Talk:Gun control/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute

WP:FRINGE is not applicable in any way to this dispute. The Nazi disarmament of Jews is undisputed fact. Even those who disagree with NRA/Halbrook (In particular Harcourt) admit the core facts "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide". WP:FRINGE specifically discusses pseudo-scientific content. Opinions regarding the historical importance, or modern political relevance of undisputed historical facts by definition cannot be fringe science. I defy anyone to find a relevant set of quotes from the guideline that are in any way relevant to opinions regarding undisputed historical facts. Beyond that, those disparaging this opinion have repeatedly refereed to them as "NRA talking points" etc. The NRA is one of the most influential and notable gun rights organizations in the world, Halbrook as the most obvious proponent of this particular viewpoint is an exceptionally notable voice in the gun rights debate. WP:NPOV clearly and repeatedly states that all points of view should be represented. This is obviously a point of view (certainly controversial) and saying that there may be no mention of it is an obvious failure of neutrality.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Surely there are fringe versions of history. — goethean 20:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed there are. (the example from the guideline would be conspiracy theories such as JFK). This is not one of those though, since the history is undisputed fact.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes the facts, as has been mentioned over and over and over again. What is disputed, and what you have failed to provide a source for, is a reputable historian who paints the holocaust as an event in the history of gun control. This is about the tenth time that I've said this. It seems like you just want to circle round and round and round and round the same exact argument over and over again, ignoring my argument, while you edit war on the article to keep your unsourced, against-consensus version of history in the article. — goethean 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Its not unsourced. You don't like the sources, but that is not the same thing. This is not a history article, this is a gun control article. The relevant population of opinion is those who write about gun control. Many gun control sources (including neutral ones) have covered this topic as one of the notable viewpoints on gun control However, in any case, there are numerous holocaust histories that discuss the disarmament of the jews. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

However, in any case, there are numerous holocaust histories that discuss the disarmament of the jews.

The use of such sources violates WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."

If you don't plan to cite reputable historians, then the material needs to be moved from "History" to "Studies". You really think that the opinion of reputable historians is irrelevant to the "History" section that has been created at this article? That's a self-evidently absurd statement, and we will be taking this to a noticeboard. — goethean 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated multiple times, I have no objection to moving the content to an arguments/analysis/studies section of this article. There is no WP:OR all of the primary sources are directly referenced by the secondary sources for the content being referenced. the kristalnacht history book directly discusses the NYT article and disarmament, and Halbrook also directly references the NYT article as well. "The New York Times reported from Berlin that “Nazis Ask Reprisal in Attack on Envoy,” and that “Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews--Victim of Shots in Critical State.”207 Its account repeated the above statistics from Police President von Helldorf of weapons seized and the announcement that “any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment". this is a classic allowed case of using primary and other secondary sources to illustrate the point made by the secondary source doing the analysis. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source"Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "fringe" relates to opinions, in this case the fringe view that the 1938 German law was significant either to the holocaust or the subject of gun control. See the ravioli analogy above. TFD (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please cite the relevant section of the guideline that in any way indicates relevance to opinions regarding significance of facts. These facts are by definition notable because sources have chosen to write about them. there do not need to be sources writing about the sources that write about the facts. Those would be WP:TERTIARY and are not required (and in fact less preferred than secondary sources)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What is currently in the article is straightforward presentation of sourced historical facts which nobody has disputed the accuracy of. The areas of opinion/ analysis / conclusions are being discussed earlier in the page and not currently in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• What isn't fringe is that the nazis disarmed the Jews. What is fringe is that that is somehow a significant part of the history of gun control. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a higher bar than anybody is claiming or for mere presence in the article. I think that "is a significant instance of gun control" is closer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be what you think but it is not what informed observers think. Articles are supposed to provide the same weight to information that one would find in a university level textbook, an encyclopedia or an analysis article in a mainstream newspaper, not what might appear in a fringe publication. TFD (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

this content is not fringe. To claim that it is is nothing more than POV pushing. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This content is fringe because no credible historian of the Holocaust considers Nazi firearms regulations (which would only ever have applied to a small minority of Holocaust victims) to have played a significant part of the Holocaust. To claim that the tendentious cherry-picked decontexutualised horseshit peddled by U.S. gun advocates is anything but fringe is to falsely suggest that pseudohistorical 'analysis' concocted by advocates for a debate in another time and place about entirely different issues can be put on the same footing as serious historiography of the Holocaust. It cannot be. Wikipedia cannot lie to its readers by presenting concocted partisan propaganda as 'fact'. If you want to peddle this hokum, do so elsewhere. Meanwhile, Wikipedia can give firearms regulation (and coverage of the Holocaust) the coverage it deserves - based on proper academic research, not on facile pseudohistorical nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• It applies because it is a fringe view that Nazi gun legislation is relevant for contemporary debates about gun control in democratic nations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Only in one democratic country and even then it is restricted to the fringe, although fringe views are popular in the U.S. Note all the publicity for fringe takes on the Kennedy murder, 9/11, evolution, climate change, black helicopters, chemtrails and the belief that tin foil hats will stop the New World Order from reading one's mind. TFD (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's nice Andy, but NO ONE in here said that the Nazis' disarmament of the Jews caused the Holocaust, or had great significance to the Holocaust. Keep beating on that strawman. As you demonstrated in your ANI of Gaijin42, you're great at twisting and misrepresenting the facts to get your way. The article in its current state contains neutral, factual statements regarding what took place in the disarmament of the Jews by Nazi Germany; nothing more. ROG5728 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If noone said that then why are we even discussing whether to include it in this article?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The contention is that this is a fringe idea. Here is US Congressional testimony before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. 478 (1968)Rep. John Dingell (D. Mich.) offered:

“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.”

Now I get it that some people don't attribute the holocaust to gun control. However, for a very long time this argument has been debated even in the halls of the US Congress. To call it "fringe" is ludicrous. It's blatant POV pushing. If you want to attack it in some other fashion, go ahead I'm sure someone will. But it's very clearly not fringe. Can we stop please?-Justanonymous (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That a congressman blatantly violates Godwins law does not make this a mainstream view. If you think that "some people donøt attribute the holocaust to gun control", then no, you donøt get it. Noone seriously does. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was elected to a legislature too, that does not make his opinion on every subject mainstream. TFD (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Do you know how also supported gun control? HITLER!" - This argument is entirely fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be jamming this up by blending a discussion about things that aren't currently in the article (I guess potential future additions) yet speaking as if the conversation is about things currently in the article. Maunus, Goethean, Miles and Andy, you have been stating and arguing against things (e.g. farther-reaching assertions) that aren't even in the article. It is fine to discuss those in the context of potential future additions (or wanting to avoid such additions) but it really confuses the discussion when you talk about such and blend it in with discussions about current content. I'll list a few of these potential future additions i n a minute so that we could discuss them separately and untangle the confusion. (I'm not suggestiong or promoting addition, just listing them) North8000 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. The 1938 German law was significant to the holocaust
2. That the ban on Jews owning firearms was a significant aspect of carrying out the holocaust
3. Reflecting on registration initiatives elsewhere by suggesting Nazi Germany as a parallel, because in that case, registration was a step towards confiscation
4. Including (explicitly) a statement that Hitler was a supporter of gun control.
5. The Nazi firearms regulations of 1938 are a significant aspect of the gun control debate
6. Discussing association of gun control with totalitarianism
7. Hitler having bearing or significance on the subject of gun control

Again, I am not promoting addition of these (there are a several that I would oppose), I am just listing them to try to untangle the discussion. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea that what Hitler did has any bearing on the subject of gun control is itself fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless and until it can be demonstrated through reliable academic sources from beyond the U.S. gun lobby that such matters are considered relevant to a discussion on firearms regulation, none of it belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

that's not per policy.... say it with me WP:RS -Justanonymous (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the NRA is not a RS on Hitler. MilesMoney (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See "Balancing aspects" which is part of the policy of "Neutrality": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Also, since the reason you want to include this information is to argue the viewpoint expressed above by North8000, "Due and undue weight" and "Fringe" also apply. The significant of rs is that npov requires us to select the weight provided in rs. A paper published in a non-peer reviewed law journal decades ago, and only mentioned in peer-reviewed papers when discussing fringe views has no weight. TFD (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

it is neutral, it's not fringe. It's a small part of the article. It's fine. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not neutral and it's definitely fringe. It's not acceptable. MilesMoney (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I offered facts. Those claiming fringe are just screaming. Sorry. Facts rule here. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's a fact, back it up. Show us some reliable sources taking the Hitler/gun thing seriously. Don't show us sources dismissing it as stupid, or biased sources (NRA, etc) endorsing it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not enough to provide facts, the facts presented must be in proportion to their relevance. For example, if you were to write a 300 page book called States of the United States and 200 pages were about Delaware, 50 pages about Wyoming and about one page devoted to each of the other states, with a few left out, then no one could question you for facts, but it would fail to be balanced. Same thing here. Why are we devoting so much attention to an obscure piece of legislation no longer in force? TFD (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

maybe because 6 million souls were slaughtered in part with the help of that legislation!? Seems balanced. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

...per NRA talking points. — goethean 04:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The legislation had fuck all to do with it. The Nazis needed no laws to slaughter millions. The Nazis murdered in spite of legislation, not because of it. They passed no legislation to 'legalise' genocide. They needed no legislation, and ignored what legislation there was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh really, Andy? Then why did the Nazi regime even go to the trouble of disarming the Jews? If the Jews' weapons didn't really matter, why do you think the Nazi regime went to such great lengths to rid them of those weapons prior to the Holocaust? Do you think it was done for the good of the Jews? Why do you think Hitler, Mao, and other such figures are on the record stating that disarmament of these groups of people was an important means to their political ends? ROG5728 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, your contention is that they woke up one day and just killed them. You haven't read your history...No, it was slow and systematic and started out under the banner of "common sense." Well intentioned but, ignorant men of zeal laid the groundwork for the monsters that came later. And it might all have truly been well intentioned but those good intentions didn't help and at some point the true monsters abandoned the charade and said explicitly Jews couldn't have arms. It's all very well documented. Curse if you want. Deny it if you want. Be blind if you want. Some of us refuse to buy that denial. Call it what you will. It's well documented. It's been discussed in congress for decades. It happened. There are books written about this. It's appropriate and balanced. Then one day in '42 Hitler himself laid it bare. He might not have crafted the early gun control laws of Germany but he took advantage of them and then for the east, he was going to make it clear:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

it's all very clear.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, I have had just about enough of your clueless patronising fuckwittery. I happen to hold a first-class honours social science degree from a leading British university - which on several occasions involved material relating to the very subject matter of the Holocaust, what lay behind it, and how the Nazis were able to do what they did. I am therefore well aware of the history of the Holocaust (though I was hardly ignorant of the topic before entering university for that matter), and don't need lessons from propaganda-peddling gun-crazy loons who are ready and willing to exploit the deaths of millions to provide pseudohitorical 'arguments' about another time, another place, and and another debate entirely. No serious historian takes this horseshit seriously, and Wikipedia isn't going to either. If you want to engage in pseudohistorical debate, find a forum - but stop pretending that you have a clue here. You self-evidently don't. Spread your POV-pushing ignorance elsewhere. Or preferably, read some real history, written by real historians. You clearly have much to learn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Andy, are you trying to add to your already extensive block log? Grow up or go away. You're not convincing anyone with your juvenile temper tantrums. ROG5728 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were true, it would be irrelevant unless it had obtained mainstream support. TFD (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WTF?! Since when does disarming conquered peoples have anything to do with gun control? Did Washington DC conquer Texas? MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

hum full disarmament is the most extreme type of "gun control"......get it?.......and since when is acceptance by some supposed mainstream a requirement for admission?? Hasn't been before. WP:RS and the other policies rule.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying "RS" but you don't seem to understand what it means. There have been no reliable sources offered for the Hitler/gun-control theory. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

go to the article and read it's all there. Read a few books on it too while you're at it.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Read this page, where the proposed sources were shown to be fringe, hence unreliable. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

let me see, congressional testimony, quotes by madmen dictators....nope, nothing fringe there. exactly what are you referring to?Justanonymous (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to persuade you. MilesMoney (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You think "madmen dictators" are reliable sources? TFD (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its history on historians, not Congressmen and lunatics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Would that that were true ... FiachraByrne (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're in luck FiachraByrne, because it is true to some extent.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that you've misunderstood what I have said. Besides which, as that guideline indicates, it's not applicable for an exceptional claim. If you believe it's so apposite why not insert this material into the article Gun politics in the United States.FiachraByrne (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking here generally, and not with regard to any particular claim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nazi disarmament of German Jewish population, the passage of the 1938, etc, can be established with reliable historical sources. As these reliable sources do not establish a linkage between these acts and the debate on gun control, placing these facts within the context of "gun control" as understood from an international perspective is either an act of synthesis or relies on the use of sources which are evidently fringe to the mainstream history of the Holocaust. They are fringe to the history of the holocaust because they have never been cited by an serious scholarly treatment of the holocaust. They are so fringe that no mainstream historian of the holocaust has even deigned to rebut them - that's because they are, effectively, outside of any serious scholarly discussion of the holocaust. Such theories are relevant almost only to the domestic US gun debate - outside of that context they are pretty much incoherent, almost untranslatable and certainly irrelevant. Unless you can show that this fringe historical interpretation is germane and has been influential on the issue of small arms regulation in a global context it should be excluded from this article. How people can believe that they are improving the article while pushing to have this material included is beyond me - there's lots of material not in the article that is self-evidently relevant. Regardless of whether you are pro or anti gun control or even care, this is a massive waste of everyone's time. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you're entirely correct, FiachraByrne, and would like to explain why. First, you insist on global implications for inclusion in this article, but then how do you square inclusion of specific subsections on Japan, Australia, et cetera? Second, even if we assume that the material in question is 100% fringe (which I don't think it is), WP:FRINGE says that it may be included in context: "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear". Third, the stuff in question is covered in many many many reliable non-fringe sources, such as Bryant, Michael S. (2012). "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control". In Carter, Gregg L. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. pp. 411–414. Do you think that source is fringe? Moreover, Hitler's devotion to gun control in conquered territories is far beyond dispute.[2]. And, have you consulted these sources already cited by more than one Wikipedia editor?....

• Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007).
• O’Neill, Terry. Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints Digests), pp. 46-47 (Greenhaven Press 2000).
• Fisanick, Christina. Gun Control, p. 15 (Greenhaven Press 2010).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think separate subsections on Japan and Australia should be in the article. Those sections are totally arbitrary. We could have a section on every country in the world and that would be totally unworkable. We need comparative content.

If it's fringe, which I believe it is, we have a bit of problem in contextualising Halbrook's (et al.'s) claims - at least in terms of its plausibility. That is because we lack a source with true expertise on the holocaust that discusses this minority viewpoint in regard to the wider historiography of the holocaust. It is so fringe that it doesn't register at all in the scholarly literature of the holocaust. It is almost exclusively referenced within the US gun debate to make a political point germane to US domestic politics.

Bryant's chapter in Carter's edited volume is chiefly about the tendentious and sometimes only implicit comparison with gun regulations in Nazi Germany and the US and the whole Hitlerian trope in the US gun debate. It's a reliable source for content on the US gun debate and as a description of the arguments and imagery used in that debate. Bryant is no more an expert on the holocaust than Halbrook or, indeed, Harcourt for that matter (remember that Harcourt's article title explicitly called for historians ('A Call for Historians')- that is, those with expertise on the topic - to get involved in the debate). In my opinion, these are fine sources for aspects of the US internal debate.

The first source you list above is Donna Goldstein's chapter on the Brazilian referendum on gun control [3] which I've referenced previously on this page. This is about the attempted exportation of the rhetorical tropes used in the US gun debate by the NRA during the Brazilian referendum. Goldstein's doubts whether 'the vast majority of Brazilians would have been able to make sense of the discursive appropriation of ... Hitler' by the NRA during this campaign. The source itself is not indicating that this particular argument was of particular relevance, or even coherence, in a Brazilian context.

I don't have access to the second source so I can't evaluate. It looks like a reader of pro and con views. Is it international in scope?

The third source is a Juvenile non-fiction one. But it does look to at least include international viewpoints. I don't have access however. If these sources are derived from a Google Book search could you post a url for the search result? Thanks. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi FiachraByrne. Sorry for the delayed response. I've been traveling a lot today. I'm not sure if I can access libraries the next couple days, but will try, and then give you a fuller response. It seems that learning about this particular issue via Internet alone may not be adequate. If you get a chance, perhaps you can also comment about whether gun control has been used by many armies of occupation, and whether that ought to be mentioned in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I will probably be visiting a decent library on Monday, most are closed this time of year. In the mean time please consider this source which is fully accessible online and makes clear that the gun lobby internationally has used the Nazi facts to make its arguments. Again, even if this stuff is WP:FRINGE, it still ought to be put in context with the majority view in this Wikipedia article. I also note that I have been requesting for an entire week to move a section titled "arguments" into this article from List of gun laws and policies by country (see discussion at talk page for that list).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to that source, here is a Canadian gun control book discussing the Nazi argument as well. http://books.google.com/books?id=2zHo7woTbZsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Arming+and+Disarming,+A+History+of+Gun+Control+in+Canada&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nOS-UsS_McKVygHq3oHYCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nazi&f=false Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Page number?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the current treatment of the material in the article treats the material as mainstream history. This deceives the reader into thinking that this fringe material is not fringe, but is accepted by reputable historians, which it is not. This bad material has been sitting in the article like this since April when User:ROG5728 made a bad, highly POV edit, and then North8000 and Gaijin42 edit warred to keep ROG5728's bad edit intact for eight months, despite the fact that they were informed again and again and again and again on the talk page that this material violated Wikipedia' core policy. Additionally, North8000 and Gaijin42 were supported in their flagrant and repeated violations of Wikipedia policy by a large gang of right-wing editors, including some administrators. This is shameful behavior on the part of these editors and administrators. This issue should go to ARBCOM, and the editors who participated in this shameful episode should be blocked from editing. — goethean 14:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK -- your personal opinion is clear. The problem is that Wikipedia only requires that articles be properly sourced and worded in a neutral manner. That you personally find behaviour by right wing editors and administrators (whom you do not name, nor furnish evidence thereof) to act despicably is interesting, but not really pertinent to the stated purpose of the article talk page. Heck -- I have seen editors blindly revert without an edit even looking into the clearly stated reasons for the edit. Would ya believe even admins can do that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you would be in a much better position to get me and your other adversaries banned by ArbCom if you would please suggest an alternative paragraph for the section instead of simply trying to blank what's there. Then if we refuse to discuss your alternative, voila, ArbCom will ban us all. (Not that they won't in any event.).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the American right-wing discourse about Nazis, which mainly takes the form of forwarded emails from senile uncles, is a significant aspect of the worldwide debate over gun control. Besides, this article is a POV fork of gun politics, and should be merged with that article. I don't usually make suggestions about how to insert nonsense right-wing talking points or crazy, paranoid versions of history into Wikipedia articles. — goethean 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Collect. My personal opinion has exactly nothing to do with anything. All that matters is Wikipedia policy, something on which you find many opportunities to lecture other editors.

The problem is that Wikipedia only requires that articles be properly sourced and worded in a neutral manner.

The Nazi material is not properly sourced and violates NPOV. No source has been furnished who contends that Nazi Germany is a significant part of the subject of gun control. And yet there it is in the article, telling readers about the oh-so important facts that Nazis took weapons away from Jews in the 1930s. It is unsourced. Its inclusion is not neutral. And yet you have defended its inclusion in this article. Perhaps that has something to do with your personal opinions rather than Wikipedia policy. — goethean 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North's 12/27/13 AM submitted overview

North's 12/27/13 AM submitted overview Folks keep conflating currently-in-the-article content and potential additions in arguing against the current material. The current material is straightforward heavily sourced history, which nobody has challenged the veracity of. They've implied a sourcing challenge, but when I listed the statements verbatim, and said to pick one to go to wp:rsn with, they faded away on that. This has included claiming that sources used do not meet some higher-than-Wikipedia's standard that they imply, but if they are essentially claiming that they are insufficient to support the material as written, I have called their bluff and said to pick the statement they want to challenge and let's go to wp:rsn with it. They are still invited to do so, but lacking that, there is no specific challenge to the sourcing of the material as written. If there is any implicit "claim" in the mere presence of material it is that it is an instance of gun control (and a look at any definition in a dictionary IMO makes that a pretty obvious "yes".) And that the instance of gun control has at least enough significance (whether it be based on coverage in sources or whatever) to merit a small paragraph in the article. Some folks do not want even a mention of this instance of gun control in the article. In addition to the insults and villianizing, mudslinging etc. by a couple people (e.g. Goethean's last post) their arguments seem to have two common themes, IMHO both not valid. Ones seems to be to say mere coverage of it implicitly makes more far reaching claims (e.g. that it is extremely significant in the history of gun control, that it was a significant tool in the implementation of the Holocaust) and then arguing against those (straw man) claims, as if the mere presence of coverage makes or requires such claims. IMHO the mere presence of straightforward historical coverage does not make or require proving such claims. The second theme of arguments is to say that in order for the material to be in the article, that sourcing must be produced for not only what is in the article, but to support such farther reaching claims which were never made. IMHO this is invalid several times over. First such claims are not explicitly or implicitly made made by the material or by the presence of the material. Second, the presence of the material does not require making or proving such claims. Third, by policy (wp:ver and wp:nor) sourcing requirements are for the material as written, not for the sources to have made statements that it is of huge significance etc. And fourth, sources write about the topics, they do not address suitability/significance for Wikipedia articles/coverage under Wikipedia article topics, and so attempted requirements for sources that do so are impossible to meet and not required by Wikipedia.

Finally, there have been some discussion on other opinions/analysis/inferences/associations that are NOT in the article, such as the association between gun control and totalitarianism. Those are just that, discussions about things which are NOT in the article, and should be kept separate rather than conflating them with things that ARE in the article. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000's continued, adamant refusal to acknowledge arguments that have been repeated dozens of times on this talk page constitutes tendentious editing. No reputable historian considers Nazi Germany to be a significant event in the history of gun control. Yet North8000 insists that this article say — without attribution — what no historian would ever say, but which partisan right-wing American anti-gun control activists do say. This is a direct violation both of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's most core principle. Due to North8000's continued intransigence, I again suggest ARBCOM. — goethean 15:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it takes. This article is a blight upon Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean, ::Please stop the mudslinging and mis-representation. I'll not respond down on that level but instead address your point yet AGAIN. But let me ask you specifically....where is the statement "Nazi Germany to be a significant event in the history of gun control" or something to that effect made or required? IMHO again the answer is that it is NOT made and NOT required, but I'll let you answer it. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just uncivil the way some editors come on here and just berate others and use profanity without even a willingness to discuss the actual changes on the page. For what it's worth, there have been improvements to the article even through the storm. Nobody is going to agree with everything on there right now but it's a compromise and perhaps the best we can have given the nature and contentiousness of the subject. I agree with North8000, let's stick to discussing the actual edits on the article and avoid blanking. This is not a forum. Peace to all.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Incivility is nothing compared to gross violation of core Wikipedia policy. The entire section espousing the Nazi gun control theory is fringe and must go. MilesMoney (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. There is nothing about that section that violates any policy of Wikipedia, and you know it. The use of gun control measures by the Nazi regime is not a "theory" either, it's fact. ROG5728 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that it has nothing to do with gun control. It's an NRA crackpot theory with no RS. MilesMoney (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a theory, it's fact (supported by numerous RS). And it constitutes an instance of gun control, so yes it is relevant to an article on gun control. ROG5728 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Others disagree MilesMoney, and editors need to collaborate. Yelling at the top of one's lungs using profanity, cursing, berating, belittling and aggressive reverting just creates an environment that good editors just don't appreciate. It creates an acrimonious editing environment and editors just want to switch off. That should not be our goal here. This is not a WP:Battleground. We don't agree on everything, that is normal. But, we should attempt to be civil and offer suggestions vs one line attacks without backup. We have to collaborate, nobody is leaving apparently so let's just come to the table and collaborate. FiachraByrne and I have agreed on some edits by being civil and discussing the problems we see discretely. It's give and take. The rest of us should try to do the same vs this incessant pouring of hate. Let's discuss the specific changes as North8000 suggests.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

They can disagree all they want, but it doesn't change policy. MilesMoney (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed where you were corrected above for trying to claim violations of policy. There is nothing about the section that violates any policy of Wikipedia, and you know it. ROG5728 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi ROG5728. Please provide a reference to a reputable historian who says that Nazi Germany is an important event in the history of gun control. Please quote the reliable source that you have provided. That should be a very, very simple matter, right? — goethean 16:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, you came up with that bogus criteria to try to keep the material out of the article. You won't find that anywhere in Wikipedia policy. The bottom line is that the material is factual and is covered by numerous reliable sources, therefore it is noteworthy. That's all that's necessary for including a brief paragraph such as the one currently in the article. Now, if the article devoted a massive amount of time to discussing the subject of Nazi Germany then you might have a point, but it does not currently do that, so you do not have a point. ROG5728 (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you even looked at WP:UNDUE? I think you should. MilesMoney (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I just said, it's a brief paragraph. If the article devoted a massive amount of time to discussing the subject of Nazi Germany then you might have a point, but it does not currently do that, so you do not have a point. It's a brief paragraph. ROG5728 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? Then let's put some factual, reliably-sourced lasagna recipes in the article. By your understanding of Wikipedia policy, That would be completely appropriate. Except that it's not. Because the material needs to be on-topic. Unlike your Nazi material. Which is in the article. Because of your edit warring and refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy. Please undo your edit. — goethean 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It was gun control, and this is an article on gun control. That makes it directly relevant to this article. ROG5728 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a fringe NRA theory. It has no RS. It is UNDUE. And yet you keep edit-warring to retain it. User:Collect helped edit-war, because he's a helpful guy who's definitely not WP:STALKING me or anything. It just looks that way because, you know. MilesMoney (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL -- you have a way of ignoring facts about your own sudden absolutely coincidental appearance at the Chick-Fil-A talk page etc. don't you? As for your accusation of me "edit warring" -- go to AN/I and make that an open accusation -- but unless you are willing to do it, such an accusation might be seen by others as trying to deflect from the nature of your own edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a theory. It's fact. It has multiple RS. It's only a short paragraph, so it's not undue. ROG5728 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you a reputable historian? — goethean 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have common sense. ROG5728 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:V, a core policy that your edit violated. — goethean 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles and Goethean, you keep hurling accusations and then when we try to engage on the specifics you don't answer. So let me try again with MilesMoney's last post. Miles, can you pick a statement that is in the article that you feel is a "fringe NRA theory". And can you pick a statement that is in the article that you feel "has no RS"? North8000 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire section is undue. Only fringe NRA theorists believe Hitler's policies have any significance with regard to gun control. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, your question has been answered many times. Your continued refusal to engage with my argument above constitutes a violation of WP:TE.[4] No reputable historian considers Nazi Germany to be a significant event in the history of gun control. Yet North8000 insists that this article say — without attribution — what no historian would ever say, but which partisan right-wing American anti-gun control activists do say. This is a direct violation both of the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's most core principle. — goethean 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that North has no response to this. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed it thoroughly. Miles, any response to my question? And Goethen, (quit the misrepresentation of me) what is in the article is straightforward history that sources did say. And AGAIN, pick a sentence that you think is an overreach or not sufficiently sourced and we'll go to wp:RSN with it. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi North8000. Would it be okay if I inserted some lasagna recipes into the article? If not, why not? It is not okay because there is no source which connects lasagna recipes to gun control. Just as there is no source which connects your Nazi material to gun control. In fact, I removed Rummel, a source which doesn't mention gun control, and you undid my edit.[5] This is a violation of WP:OR. This is bad for you. — goethean 17:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS/N. [6] — goethean 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. The entire notion that Hitler is relevant to the topic of gun control exists only as an NRA talking point. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. 'Straightforward history' would be written by straightforward historians. And unless and until the only appropriate response - cited evidence from reputable historians to the contrary - is submitted, per Wikipedia policy this pseudohistorical revisionist 'theory' about the Holocaust does not belong on Wikipedia. Not only is it unsupported, contradictory and nonsensical, but it does a great injustice to the memory of the millions of victims of Nazi genocide to use their deaths for propaganda purposes regarding debates about other subjects, in other places and times. There have been repeated calls from multiple representatives of Jewish communities for such misrepresentation of history to stop (I'll not bother to cite them here for now, as I'm sure those involved in the U.S. gun debate are well enough aware of them), and while it isn't in Wikipedia's power to prevent such behaviour elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason why it should be allowed to continue here. This is not a forum, and I see no reason why we should even continue to discuss an issue entirely lacking in the appropriate sources. Without sources of the appropriate nature, the material does not belong in Wikipedia. And this isn't open to negotiation here, any more than it is in any other article. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Respondinig to Geothean's question, That's two different topics. On the first, what you said is not analogous, it is two steps farther removed. One step closer would be a lasagna recipe in the lasagne article, and a match would be lasagna in the lasagne article. On the second, the source is to support the statements which cited it, a requirement that the source state the title of the article does not exist. I would think that you would know that this is common in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:OR may indeed be common. That fact is perfectly irrelevant. — goethean 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that using a source for a statement in the article that does not state the title of the article makes such it OR? That's wrong twice over. Once because it is a source, not a statement. Second because there is nothing that says so. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I can include my lasagna recipes? — goethean 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Another change of subject. Back to the question, Are you saying that using a source for a statement in the article that does not state the title of the article makes such it OR? North8000 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a change of subject. If you can include Nazi material in the absence of a source connecting the material to the subject of the article, then why can't I include lasagna recipes, or any other reliably-sourced, factual information? — goethean 17:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to take a breather from this nasty, mudslinging incoherent mess, and folks blanking the longstanding section in an effort to preempt the discussion. Several folks are just hurling mis-representations of what editors said, sarcasms, mud-slinging and refuse to engage on the specifics. Editors do not need to be subjected to such abuse, especially that by AndyTheGrump and Goethean. My direct addressing of the topics and arguments at hand remains that at "North's 12/27/13 AM submitted overview" above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care how long that section has been there; it doesn't belong. Age is not a defense against policy violation. MilesMoney (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your refusal to engage on the talk page, combined with your edit warring on the article is indicative of tendentious editing. This is bad for you. — goethean 17:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you can keep repeating the word 'policy' over and over all day, but it's already been explained to you why the section does not in any way violate any policy of Wikipedia. What policy violation are you talking about? Quote the policy directly. Oh and Goethean, you're the only one refusing to engage on the talk page (blathering about the NRA doesn't count as discussion). ROG5728 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

It's really that simple. MilesMoney (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And that is determined by WP:CONSENSUS not by shouting it. At this point, it appears that there is an ongoing RfC -- and trying to shut it as being inapplicable to seeking consensus is silly at best. Collect (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include the poorly-sourced, off-topic Nazi material. There never has been. Ever. — goethean 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus cannot change policy. Policy says this material is undue. MilesMoney (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, my loyal sock. Seeing the position of the Stats Master/Inspector Gadget ("Go Go Gadget OLS Regression!") doesn't surprise me Are a substantial number of other people still defending this fringe nonsense? These policies had nothing whatsoever to do with support for gun control and everything to do with anti-Semitism and disregard for all the rights of Jews. People who want to call this "gun control" fail to understand the importance of context in the definition of words. Steeletrap (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, policy is not on your side. You're attacking a strawman. The only (possibly) fringe viewpoint in this is the idea that gun control somehow led to the Holocaust. However, the text in the article is not making that claim, nor are any of the sources. The article does not say that gun control led to the Holocaust or something of that sort, it simply states that gun control measures were used to disarm the Jews in Nazi Germany, which is true and is a fact that no one seriously disagrees with, therefore it is not fringe. ROG5728 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(sorry if this is the wrong place in the thread: i lost track of the discussion, and while I'm not sure it is, I'm going to assume that the identation indicated what is replying to what, and that the blow statement is thus a reply to the OP. Feel free to relocate)No, there is currently no RfC on whether the current section is any good in the article. It asks two questions, are the statements sourced, and if any coverage of gun control laws could be included in the article. It isn't an RfC on due weight of the section. It is exceedingly unlikely that we can use the outcome of the RfC on the question if the section should stay, and if so, in what form or how extensively, and if not, if (part of) the content can be used elsewhere. It's probably a pretty useless RfC, but it will at least shed light on the quality of the sources themselves, which may help for future discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source which connects the Nazi material to gun control. — goethean 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In a tortured literal sense of the term, it may be gun control. But understanding the meaning of words requires attunement to context. Similarly, a white Afrikaner [EDIT- who immigrates to America] is (literally) an "African American", but would not be defined as such in the context of modern America. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely an Afrikaner is a native of South Africa, not America? Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. It's obvious I was referring to an Afrikaner who immigrates to the U.S.; and my analogy is instructive to those who don't appreciate the importance of context in the meaning of words. It is highly relevant that virtually no historians, right or left, characterize Nazi Germany as practicing "gun control." Steeletrap (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also bizarre to cast the gun control dispute as between advocates and opponents. The right to keep and bear arms is the only constitutionally guaranteed right which is denied to people in prison, and gundamentalists are not demanding that they be allowed to have them, even though with all the violence in prisons one would think it would make them safer. Essentially the dispute is about whether to tighten or loosen controls. People like Hitler and U.S. gun rights advocates agree in loosening them. TFD (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that with such a polirised/heated debate it's a good idea skip the subject matter and fast forward to to implying that the proponents of relaxing gun control is agreeing with Hitler. The current article leading the reader to "gun control is what HITLER did" is bad enough. Switching it around to the other side of that debate is just as reprehensible. I'd appreceate it if everybody tried not to pull the gun control debate into this content dispute any further than it already is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:FRINGE theories and must be deleted right away. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right that this crazy Hitler conspiracy theory is totally fringe and must be removed. I suggest we request an admin to make the edit, as the article is protected. MilesMoney (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently the Hitler quote is from Table Talk. Hugh Trevor-Roper did not write the book, he never sat around with the table with Hitler, he just edited it. Whether or not Hitler said everything in the book is in doubt. TFD (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not as if we needed more reasons to remove this Nazi theory, but... MilesMoney (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

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.

---

The purpose of this poll is to come with 1) a definition of an overall scope for the article and 2) a list of suggested sections for the purpose of organizing content. In other words, how do we write about gun control without debating it in the article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope

1. Personally I think the first sentence still works, but I'd like to make one addition (bolded), "The term "gun control" means any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, allow for, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms." Control doesn't always equate to "limitation", control is what "can" and "cannot" be done.

Sections

1. Comment - it should be mentioned that the Lead and the Terminology and context section along with the inclusion/use of the standard See also, Notes, References, Bibliography, and External links sections seem to be uncontested or at least uncontroversial.

Comment/Discussion

• Comment - The scope described in the first sentence is not anything I was involved with. It looks okay to me. Some people have argued for a more limited scope, so that many things would be excluded, like: (1) laws that non-uniformly discriminate against some citizens (thus excluding the Nazi's actions toward the Jews), and (2) gun control in occupied territory (thus excluding the Nazi's actions in Poland and other places). As I said, the current scope looks okay to me, but people who want to narrow the scope need to give some reasons other than making sure those pesky Nazis are not detracting and distracting from the wonderful idea of gun control.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this straw poll makes no sense whatsoever. Firstly, you should be asking what the scope of the article is or should be, not what "a definition of an overall scope" should be. Wiktionary can give you a definition of overall and of scope, but "a definition of an overall scope" is meaningless. This is not being trivial: a straw poll on a confusing question cannot give a clear result. Secondly, conflating scope and the opening sentence is ridiculous. Perhaps the opening sentence as it stands is fine, but that doesn't stop the rest of the article from being awful. The question we need to ask is what should be / will be covered in the article, what the limits are, not what would be a snazzy definition of gun control that we can pin the same crap on. Finally, asking about scope and section headings at the same time is beyond ridiculous. Until there is some sort of idea of what the scope of the article should be there is no way of knowing what the section headings should be. Essentially you're asking each respondent to re-write the article completely in their response! FiachraByrne said he would open a straw poll on sensible lines in a few days. I think you should close this one PDQ and wait for him to open his. Scolaire (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Closed per Scolaire's recommendation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:20, 29 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.

Thanks Scalhotrod. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

There's a lot of nonsense here. Goethean and Andy seem to think that this article should be "Gun control" as seen in the United States. That's an absurd subject for an article. The article formerly known as "Gun politics" has a point, but a general discussion of "gun control" (if it's a real subject) should not be organized by country, except in cases where a specific country's specific actions represent an exemplar of a general case, as seen by reputable historians. (This does include Hitler's actions of restricting firearms in the hands of "enemies of the state" (Jews, Gypsies, etc.), while removing restrictions and the hands of the Nazi Party; and restrictions on ownerships of firearms by slaves (and later, Blacks) in the US.)
In other words, if an article "gun control" should exist, it is not at all similar to the article formerly known as "gun politics". I think the article should exist, and it should include many facets recognized as relevant by reliable sources, even if not all are recognized as important.
Also, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, or in common sense, that a demarcation between Wikipedia articles must be reflect a demarcation recognized as "important", or even of interest, to anyone else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you taken leave of your senses? I have been arguing for months that this article (and all other non-nation-specific articles on firearms regulations) needs to present an international overview of the subject, rather than being dominated by the narrow discourse of the U.S. gun control debate. As for the rest, I won't repeat what has been said before - except to make clear that this article in no more a legitimate place to be presenting fringe theories about the Holocaust than any other Wikipedia article - and the claims of some U.S. pro-gun lobbyists that Nazi laws relating to firearms were of any significance to the Holocaust are clearly fringe - they have absolutely no support whatsoever from mainstream historiography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur: I have said no such thing and I'd appreciate it if you could read and comprehend what I write rather than sticking words in my mouth which I have never said or implied. Please check the page history. The Nazi material was under "Arguments" until User:ROG5728 moved it to "History" (April 2013)[[7]] in an attempt to give more legitimacy to NRA arguments which associate gun control with authoritarian regimes. THAT is where the "by country" history section came from. Other countries were later filled in in order to give legitimacy to the Nazi material. Look at the page history. — goethean 19:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate, and it's become clear that there are some fringe topics -- such as the crazy Hitler theory -- being shoehorned into what is otherwise a well-defined article. If there were reliable sources suggesting that Hitler's actions were relevant to the field of gun control, then things would be different. Even then, you're simply not going to find anything but the most fringe sources (further right than your NRA) suggesting that gun control leads to genocide. That sort of lunatic theory has no place in this article, according to WP:FRINGE. MilesMoney (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that what you "know" is a "lunatic theory" is not the issue. The issue is whether Germany enacted laws to remove arms from a significant proportion of the population, and that references to such laws are reliably sourced. Your interpolation of your own POV is interesting, but worthless in the discussion about inclusion of sources discussed in the past. There is an RfC still open on the topic, and I suggest you wait until it is closed before averring that you are omniscient on the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly "Germany enacted laws to remove arms from a significant proportion of the population". This is beyond dispute: the laws enacted under the Weimar Republic (the "Decree of the Council of People’s Deputies concerning Reduction of Military Weapons in the Territory of the Reich (1918)" and the "Decree Concerning Weapons Possession 1919)", and later laws were to result in a complete ban on possession of firearms by civilians - though an 1928 law allowed possession of some classes of firearms, with a permit which was only to be issued to "reliable" persons. The Nazi law of 1938 of course relaxed regulations further for the majority of the population. Post-war, the occupying powers were to once again ban possession of firearms entirely - with the possibility of capital punishment for lawbreakers (see Bryant, M. S. "Germany, Gun Laws". In Carter, G. L. Guns in American society : an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Volume 1 (Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2012). pp. 314–316). None of this is apparently relevant to a discussion on 'firearms regulation in Germany' however, as it rather spoils the absurd argumentum ad Hitlerum nonsense of sections of the U.S. gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect's POV is worth no more than MM's. The issue is whether reputable historians characterize Nazi Germany's laws as gun control. — goethean 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no such RfC open. There is an RfC open if the statements sourcing is ok, and if sourced statements can be presented in this article. There is no RfC on the due weight of weapon restrictions against the "Jewish" population of Nazi Germany within this article. It is exceedingly unlikely that the outcome of the RfC will be that the section should stand, as that is not what is being asked in the RfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Geothean is right; it comes down to sources. The lack of reputable historians endorsing this Nazi link is why we must remove the section. MilesMoney (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still mostly nonsense; the discussion should relate to the scope of the article, without which discussion of specific content is of little use. If the article is to be about the politics of gun regulation (which should be somewhere), then the notable (although falsely interpreting the facts) arguments about what the Nazis did should be included. If it is about gun regulations in general, then the Nazis' actions should be included under the general category of "removing guns from (groups discriminated against)", including Nazis with Jews and gypsies, the southern United States with slaves (and later) Blacks, etc. The article former known as "gun politics", now "gun (something) by country", should be a subarticle of that "gun (something)", whether it be regulation, control, or politics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's separate this

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.

---

There are some folks on both sides of the issue who are trying to have a polite specific discussion /debate of the issues at hand. Then there are the insertions which are disrupting that process, and that's describing those very charitably. Let's separate those into different sections:

• Posts which are trying to have polite specific discussion /debate of the issues at hand.
• Posts that are trying to "gain ground" by insulting or villianizing editors, or which are repetitions of chants, trying to gain ground by disparaging editors by putting in nasty mis-statements or mis-characterizations of what the other person said, ad hominem arguments, attempts to gain ground by vague insults and villianizations against content and potential content.North8000 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post by somebody to wants to keep some degree of sanity: this piece of grandstanding is merely provocative and has zero chance of contributing to a reasonable discussion. It should be terminated with extreme prejudice. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How is that so? North8000 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You know very well that nobody posts on this page, or on any talk page, only to insult or be nasty. Neither do they post (as Goethean, not AndyTheGrump, added) in order to refuse to discuss the topic at hand. Therefore, nobody is going to post in either of the second or third sections. Neither will anybody post in the first section, since they will view the very existence of the second section as a generalised ad hominem attack on all participants – which is exactly what it is. Therefore this section cannot and will not contribute anything to a reasonable discussion, and will only serve to enrage participants on every side. Only you can delete this entire section. I urge you to do so before your reputation suffers irreperable damage. Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot post in this section of the talk page other than to endorse Scolaire's sentiments above. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I hatted this entirely inappropriate attempt by a single individual to dictate talk page content, clearly itself a personal attack on contributors. If North8000 pulls a similar disruptive stunt again, I will report the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that he be sanctioned. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Actually, there are a number of posts, on this and other talk pages, for which the sole purpose is "only to insult or be nasty." However, this section serves no purpose, as no one will admit making a post in any of the negative categories. Furthermore, some of North8000's posts have been accused of being in one of the negative categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(only) the first negative category was by me. The goal was to start a positive discussion which avoided the items in the negative category which have been all too common on this page. Editors should not be subjected to such abuse, and also I see thread after thread of attempted civil to-the-point discussion forcibly derailed or taken over by such abuses. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Posts which are polite specific discussions /debate of the issues at hand

(Heading by North)

I would like to start this by continuing my thread above with FiachraByrne. FiachraByrne, did my post reflect accurately understanding your statement / point? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Posts which are insulting or villianizing editors, or which are repetitions of chants, nasty mis-statements or mis-characterizations of what the other person said, ad hominem arguments, vague insults and villianizations against content and potential content.

(Heading by North)

Content not self identified as either

Posts which refuse to discuss the topic at hand or refuse to engage in meaningful discussion in order to preserve partisan garbage in the article because it agrees with the editor's ideology (Heading by AndyTheGrump) I did not post this heading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (Correction: Heading by Goethean, was actually a comment about content, headings are headings, not such. Put heading into a neutral section)North8000 (talk) 11:10, 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.