe theory, and to suggest that it has been added for any other purpose than a partisan promotion of a particular POV is an insult to everyone's intelligence. That North8000 for one has argued for months on these very talk pages that material in support of the 'theory' should be included is a matter of record, available for all to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have to strongly agree with Andy's sentiments above. I would also argue that the inclusion of the material in question in its present form represents a pernicious attempt to circumvent WP policies relating to neutral point of view and the proper representation of fringe theories. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, well, you proved me right. Once again, you refused to answer, and instead we got another round of insults and false accusations. Why don't you tell us tell us what material that is in the article' is a "rejected pseudohistorical 'theory" "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" , a "fringe theory". The entire section is very short (shorter than your last post), why not just paste in the claimed-offending material here? This refusal to provide even the most basic specifics of what material you say your repeated claims apply to (that certain material in the article which you say is all of those bad things), while endlessly repeating the general claims and insults to editors is getting disruptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something in this exchange. He seems to be pretty clearly objecting to the Nazi material. Is this not a specific enough objection? Could you spell out exactly what you feel is missing from his response? I feel that would be more productive than each of you getting on soapboxes and yelling at each other. Gamaliel (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. this is on the specific claims that there is material in there which is "rejected pseudohistorical 'theory" "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" , a "fringe theory" and I want him to be specific on which material he claims is those more severe things. And besides the content question, he is accusing editors of putting or keeping in "rejected pseudohistorical 'theory" "explicitly rejected by mainstream scholarship" , a "fringe theory", and so asking for those specifics is asking them to provide the specific content which he is calling such is asking for specifics that justify extreme accusations he is making against other editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I'm hearing from you two: Andy: I object to the entire section. You: Tell me what you object to. Andy: The entire section. You: What do you object to? One of the three of us is misinterpreting this, so I suggest if you want this to be a productive discussion you rephrase your demands for specifics in a more specific manner. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, is it fair to summorise your position that any inclusion of any reference to Nazi laws or actions gives undue weight to them in this context? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't edited this article, but was involved in the ANI report above. This seems to me to be simply a case of those with a pro-gun POV attempting to make the long-discredited link between gun control and the actions of the Nazis, something that has consistently been pointed out by parties on all sides to be misleading and offensive (here's the latest one I can find, for example). Furthermore, this article is oddly incomplete; we have sections on Japan, the US and Australia, but nothing on the Western country with the most restrictive gun control laws, the UK. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

'Oddly incomplete' isn't the half of it. Even the coverage of Germany actually fails to discuss the most significant elements of 'gun control' in its history: the complete ban on firearms under the early Weimar Republic, and again the total ban of firearms under the post-war occupying powers (with the possibility of capital punishment for offenders). Such discussion would of course show the argumentum ad Hitlerum for the cherry-picked nonsense it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I think the summary at the top of this section is fairly close. I would say that in addition to being " a well known instance of gun control", it is an instance discussed and used as an argument by notable figures in the gun control debate. In addition to the prolific writings of Halbrook, it has been brought up by congressmen, by federal judges in rulings on gun control, and other sources. It certainly may be that consensus determines this content should not be in the article, but arguments against inclusion need to be based on actual policy, and not the made up policy that people are using. you can't redefine the words gun control to fit your pov, or redefine what an RS is, or redefine notability, or fringe to fit purpose. WP:NPOV is very explicit. all points of view should be presented. WP:RS is also very explicit " reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The globalization arguments are based on a wikiproject and are not grounded in any policy - and in any case nobody says "globalization means don't include US information" - beyond that, the argument is made in Canada and Australia as well as other places as shown by sources linked above. Fringe is laughable. the historical facts are indisputable, and there is not a single element of the fringe guideline that indicates any relevance to political arguments or opinions regarding notability of facts. the opposers disagree with the point of view. Thats fine. they might even be right. but that in no way shows that that pov is not notable and presented in many reliable sources (in addition to the core facts of the matter being indisputably true). On argument made above I do agree with - the actual argument made by halbrook et al should be included to indicate why the facts are relevant. The counter arguments from harcourt etc should also be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, NPOV does not say "all points of view should be presented". It mandates "that each article...fairly represents all significant viewpoints" (italics added). I have no idea what the arguments or sources are, but WP:FRINGE certainly may be relevant if some of those arguments or sources represent fringe, non-significant viewpoints. I am not familiar with these globalization arguments or guidelines you are referring to (could somebody link me?), but WP:UNDUE comes into play if the article does actually, if I am understanding correctly the arguments of some editors here, elevates a fringe view held only by a minority in a single country when the article is global in scope. This issue has come up before many times, such as at the waterboarding article. Gamaliel (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

first off, I would like to thank you for making a coherent and respectful response and argument. the globalization arguments are above (you may have just made one yourself) - there are no guidelines or policies, which is somewhat one of my points. However, There are at least two sources above showing that it is NOT an argument made in one country, so the point is moot (and in any case global point of view would mean making sure the other povs are represented, not excluding a view). regarding all, the opening sentence of NPOV reads "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Now, certainly one can debate about the word "significant", but that is a matter of personal opinion. The POV has been published repeatedly in reliable sources. As stated above, it has been used by congressmen in gun control debates, by federal judges in gun control rulings, etc? What level of significance is required? Proportion could certainly be an issue, but if a single paragraph neutrally describing the pov and those who object to it is undue, no minority viewpoint on any topic could ever be presented. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed above, the fact that a congressman or men mentioned an argument does not make it a mainstream argument. If it did, then we would be forced to represent Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as mainstream arguments in the Barack Obama article. It would be more productive to focus on arguments and issues that are relevant and have a basis in Wikipedia policy. The questions at hand are "is this a mainstream viewpoint that it would be appropriate to represent?" and "if so, how do we represent it?" I asked much the same question to Justanonymous above: If reliable sources are available why are we not discussing those here instead of the talking points of congressmen? I feel like when the discussion veers off topic or into vague generalities, that's when it degenerates into generalized attacking from each side, so I think it's important that we stick to the details as much as possible. Gamaliel (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparing barack obama conspiracy theories (or JFK, or UFOs as others have done) to established historical facts is a major issue. There are MANY reliable sources discussing this. The RFC I posted that started this whole mess links to a giant list of them, but here are just a few. Certainly one does not have to agree with the pov presented in these sources (or the MANY MANY others linked), but to say that it is a POV that is not influential, notable, or significant is ludicrous.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Facts out of context are useless at best. It is a POV only held by a small group of pro-gun litigators and activist lawyers. It is factually incorrect intentional twisting of history supported by no one qualified to speak on the topic. Inclusion in this article is a violation of WP:NPOV WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. The idea the genocide and gun control are connected in some way is indeed ludicrous and not supported by any, as in none, zero, zip, nada, etc, reliable sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at, sources. Why instead bring up the irrelevant talking points of congressmen? Why (and this last question is directed at everyone) are you all discussing generalities and policies instead of discussing these sources? Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current text in the article is the worst possible presentation of this argument as, through the presentation of decontextualised facts in a leading narrative, we have the theory without an explicit statement of the theory (and hence it constitutes in my opinion an insidious circumvention of WP policy). As historical argument the theory is fringe and can only be regarded as such as Halbrook's thesis has never been rebutted, cited or mentioned by any scholarly historian of the holocaust (at least that I can locate). That it has been moved out of the history section is a significant improvement (I would also eliminate all individual national histories from this section as unworkable in the context of such an article). To establish its significance for inclusion in this article - which should be from an international perspective - one could argue that it's an argument that has been influential internationally and therefore should receive some treatment. This, in my opinion, is the best argument for the inclusion of this material but I think the Nazi thesis itself, in that case, would feature as a subset of a section or sections treating of the attempt by the NRA to lobby against firearm regulations internationally (which can be sourced to some degree). In that context, what we'd really be describing in the article is a set of arguments propounded by the NRA - that firearms are a symbol of freedom, Hitlerian tropes relating gun control to tyranny, associating Mandela with gun rights, etc - and their effects and significance (or otherwise) for differing national populations rather than any detailed treatment of the arguments as such. The treatment of the Hitlerian trope, along with other pro-gun lobbying, would thus be relatively descriptive and brief, would not features details such as the 1938 law, and would be separate from sections dealing with empirical studies on firearms and homicide, accidents, suicides, domestic violence etc and not treated with equal parity with such subjects. The treatment of the US itself in the article should be in proportion to its international influence as represented in the sources or in terms of distinctiveness relative to the rest of the world as adjudged by comparative treatments of the subject. There are other articles where it is more apt to treat in detail of the particularilities of the US domestic situation in regard to gun control. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, compare the relatively restrained and parsimonious treatment of this thesis here by Anythingyouwant. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: since Gun politics in the United States now mentions "German oppression during World War II",[5] do proponents of the Nazi material believe that it also needs to stay at this article, or will the content at Gun politics in the United States suffice? — goethean 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is very weak, and needs the pov argument to be presented (and argued against) for the section to make sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Kind of a strange statement, since you have been in control of the article throughout this debate. — goethean 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. What I am suggesting is that in the context of attempts by the NRA to influence legislative and referenda outcomes in other countries the use of the Hitlerian trope could be mentioned. This could then wikilink back to the text in the Gun politics in the United States#Political arguments which could provide additional context for the use of this motif by gun rights activists in the US. I do not envision treating it as a credible thesis in this article as it is fringe to the history of the holocaust. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fringe" refers to the statements / theory / claims themselves. If there were a claim in the article e.g. that gun control was a significant tool in implementing the holocaust, then there would be a statement involving the two to base an opinion on. Currently there are no such statements or claims in the in the article. What is in the article is (per se) undisputed, sourced, straightforward historical statements. (of course their presence is disputed, but nobody has challenged the veracity of the statements themselves) And the additional "statement" by it's mere presence in a Wikipedia article is merely that it is an instance of gun control, with enough significance or coverage to merit a few sentences in a Wikipedia article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitic laws, decrees, or regulations created between 1933 and 1939 (12 of 400)

1933

• The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service removes Jews from government service.
• The Law on the Admission to the Legal Profession forbids the admission of Jews to the bar.
• The Law against Overcrowding in Schools and Universities limits the number of Jewish students in public schools.
• The Law on Editors bans Jews from editorial posts.

1935

• The Army Law expels Jewish officers from the army.
• The Nuremberg Race Laws exclude German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibit them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or German-related blood."

1936

• The Reich Ministry of Education bans Jewish teachers from public schools.

1937

• The Mayor of Berlin orders public schools not to admit Jewish children until further notice.

1938

• The Gun Law bans Jewish gun merchants (March 18).
• The Order for the Disclosure of Jewish Assets requires Jews to report all property in excess of 5,000 reichsmarks.
• The Decree on the Confiscation of Jewish Property regulates the transfer of assets from Jews to non-Jews in Germany.
• The Decree on the Exclusion of Jews from German Economic Life closes all Jewish-owned businesses (November 12).

No editor, as far as I know, is questioning the basic historical facts. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the following,

• 1920-1928: German firearm possession is completely banned.
• Apr, 1928: Gun laws are relaxed and gun permits are made available to those deemed "reliable" by officials.
• Mar, 1938: Gun laws are liberalized for all Germans, including Jews (the March law only bans Jewish gun merchants, not Jewish possession).
• Nov, 1938: Jews are prohibited from owning or possessing weapons of any type and are subsequently "disarmed".

These items are obviously part of the historical record and not in doubt. They are also the facts used by Halbrook, Polsby, Kates, etc., to support the basic argument "that regulation of gun ownership will lead society down an infernal path toward genocide, much as it did in Nazi Germany."[6] However, it is only by "decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odds with their thesis", "exaggerating similarities and ignoring differences in their comparisons", and generally cherry-picking historical data that Halbrook, et al. able to give their argument a patina of credibility. In other words, much like statistics, material facts must be cited in the context of their creation and without omission. For example, the list above is missing two very important bullet points:

• 1920: The Nazi party publicly declares its intention to segregate Jews from Aryan society and revoke their civil and political rights.
• 1933-1939: The Jewish population of Germany is subjected to over 400 antisemitic laws, decrees, and regulations (see box right).

The gun laws of March and November 1938 are but footnotes to the Nazi process of Jewish segregation, the obliteration of Jewish civil rights, and the forthcoming Holocaust. We have no mainstream sources that support the assertions of Halbrook, Polsby, Kates, LaPierre, or their confederates. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Those assertions are not currently in this article. And even with a stretch, the most the the mere presence of the historical material in a Wikipedia article would imply that that it is an instance of gun control, with enough significance or coverage to merit a few sentences in a Wikipedia article. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two mutually exclusive possibilities: (a) the presence of such material isn't intended to indicate that this is an instance of 'gun control' - in which case it has no business being in the article at all, or (b) its presence is intended to indicate that this is an instance of 'gun control' - in which case it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to be inserting material specifically selected (as can be amply demonstrated by the talk page comments of contributors, including North8000 above) to promote a pseudohistorical fringe 'theory' promoted by partisan non-historians, rejected by mainstream historiography. Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. The ridiculous implication made by some pro-gun lobbyists here that the material is somehow unconnected to the fringe theory is entirely untenable, given the ample evidence to the contrary, and the total failure of any of the POV-pushers to provide any other justification for the inclusion of such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, please stick to discussing the material instead of mis-representing what particular editors have said and attacking them. Addressing a few things regarding your post:

• What I meant, is what mere presence implies and that it that it is a (sourced) instance of gun control, significant or covered enough to merit a few sentences in the article. And there are are already other instances of gun control in the article and I think that most who say that this one should be in have inserted or would welcome insertion of others.
• Nobody has claimed that straightforward historical coverage is unconnected to any observations, analysis or or theories. That would be like claiming that coverage of an Idaho national forest is an assertion of the hundreds of theories that are "related" to it (e.g. about it's geology or that Bigfoot lives there), or that all of those theories must be either proven to be unrelated or pass Wikipedia's test for inclusion before straightforward coverage of the forest can be put in. Everything should be based on what IS in the article (or specific proposed additions), not straw men of things that AREN'T in the article.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As you are fully aware, no evidence has ever been presented that anyone but the partisan promoters of the pseudohistorical fringe theory consider the German firearms regulations of 1938 to be a 'significant instance of gun control'. And I have misrepresented precisely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be like claiming that coverage of an Idaho national forest is an assertion of the hundreds of theories that are "related" to it (e.g. about it's geology or that Bigfoot lives there

A very good example. Try adding material about Bigfoot to an article on an Idaho national forest. The first question is whether your bigfoot material specifically mentions the Idaho national forest under whose article you are adding the content. If not, why would you add the material to that article, rather than to the article on a more relevant topic? Or maybe there is a reputable academic who discusses Bigfoot in connection with this Idaho national forest. Okay, then, cite that reputable academic. But you have neither of these things. What you do have is an academic who has been identified as so ideologically anti-gun control that his writings are "not trusted" by other historians. And you want to add this material not as attributed to that partisan academic -- you want the article to assert the material as bare facts of history. And that is what the article currently does. This is completely, completely unacceptable. — goethean 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comment missed the structure of my post. What is analogous to what is currently in the article is coverage of the national forest, (not the geology or bigfooot theories) and that Andy's comment is akin to arguing about some of the hundreds of theories, analyses,opinions etc. that have some connection to the forest but are NOT in the article. More specifically, in his last post, he is claiming that "failure to disprove" any connection to those hundreds of theories/analysis/opinions is somehow a misdeed by the individuals, or reason why that basic coverage of the national forest should be removed. In short, IMO basic info on the forest should be covered....addition of anything else is a different question. North8000 (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am 'claiming' nothing. I am stating as a fact that no evidence has been presented that anyone but the proponents of this fringe theory consider the Nazi firearms laws of 1938 to be a significant instance of 'gun control'. Since (as per usual) no valid evidence to support the addition of the material has been provided, and since it is self-evidently being added to promote a fringe theory, contrary to Wikipedia policy, it must be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Andy, on your first sentence, I think that those claims were embedded in your post and it was dependent on them,. Since your new post is logically completely different form your last post, we can just consider that to be "undecided" and I'm mentioning it here just to say that my post was sincere and has some basis, even if arguable. The second sentence has two false premises in it (1. again saying that there is a fringe theory which is supposedly in the article or being promoted while still refusing to say what that purported "fringe theory", 2. that are "proponents" here of the unspecified theory) and the third sentences has many more, but they have a silver lining. :-). . .

But the last part of your second sentence "the Nazi firearms laws of 1938 to be a significant instance of gun control" and a phrase early in the following sentence "no valid evidence to support the addition of the material has been provided" are specifically referring to a core question, because it directly challenges an actual basis given for inclusion of what is actually in the article. If you don't consider my last sentence to be an unacceptable extraction, then that's a step forward. It is a challenge to (e.g. my version of the rationale) "that it is an instance of gun control, with enough significance or coverage to merit a few sentences in a Wikipedia article." Perhaps we can move forward by discussing this core question. Or more to the point, discuss what the rules and metrics are for the answer because they will determine the result. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made my position entirely clear. I have no intention of getting dragged into yet another tendentious and circular argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you have made your position clear that you do not want the material in, and made comments that disparage it, other viewpoints and the people who presented them, and then ended each thread when someone tried to get specific on those. The last post looked like an opportunity to engage (with the person who has done that the most) on the specifics of (what both sides would identify as) a core element of the debate. Based on your last post, I guess not. Possibly someone else will? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I have made my position clear. The 'core element of this debate' is whether material explicitly added to the article in support of a fringe theory should be included. Wikipedia policy is clear - we do not promote fringe theories. Your repeated refusal to address the issue directly can only be understood as evidence that you have no legitimate argument for inclusion - and your endless attempts to sidetrack the issue can thus in turn only be understood as an attempt to divert attention from this self-evident fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you do not get to declare by fiat that something is fringe (indeed, it would be WP:OR for us to do so), nor is there any indication in the fringe guideline or any site wide consensus that I can find that it applies to the opinions of notable people about 100% true historical facts. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The appeal to historical "facts" is a worthless and well-worn piece of rhetoric that has been thoroughly debunked on this talk page again and again and again. The addition of "facts" which are cherry-picked to buttress a particular political ideology and whose sources don't refer to the topic of the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Don't add historical "facts" about ravioli to an article on gun control, and don't add "facts" about the Holocaust, either. — goethean 18:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Such circular logic! "The opinions of the people are fringe, and the facts those people are basing the opinion on is irrelevant because I don't like your sources because they are fringe!" WP:RS and WP:NPOV are very clear and explicit. Sources are NOT required to be neutral or objective. There are MANY sources discussing these opinions (both directly, and meta discussion about the theories and their proponents). to say that the opinions of the NRA, and Halbrook (two of the most influential entities in the gun control debate), or TWO separate federal court rulings on the subject of gun control, or congressional testinomy on the subject of gun control, are not notable or significant to the topic of gun control is absolutely ludicrous. You disagree with the peoples opinions - thats fine. But there is ZERO policy that would require us to exclude an accurate representation of these notable people's views in this article (and in fact explicit policy that says we do need to include all views to be NPOV). You have provided ZERO sources for your assertions, ZERO citations to policy that actually apply to this content. Yet you complain that others are doing the OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you are saying something completely different than you did in your last post. In your last post, you were talking about indisputable historical "facts". Now you are saying that the opinions of the NRA are notable. The content currently in the article doesn't discuss notable opinions; it simply asserts historical "facts" which are off the subject of the article. If you want to argue that there are notable opinions that should be described in the article, then write a proposal. Because the current content doesn't treat it as opinion, it treats it as "facts". — goethean 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, the notion is clearly a fringe theory, and no amount of rhetoric about "opinions of notable people about 100% true historical facts" will change that. Cherrypicking is bad; synthesis is bad; it should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

there is no synth. There is no OR. These assertions and facts are directly referenced by the sources. You don't like the sources. tough shit. Please identify the specific portion of WP:FRINGE that indicates it applies to opinions regarding the significance of 100% true historical facts. It is very clear from reading the guideline that all examples are things that are accepted as factually NOT true (UFOs, JFK conspiracy theories, quack medical theories, etc). Alternatively, please point out the wider consensus showing that the guideline should be applied to that type of content. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is in direct contravention of Wikipedia NPOV policy to include material cherry-picked to support fringe theories. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, tough shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• The content clearly violates policy. It should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)