Jump to content

Talk:Gun control/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

This article is a POV-fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking. I shall be converting it to a redirect, per policy.

Since it is self-evident that the POV-pushers are going to continue with their facile arguments till the cows come home, and since it is self-evident that they don't give a fuck about compliance with policy as long as they can carry on pushing their ignorant pseudo-historical propaganda on Wikipedia, within the next few days I shall be converting this blatant POV-fork into a redirect to Gun politics. Any policy-compliant material can of course then be merged - and should anyone propose to rename the merged article 'Gun control', I shall have no objections. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made a post regarding this intended action for administrators to review. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy, this has no validity and is disruptive. Your whole faulty argument is built on a faulty assertion that this 11 year old immensely wp:notable article is a "POV fork" North8000 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is a POV-fork. It violates policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
We shall bow to your infallible will oh omniscient one. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Andy, you're just as much of a POV pusher as anyone else here, that much is evident. As someone who has never edited this article, it's pretty obvious you just don't like what the article says and are invoking "POV Fork" and "Fringe" to get your way. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That's right. I don't like policy-violating POV forks. What exactly is wrong with that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Neither Andy nor myself is suggesting that the material be removed from other, more appropriate locations such as Gun politics in Germany. — goethean 20:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You haven't established it's a "POV fork", although it also hasn't been established that it isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I seem to have established that nobody can provide a source that suggests we should be discussing the regulation of firearms in two different articles. And if it isn't a POV-fork, why does it contain so much content on a fringe pseudo-historical claim that has no credence beyond sections of the US gun lobby? This is supposed to be an article with a global perspective, and such arguments simply don't enter into the discourse elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
As others have said for a while, and I am saying now, we do not need a reliable source making the distinction; all we need to have a stated, objective, distinction. I haven't edited any gun control/politics article in years, except to remove vandalism, so I'm not familiar with any fringe pseudo-historical claims by the US "gun lobby", or fringe pseudo-scientific claims by otherwise-respectable sociologists, in Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The first edit that created the page has an edit summary: "(cur | prev) 23:32, 13 March 2002‎ Ed Poor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (662 bytes) (+662)‎ . . (stub, trying for NPOV (disclaimer: I support the NRA position)) (thank)" Here is the page as created: [1]. At this time I can't help but support Andy's contention that this is indeed a POV fork. It kinda looks like a duck from where I see it so far, but I will check a little more.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It seemed better (more neutral) then than now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That isn't the point, is it? Was this article created as a point of view fork? It does seem that the creation was done by a biased editor who may not have seen their own bias and the article, as created was not neutral and is easy to see why this would be regarded as a POV fork.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that the article was created as a NPOV fork, considering the content of gun politics then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that helps. You do at least admit it was an article created as a fork intended to be more neutral that the other. I think that about sums up what a POV for is. It is redundant and appears not to have been neutral when created and seems as a fork to the other article. I see no reason to keep this article. Relevant content can be merged.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Here you go Arthur. [2] — goethean 21:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) The early copies of Gun control seemed less biased than the early copies of Gun politics, as well.
(to Goethean) That's a content problem, although suggesting the present article is less NPOV than gun politics; it doesn't mean there shouldn't be two articles, or, if not, what the title of the resultant article should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
If there are to be 'two articles', please explain how we are supposed to know which material goes into which article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

content which is gun control goes into the gun control article, with a high level summary of that in the politics article. Gun policy that is not gun control goes into the policy article. (The by country content, I think should be split into a third "list by country" article imo, and both the control and policy articles should be overviews without deep detail into any particular countries policies except as useful as a generic example. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not without a source that says so, it won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
And we don't have a gun policy article. We have a gun politics article. Policy and politics are two very different subjects.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin, I'm not familiar with that use of "gun control". Perhaps you can clarify. However, I agree with North above; if there is to one article, it should be called "gun control" rather than "gun politics". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Arthur, may I ask how you came to that conclusion? Could you explain how the use of the term "Control" is more neutral and accurate than "politics"?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest that if people want to discuss titles for articles, they start another thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, but this is not a discussion of such. The subject is "control" and that appears to be political in nature. The issue is, is this article a non neutral treatment of the Gun politics article? I believe the title and subject do point to that. I understand that you may not agree with that assessment but I do wish to flesh this out a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the issue is whether this article is a non neutral treatment of the subject matter - which is the same regardless of what title it is given. Certainly, a non-neutral title can be a problem, but that isn't what is being discussed here. Threads regarding content have been sidetracked far too often by arguments about the meaning of words, and I can see no benefit in allowing it to happen once again. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Understood Andy. But I still don't agree and see no reason yet to discontinue this direction. I would rather the strength of my argument not be hindered by involved opinion (that isn't put down). I would like to be allowed to discuss the issue without interference unless there is a true call for it. I just don't see that yet Andy. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
But then...since it looks unlikely that Arthur will be responding (perhaps they agree with you) there seems no reason to further that direction at this time Andy.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that a discussion of a name is an essential precursor to any discussion about merging. I think that "Gun Control" is an immensely more prevalent, commonly used, defined and covered in sources that "gun politics". I can't even find "gun politics" defined anywhere and it sounds very narrow. Like just the "politics" aspect of gun control. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not to sure about the accuracy of "Gun control" being more prevalent than "Gun politics". As I point out, the term "control" does not seem neutral for an encyclopedia. But are the two subjects just related or are they really the same? I see the term or phrase "Gun control" to almost be biased in itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. In the US, I think "Gun control" is used equally by groups on both sides of the issue, probably even more so by the anti-firearm folks. Also, not that it is definite, but when I Google "gun control" there are 36 times more hits of coverage than "gun politics" (>21 million vs. 600k) So while not definitive, it indicates much more common name and coverage in sources for "gun control". And yes, google hits IS an indication, and yes it is ONLY a non-definitive indicator of what has more coverage in sources and what is the common name, both relevant under Wikipedia policies. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the relevance of the Google hits. And yes it is not definitive. But, is there a way to understand how much of those hits are US centric in nature. IS this article really about "Gun regulation in the United states"? if so, does that not, in some way, indicate that this is a POV fork (or...playing devil's advocate support the notion that this is independent of the other article)?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm guessing that both are more prevalent in the US and that neither term is particularly US centric. If anything, I would think that "gun politics" is more US centric because in lots of non-US places / times/history there is or was control with little or no politics. There is overlap between the articles. But I think there is a big difference between the titles and in what should naturally be covered under them. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

In case it helps, I looked up "gun control" on JSTOR, and it has 148 pages of articles using that phrase, at 25 per page. Not all are discussing the term; for example, some are simply referring to other articles that discuss it, so that figure (148 x 25 ) is inflated. Still, it does seem to be a phrase commonly used by academics for restrictions on gun ownership.

Why not hold an RfC asking two questions: (1) Should Gun politics be merged into Gun control? and (2) Should this article (the target article) continue to be called Gun control? It will be much easier to decide on content once you've decided on the structure. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to hold an RfC to decide whether policy should be complied with. This article is a POV fork, and as such must be merged or deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about something like this and it seems more than reasonable. I support the proposal.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
One cannot hold a RfC on whether policy should be complied with... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a policy, it is a guideline. If an RFC to determine how to proceed by consensus is not the route to go, what do you propose exactly? Let you do what you want with no discussion. That ain't gonna happen.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Compliance with NPOV is policy. POV forks are contrary to policy, as violating NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
What about calling the merged article "gun control?" Obviously it is the same topic, but which is the best name? TFD (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to suggest 'firearms regulation' as both descriptive and neutral - though if the consensus is 'gun control' I'd go along with it, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Uhm...then do we need to go further with this discussion at all? The above suggests that there is no real dispute here. Is this just a matter of only having a single article regardless of topic or subject? I think we may have been led down a path that leads back to the beginning. Oh well. So much for this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That looks to me like an agreement to have one article, called either firearms regulation or gun control. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright. I think I see where this is leading. I would support "Firearms regulation".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
A point of clarification. SlimVirgin seems to be suggesting merging the content from 'gun politics' into this article. This has never been discussed, as far as I'm aware - instead, my proposal was to merge what policy-compliant material from this article there is into the 'gun politics article. There seems to be a consensus emerging at the WP:AN discussion that my proposal is justified. As a matter of procedure, it would also seem entirely improper to decide here to turn another article into a redirect, which is what SV's proposal would apparently entail, if I've understood it right. Could SV clarify for us which way the merge was intended to go? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I'm here because Gaijin42 asked me to reconsider the RfC close, so I'm making these suggestions as an admin who might need to close another RfC. I'd therefore prefer not to express an opinion (and, indeed, I don't really have one).
Looking at both articles, I don't see a difference in principle between them. Gun politics is a summary-style overview of articles about gun control in particular countries, followed by a section on general arguments. Gun control looks to me like a much less extensive version of the same thing, plus Terminology, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and 3D printing. So if they're merged, the usual thing to do would be to include the content of both, except where they essentially mirror each other. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the point entirely. The reason for the merge is that this article is a POV fork, which gives undue weight to a fringe perspective. If we merge everything into gun politics (renamed or otherwise), we will still have an NPOV violation. The 'gun control leads to totalitarianism' material simply doesn't belong in any article purporting to give global coverage. It has no credence anywhere except amongst elements of the US gun lobby, and per WP:WEIGHT, the only place it needs discussion at all is in an article concerning US firearms regulation - where it must of course be represented as the unhistorical minority viewpoint it clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There still would be the question of which article is moved, and which redirected. It's tempting to support firearm regulation as the target article, create the merged article, and redirect both in, but that would require keeping the appropriate tags indicating that gun control and gun politics histories need to be retained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If the sticking point is that some editors don't want Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to be in either article – or to be in the one article if they are merged – another suggestion would be to have one called Gun control or Firearms regulation, and a second called History of gun control or History of firearms regulation.
I don't really understand the focus on "are we merging A into B, or B into A?". We would be merging both into one, then deciding on a name. The merge could include a history merge, if that's the issue. Or I think it could. It certainly could technically, but we would need to look to see what the effect of that would be on the appearance of the histories. It would probably be okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, strike that last sentence. It probably wouldn't be okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
A 'history of firearms regulation' article that included any reference to the 'gun control leads to totalitarianism' material would be contrary to policy, since it isn't based on historical evidence. It is based on cherry-picking, and on outright misrepresentation of the facts, and isn't taken seriously by credible historians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if it were written that way it would be an NPOV violation, but its inclusion in an article on gun control need not be a violation in and of itself. Everything would depend on the way it was presented and written.
The thing to be avoided is the making of a merge decision in order to exclude certain content. First, decide whether it makes sense to have one or two articles. If one, decide what to call it based on which term most academics or other high-quality sources use. Once that's done you can look to see whether any particular section is appropriate for inclusion and whether it's written and sourced appropriately. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Merging material knowing that the resultant article violates NPOV would be contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So is deleting material solely because you think it would violate NPOV. We would need to discuss the material separately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't just my opinion. See the discussion at WP:AN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:AN is (an) incorrect forum, so cannot override the apparent consensus here against merger until Gaijin has an opportunity to describe the difference, and the name of the target article is established. If Gaijin fails to provide a difference, there would be a consensus of all the other editors who have commented that a merger should be done. However, if the target article should be named gun control, then gun politics should be redirected to gun control, rather than the reverse, and there are at least three editors who feel that the target should be gun control, and redirecting gun control to gun politics would have to be reverted. If you don't want to wait for consensus here, WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
'Incorrect forum'? For contributors to comment on whether an article is a POV fork - a violation of policy? That is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy, your continuing claims of "policy violation" and claim that something justifies you to force your preferred resolution and threats to do it unilaterally are built on a card house of unproven assertions and misrepresenting guidelines as policy and misrepresenting those. It does not have the validity that you claim and your strong-arm approach isn't going to fly. Why don't you just quit that stuff and join the reasonable discussion amongst reasonable people here who are trying to work out the best approach? North8000 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion at WP:AN makes entirely clear, there is strong support for my assertion that this article is a POV fork, and as such violates WP:NPOV policy. Why don't you just quit and accept that Wikipedia isn't a platform for US gun-lobby propaganda? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Now you add baseless personal attacks to what you are saying here. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing 'baseless' in what I said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The appropriate place for the Nazi material is at Gun politics in Germany, and indeed, it's already there. Therefore, the Nazi material can be removed from this article without any loss of content, except for the propagandistic attempt to associate contemporary US regulation of firearms with Nazis and Communists. — goethean 14:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
the history happened in Germany, but at a minimum it is a notable part of the US debate and belongs there as well. Halbrook's research also won two awards in Switzerland on the same topic, so claiming this is a topic of interest only in the US is willfully ignorant. Here is a recent article in Canada discussing gun confiscation, where it is compared to the Nazis as well. [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


@Andy, OK what is your basis for your accusation that my reasons for what I've said in these discussions are me considering this to be a "platform for US gun-lobby propaganda"? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm basing it on you using Wikipedia as a platform for US gun-lobby propaganda. Example:[4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That is a repetition of the baseless accusation, not a basis for it. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'baseless', I see no point in continuing this conversation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Is any of the material North restored not taken from the sources, and were any of the sources not reliable (except, of course, The Black Book of Communism)? The fact that the sources are wrong, and contradicted by reliable sources, would be grounds for correction. I tend to agree with Andy the charges are not baseless, though; merely not correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not difficult to cobble together material from sources which makes a mockery of NPOV by emphasizing fringe material, and that is exactly has happened at this article. No historians which are not right-wing political activists cite Nazi disarmament of the Jews as an analogy for US firearm regulation. But this article does! That's a problem. — goethean 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no legitimate reason why a general article on gun control/firearm regulation would emphasize the Nazis so much. There is an illegitimate reason, however: if the authors of the article are taking their cues from the talking points of anti-gun control political activists. — goethean 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That frankly is not an illegitimate reason. They are a notable voice in the debate. That you disagree with them is fine. That you are trying to censor all aspects of their viewpoint is not. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The article on Firearm regulation in the US could/should have a one-sentence summary saying that anti-gun control activists tend to associate gun control with Nazi Germany and communist Russia. See also: Gun politics in Germany. That would be appropriate to the argument's place in contemporary thought — goethean 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty creative, trying to call coverage of prominent instances of gun control "trying to associate" and implying that such is a nefarious thing. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The only people describing them as 'prominent instances of gun control' are the gun lobby. Probably because in the case of Nazi Germany at least, it is simply incorrect. The Nazi's eased gun ownership laws, and their restrictions on Jews owning guns were a side-effect of their actions in removing their German nationality. But then you know this already, don't you - it has already been pointed out umpteen times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If they lost their rights by losing their citizenship, why did they pass a law that specifically prohibited jews from owning weapons? Nobody is saying that the nazi's were "pro gun control" or in general implemented strict gun control. They are saying that gun control was used targeted against the jews - and this is indisputably true. The importance of that fact is up for grabs. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If 'Nobody is saying that the nazi's were "pro gun control"' then why is North8000 referring to this as an example of 'prominent instances of gun control'? The simple fact is that 'gun control' as such had nothing whatsoever to do with what motivated the Nazi's in passing their legislation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the importance of Nazi gun control policy is not up for grabs. It is not considered relevant by the vast majority of books on gun control. I just went to Google books, got the first hits on "Gun control",[5] and searched on "Nazi" in those books. #1: no hits.[6] #2: no hits.[7] #3: no hits.[8] #4 is not searchable. #5 is by anti-gun control activist John Lott. No hits for "Nazi".[9] I can keep on going. Go look at a randomly selected book on gun control and see how much of it is devoted to Nazis. I guarantee that the book spends less of its content on Nazis than this article does. That is indicative of a very big problem with the article and some very big serious problems with the behavior of the editors who have written this article and who are fighting tooth and nail to avoid changes to the article. — goethean 17:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about basic coverage of the topic, not all of the creative straw man stuff that Goethean is accusing others of. Quite simply, coverage of instances of:

  • Per Dictionary.com, gun control is: "Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms"
  • Per Websters gun control is: "Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns".

North8000 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

    • I noticed that the dictionary mentions the first use of the term is 1964. Seems to be somewhat new as far as terms go. I lean towards the proposal to create a neutral article such as Firearms regulation and transfer only the reliably referenced material from both articles into the new article.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
What exactly, North8000, did I say that was a straw man? — goethean 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Well one example is saying that we want to "cite Nazi disarmament of the Jews as an analogy for US firearm regulation." instead of the actually-advocated mere inclusion of coverage of Nazi disarmament of the Jews North8000 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Then why is the article so concerned to cite Stephen Halbrook, a non-historian, and leading advocate of the US gun lobby? Historical subjects should be cited to historians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That is unrelated to this thread which is about merely including coverage, and the straw man mis-description of what people wanting only that are seeking. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Please at least try to write in comprehensible English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I know it's hard to read but it is logically sound English. In short, what you are bringing up is unrelated to this thread. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Asking why the article includes the fringe opinions of a non-historian in a section supposedly about the history of gun control is 'unrelated' to a thread on dealing with POV forking? That is a novel perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Now you won't even deal in the obvious realities such as what this thread is about. Talking to you is a complete waste of time so I'm not going to do so unless that situation improves. Why don't you just continue your practice of just throwing things at people (with your eyes covered and your ears plugged) somewhere else and maybe the adults who are having an actual conversation here can resolve this. North8000 (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The 'reality of what this thread is about' is that this article is a POV fork, and it will continue to be recognised as such whether you like it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GC v. GP

The following is my attempt at giving distinction to each topic:

GUN POLITICS is all inclusive. It includes any topic on the subject of gun control along with issues regarding the firearms industry (general business, financial dealings, etc.), the NRA's activities, current events and their effect on the industry and gun control and other issues, along with issue relating to hunting and wildlife conservation and control, even environmental issues regarding the use of lead bullets in ammunition. The list can go on and on...

  • Example, the 1937 Pittman–Robertson Act that put an excise tax on the manufacture of firearms is clearly "gun politics" related, but not part of the topic of "gun control".
  • Example, any of the legislation regarding concealed carry, right to carry, or the banning of open-carry of firearms.

GUN CONTROL is a subset of the above specifically relating to how firearms are addressed NON-inclusive of the issues associated with, but not dealing directly with firearms.

IMO Gun control in the United States (not the redirect) should be its own article along with in the Gun politics in the United States article a small section linked to the main article about Gun control in the United States. If this necessitates articles for other countries about their Gun Control issues, then sobeit. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you have a source that uses that distinction?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Since when do we need references for how we organize articles? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I no source can be provided to indicate that the supposed distinction you have proposed can be found, there can be no legitimate grounds to object to merging our two articles on what is clearly the same subject: regulation of access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The authority of the U.S. government to control firearms is based on its authority to collect customs and excise taxes. The first federal legislation was the National Firearms Act of 1934. The law enforcement agency was originally under the Treasury and has responsibility for alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. Of course the effect of taxing firearms is that they are controlled. One can only obtain a firearm, at least a new one, by paying a tax.
Your examples of gun politics not gun control include an act that transfers gun taxes to conservation, an act prohibiting concealed weapons and an act to confiscate firearms during an emergency. I fail to see how the last two are not gun control - they concern when someone may not own a gun and how to utilize their guns. The first is more relevant to conservation than gun politics but is not wholly irrelevant to gun control, because taxation is an important aspect.
TFD (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course you can substantiate every claim you just made as something other than your opinion, right? As to your assertion regarding taxation, try applying it to the petroleum industry or income taxes and see if it still makes sense. To me it doesn't, there's is far more to this issue than a money trail unless you have a POV that you'd like to share.
As for "first federal legislation", I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't count. But if you're referring to an act of Congress or similar effort, then its actually 1927 to ban the sale of handguns or other concealable firearms through the mail. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
As Maunus says, we need a source which makes the distinction clear - and furthermore, in the context of this article as it stands, makes the distinction at an international level. Without this, there can be no justification for the forking of our two articles on the regulation of access to firearms. Subdividing an article with a supposed global perspective on the basis of a questionable (and so far unsourced) distinction based on the US alone is simply contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Which policy is that? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Original research. If the suggestion that there are two different topics is based solely on WP:OR, it is a violation of both policies to separate material in this way, particularly when based on what appears to be an attempt to apply US political distinctions to a global article - and more so still when the article attempts to present the POV of sections of the US gun lobby as somehow representative at the same global level. This article is a content fork. It is also a POV fork. This is self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
So if I understand your logic, because you don't agree with or don't understand the distinction that I (along with several other Users) am making you're labeling it POV and OR?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No, because it is a distintinction you (and sevreal other users) apparently made up (with apparently no sources to support it) in order to remove some material from one article to another, to write an article that more closely resembles the talkingpoints of a particular political agenda.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
That same argument goes both ways, I could easily claim that preventing the distinction blocks the inclusion of information that "closely resembles the talking points of a particular political agenda". Granted its a different agenda, but its still one nonetheless.
Furthermore, claiming that the suggestion for a means to organize the article(s) and/or their content is POV, OR, or has some other intention just seems to smack of POV in and of itself. I genuinely want to find a methodology that provides a means for all sides of the issue to be presented without the content being used to actually debate the issue. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
No you couldn't because you haven't provided a source to say that the distinction actually exists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, if the distinction you cite could be sourced, it would require the removal of the sections on Nazi Germany from this article - because, as has been pointed out above, the removal of access to firearms by Jews in Germany was almost entirely a consequence on the removal of their German nationality, rather than as a result of any specific 'gun control' legislation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me, I think having a non-country specific "Gun Control" article is the cause of this overall mess. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand Manus', Andy's, et. al. viewpoint regarding Gun Control and Gun Politics, it would seem that you'd agree with the following statements...

  • Gun politics (gun related political activity) of any kind is by default a type of "gun control".
  • All gun control is political in nature.

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Regulation of anything, whether it is guns or ice cream, is a political activity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, I did not provide sources because I assumed it was general knowledge for anyone expressing an opinion on the article. However see for example, Guns in American Society, p. 22, "The first major federal gun control legislation is passed as the National Firearms Act of 1934". "Sonzinsky v. United States allowed Congress to use its tax power to create gun control laws." (p. 990) The government subsequently has used the commerce clause.
Your comparison to the petroleum industry is puzzling. I do not think that the U.S. uses its power to tax income as a way of regulating petroleum, and there is AFAIK no federal petroleum police. Do you know if one requires a license to buy petroleum, whether convicted felons cannot purchase it or if certain types of petroleum are banned? TFD (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
For your edification... Miller Act "AFAIK" - this leads me to believe you did not bother to look it up before posting your comment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Odd you should say that because I was not making a comment but quoting a source and providing a link - this leads me to believe you did not bother to read my comment before posting your reply. I suggest you click on the link and edify yourself. TFD (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
One can only obtain gasoline by paying a tax. The types of gasoline allowed are heavily regulated (lead, octane, ethenol), how it is stored and used is regulated, and there are armed agents of a federal agency (EPA) handy to enforce violations of the laws regarding petroleum, its manufacture, and usage. There is even a tax on gasoline that merely passes through a state but is not purchased in that state (safe passage anyone?) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is original research to say that all regulation or taxation of guns is explicitly gun control - particularly when you admit that you think taxation of gas is not gas control. Certainly some gun control is done under the taxation power (although much more is done under commerce power). That is not the same as saying all taxation or regulation is control. What are your reliable sources saying so? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO these clearly can and should exists as separate articles, and if one were to be deleted, it would be "Gun Politics" which has about 1/100th the wp:notability of Gun Control. But I don't even agree with the "subset" point that someone nothing this has made. One important distinction is that there has been gun control where it would take a stretch of the imagination to call it gun politics, and I imagine that folks trying to suppress coverage of "unarguably bad" gun control (e.g. Nazi Germany) figure that that could be used to suppress that coverage. Which IMHO is the likely explanation why some folks are trying so hard to get rid of this article. Roughly speaking they are the same ones who tried to eliminate coverage of "unarguably bad" gun control (e.g. in Nazi Germany), IMHO because that it works against promoting the stance on gun control that they wish to promote. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So yet again you are insisting that there are two different subjects, but providing no evidence whatsoever to back your opinion up. Well that isn't going to work. Provide a source that states that the subject matter (not the title - this is irrelevant in an article giving international coverage, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) of this article on the regulation of firearms is any different from the subject matter of our other article on the regulation of firearms. If you cannot do this, there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for opposing a merge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
North8000, you are saying that some parts of gun laws passed under taxation or commerce clause powers are "gun politics" while others are "gun control" and it is original research for us not to make that distinction. You have it the wrong way around. TFD (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
So as Andy has mentioned previously that certain things are "self evident", the fact there is legislation that involves firearms and taxation, but its intention is not gun control seems to have no bearing on this discussion. For example, the 1037 Pittman-Robertson Act placed an excise tax on firearms and ammunition for the preservation of animal habitats.
How is this "gun control"? It involves guns and taxes, but does not apply to their use. I stipulate that it falls into the realm of "gun politics", but not control. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
TFD and Andy, the arguments in your last post are invalid. Sourcing coverage requirements are for presence of material in the article, and for the existence of an article (which gun control certainly fulfills and "gun politics" might fulfill) not for the comparison of the two words, and not for talk page discussions outside of the above two. Lot's of people try to do the two step process and say that it applies to all talk page discussions (which is wrong) and also try to create a situation of "my unsourced opinion wins unless you meet the very high bar of finding a wp:rs that addresses and refutes my unsourced opinion" Which is what both of you are trying to do here with your assertion that the two terms are synonymous. So such is invalid on several levels. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
North8000, you are trying to establish that gun politics and gun control are two separate topics and treated as such in the literature. You have provided no evidence of that, merely OR. We are expected to believe that an article should mention the National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed guns, based on the government's authority to tax, but ignore a law passed a few years later that changed the way in which guns were taxed. Are there any lobbying groups or think tanks that concentrate on gun politics but ignore gun control? And do not pro- and anti-gun control groups comment on taxes of guns? Do you think that if a Congressman proposed a 100K tax on handguns that the NRA would be silent because it was not gun control? Find me a source that writes about gun politics but not gun control. Gaiijin, do you suggest we start an article about "Gas control"? TFD (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(added later) TFD, your implication that a non-answer to "Find me a source that writes about gun politics but not gun control." supports your assertion logically flawed / baseless. Such would lend some support to an argument that gun politics is a subset of gun control, and zero support to an assertion of the reverse or that they are synonymous. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)
I think I should have skipped the sidebar "some" point, and now emphasize that the "some" is small. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(added later) Your opening argument is also in reverse. You are asserting that they are synonymous, it is up to you to try to establish that. Sources don't pair up and address things that are not synonymous. Imaging if I said that "bird" is synonymous with "battleship" and that they shall be considered synonyms unless you find a reliable source that addresses the pair and says that they are not synonymous. That would be absolutely backwards. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is really a discussion not about content but about article naming. From that perspective, Gun Control is a limiting name for content that relates to Gun Politics and, as such, the name should be a redirect and the content should be merged into Gun Politics. If gun politics in a particular region or historical period are sufficiently notable as to warrant separate articles (i.e. Gun Politics in the United States), then those articles can be created in addition to the main article. I would look at Abortion as a possible parallel. There is an "Abortion" article; there is no "Pro-Life" article, but rather an article about the "Pro-Life Movement in the United States". Similarly, we can have a "Gun Politics" article and then, if appropriate, a "Gun Control Movement in the United States" article. Jaytwist (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are several (recent) articles or topics discussing issues that are gun politics, that I think one would be hard pressed to say were gun control. If you do think that all gun policies and regulation are an attempt to prevent ownership of guns, isn't that very close to the conspiracy fringe theory you are so adamant is crazy?

More directly to your point, here is a reliable source book talking about 5 types of gun policies/politics 2 of which are firmly "gun control", and others which are not. (starting at page 81) http://books.google.com/books?id=o6gBg1kF-AYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gun+politics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fE7kUcGaNa7EiwKdkYD4CA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gun%20politics&f=false

Notably in that book the discussion of civil liability for gun manufacturers.

A second source on the topic of gun politics, with significant discussion of liability policies. http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=PA485&dq=gun+liability&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nE_kUdHRB4-7jALtnoDYBg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gun%20liability&f=false

The ATF regulates importation of guns from foreign manufacturers based on a "points" system. Guns failing certain criteria are not available for import, however the exact same gun is eligible for purchase and ownership by anyone who can own guns - if some of the parts are swapped out for american parts. Not gun control, import control.

Shall I keep going? What are your sources asserting that all of these topics are in fact gun control?

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A few more international sources, to avoid the US-centric argument

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

aijin42, you present Guns, Gun Control, and Elections as evidence that its author distinguishes between gun politics and control. But in fact the five types of gun politics mentioned on p. 81 are all gun control. Who can own guns, what guns may be sold, how those guns are to be used, how they can be sold, and criminal law to enforce these policies are all aspects of gun control. The author says in the preface, p. xi, "This book focuses on the political aspects of gun control." It seems that gun politics is if anything a subset of gun control, according to your source.
North8000 it is up to you to provide sources that they are different. Then we can post the "Not to be confused with" template. For example the Scots language article says it is a type of Scottish English, not to be confused with Scottish Gaelic, which is a type of Celtic language. That is based on distinctions made in reliable sources not OR.
TFD (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
And the other sources and topics. Is it your assertion that they are all gun aspects of gun control? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The Gun in Politics is not about "gun politics" and does not even use that term. It is about the weapons used by the IRA. What does it have to do with the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act? TFD (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So, you assert (without sourcing) that "gun politics" and "gun control" are exact synonyms, but that "gun politics" and "the gun in politics" are completely unrelated concepts. You are choosing to artificially limit gun politics to only parts of gun politics that you deem relevant. The IRA has nothing to do with wildlife restoration, but they may very well have something to do with gun politics in their own right. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not have to show they are exact synonyms. You need to show that gun politics is a separate area of study. When I google "gun in politics", the first 10 hits are for the book about the IRA.[10] That indicates that it is not a separate area of study, just the title of a book. If you think it is a separate area of study, then you should be able to find a source that defines it, or "gun politics". OTOH I can find sources that define gun control. TFD (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
In this context and instance, yes you do if you expect to make any kind of remotely convincing argument or have any expectation of your views taken as anything other than opinionated rantings. Furthermore, if you have WP:RS's that prove your points, I suggest you present them at every opportunity for everyone's benefit and your own credibility. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks. You need to show that "gun politics" is a separate field of study, which you have failed to do. Gaijin42 evidence included a book called Gun Politics in which the author identified the subject of the book as "gun control." He also provided a book called the Politics of the Gun, which is about Northern Ireland and as far as can be shown he is the only person to use that term, and it does not cover such things as taxing firearms to pay for conservation. TFD (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it your opinion, that import restrictions on guns, when the exact same gun manufactured domestically is perfectly legal to buy and own (or legal to import as personal property) is a form of gun control? How about the EPA regulating lead bullets? laws mandating/prohibiting doctors from asking about gun ownership? Zero tolerance policies causing suspension/expulsion from school for drawing guns, or pointing fingers and saying bang? Issues of militarization and continuum of force by police? Are these all gun control? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinions are irrelevant - you need to provide a source that explicitly states that 'gun control is a separate topic within the broader field of discussions relating to the regulation of access to firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Provide a source specifically stating that those topics are gun control, because otherwise they are not on topic for this article, but are on topic for the gun politics article. I do not dispute that gun control is a wholly owned subsidiary topic of gun politics. but it is a highly notable and huge subtopic, deserving of its own article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Prove it. Cite a source that says so. AndyTheGrump (talk)
As an aside I don't fully agree with Gaijin42, there is gun control to be covered that is not under gun politics. But either way, the Wikipedia standard is substantial coverage of the topic by reliable sources. These immensely exist for "Gun control" I'll go find one or two (of the tens of thousands available) to prove it. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, is it your assertion that all aspects of gun politics are gun control? Or is gun control one aspect of gun politics.(perhaps an aspect consuming 90% of the pie). I submit that NEITHER of us will be able to find a reliable source directly answering this question, because a narrow question such as this is only of interest to wikipedians. But certainly we can build consensus. Do you disagree that (with the exception of the IRA one, which is questionable), the topics I have outlined above fall under the umbrella of gun politics, and would be appropriate for inclusion in an article on gun politics? @North8000 : What gun control do you think would not be part of gun politics? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
One example would be gun control under totalitarian regimes. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Meh, I disagree on that. the type of government implementing/enforcing policies doesn't make them any less policies. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand if you really mean "policies". If youu mean politics, them my response would be that the "rubber meets the road" test. Folks who don't want clearly negative gun control covered have been claiming that gun control isn't gun control in order to keep it out. And so those saying it should be covered have had to make lengthy efforts to establish that those instances of gun control are gun control. Could you imagine having to argue that those instances of gun control are gun politics? North8000 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It is my assertion that Wikipedia must only have one article on the subject of regulation of access to firearms at an international level. It is my assertion that whether the article is entitled 'gun control' or 'gun politics' is irrelevant - though personally I don't think either title is ideal. What matters is the subject - and so far no source has been provided that justifies Wikipedia having two articles on the same topic, one of which is blatantly written to promote the perspectives of a particular minority POV confined to a single nationality, and which resorts to original research and a skewed, factually-incorrect and ignorant propaganda-based view of history to do so. If you want to push such nonsense, find another forum. Wikipedia is an international project, and having articles on international subjects written to serve the interests of the more conspiracy-minded sections of the us gun lobby is a violation of core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

much of the content of the GP article belongs in this article, with a summary of gun control remaining in the gun politics article. That will reduce/remove any objection to this article being a POV fork, and allow for an overview of all aspects in the GP article without being completely dominated by GC. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Much of the content in this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, except possibly in an article on firearms regulation in the US - where it maybe deserves a paragraph as fringe opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The disputed content is irrelevant to the discussion of if GC and GP are synonymous. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Without the 'disputed content', there would be nothing to argue over. This is a blatant POV fork, and all this nonsense about the meaning of words is being raised solely to justify this clear violation of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I contend that the term "Control" is not neutral and the article is not meant to be neutral. It seems to me that this was a clear case of POV forking and should be merged with the Gun politics article.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist This came up during the RFC as well. Could you elaborate as to which way you think it is biased? If you think the term "gun control" is anti-gun-control, I provided many quotes from pro-control groups/individuals using the term above in the threaded discussion. This term is not analagous to pro-life/pro-choice imo where it is inherently framing the issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Let me explain my perspective on this. The definition of "control" is:" To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. ". While the definition of "regulation" is:"The act of regulating or the state of being regulated". I feel that suggesting dominance or authority in this instance is not neutral and has some bias in the single use of the term in this situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, one of the core disputes has been that some regulation is to exert control, where some regulation is for other purposes. but WP:COMMONNAME should blow this particular sub-discussion out of the water imo. In any case, here are quite a few quotes/sources from PRO control sources using the term (copied from discussion above).

  • our category "Gun control advocates"
  • Obama : "We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions." and "Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill"
  • Bloomberg "This isn’t about gun control. It’s about crime control."
  • Chuck schumer "Those of us who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms."
  • Chris rock : "Gun control? I think we need bullet control. Every bullet should cost $5000"
  • Thomas Friedman "In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control "
  • Bernard Schafer "Never think I'm worried about losing sales by speaking out for human rights + gun control. I'd rather be broke than corrupt"
  • Bill Clinton (During 82 gubernatorial campaign) "I am in support of the NRA position on gun control. "Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control.",
  • Harvey Weinstein : "If we dont get gun control laws in this country, we are full of beans. [...] its time to put up or shut up about gun control for both parties"
  • Juan Williams "I support gun control",
  • Democratic "Make america safe" from manifesto "A new agenda for the new decade" : Goals for 2010 - "Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures."

Regarding it being a US only term (Certainly it is an english term)

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the details, but...if the term itself is relatively new, can you really say it has a common name. We have at least established the terms first use was in 1969. There is some thought that the term was meant as a non neutral phrase to purpose slant the perception of control as being the mainstream. I wonder though, just because of its use, can it really be called the common name...especially if we are still debating what the subject really is.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Moving forward, Amadscientist suggested above that a new article be created called Firearms regulation, and that the reliably referenced material from Gun control and Gun politics be transferred to it. Both those titles would be redirected to the new one, and we could protect the old titles so that they're not recreated as forks.

Can people say here whether they would support that? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I also support the salting of the other titles.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentThere are several components to that proposal. I'm a "maybe" on the merge and possible rename idea for now (waiting to see the specifics on how this shakes out) I'm against trying to create new rewritten version of wp:ver/wp:nor for source requirements for inclusion just for this article. Those policies don't need to be rewritten into a special version just for this article. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue with the Nazi material is WP:UNDUE. And the Nazi material, as you've been told about a thousand times now with no response from you, is already covered at Gun politics in Germany. There is no legitimate reason to cover the same material here. — goethean 00:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Mis-characterizing what I said/didn't say again. again. I've given my thoughts many times on this. It is a major instance of gun control and needs to be covered in the gun control article. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It isn't a 'major instance of gun control', because credible historians (as opposed to US gun lobby propagandists) don't consider it significant. Or 'gun control'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about an aspect of politics. And it is significant in the realm of politics, regardless of its historical importance. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The politics of the US gun debate is significant in the US. It doesn't merit coverage in a global overview. The US isn't the centre of the universe. Get used to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Not if the 'reliably referenced' material includes NPOV-violating fringe topics only ever appropriate in an article on the debate in the US, no. If the new article in intended to give a global perspective, it is grossly undue to include Stephen Halbrook for example - he isn't a historian, and his arguments have no credibility elsewhere. An article on a global topic should only ever give an overview of debates, and the insistence by some that the US gun debate has to be covered in full in such articles is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
So, an article which covers the topic internationally, is not allowed to cover an argument made by a notable minority of the only country having a significant debate on the topic. Thats not censorship at all. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't censorship at all. It is WP:WEIGHT. And WP:NPOV. And WP:FRINGE. Need I go on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please state how your intent to exclude this materiel complies with the following parts of policy

  • 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
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
  • Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
  • This argument has been brought up In congress, by sitting congressmen debating gun control bills (successfully btw, the '68 GCA does not include registration requirements due to the objections of Rep John Dingell were Nazi comparison based.
  • By sitting federal court justices, in court opinions of gun control cases (Silveria)
  • By the most notable and high profile anti-gun control group (The NRA)
  • By gun law researchers, who argue (and win) cases before SCOTUS, and who have been cited by SCOTUS repeatedly on gun cases
  • Been brought up in hundreds of non-objective works on gun control (which is perfectly acceptable per policy quoted above)
  • Been brought up in multiple objective works as one of the opposing viewpoints
  • Covered as a notable opinion by MANY reliable news stories (many indeed which argue against the viewpoint, but that proves that it IS a notable viewpoint) (including multiple international sources)

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly significant in the US. It is clearly not significant elsewhere. It belongs in articles on the US. It doesn't belong in an article giving a global overview, which should cover the general debate, rather than going into details which are discussed elsewhere. Globally, it isn't the view of a 'significant minority'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Presumably, in your hypothetical perfect article, there would be some sort of arguments section, with pro/con arguments. As the US is the only country having significant debate currently, where exactly are you going to source that section from, if American debate is off limits? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Who said that there was going to be an 'arguments' section? And if there were, it certainly couldn't be restricted to the US. That would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. Incidentally, if there is 'no debate elsewhere' (source?), why were you earlier trying to claim that the 'gun control leads to totalitarianism' argument isn't restricted to the US. You seem to be contradicting yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
While I agree in spirit I also like to take one thing at a time. Yes, non neutral material will need to be discussed and anything that violates our policies on neutrality will need to be deleted. I am in agreement with Andy on that, but that we go one step at a time in dealing with the multiple issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's be more specific, Gaijin42. This edit of yours, which reverted my removal of two large block-quotations of the Stephen Halbrook material, is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, and if Wikipedia administration had the cojones to enforce its own rules, is behavior that should have serious consequences. Fortunately for you and team-mates, Wikipedia policy is not enforced. The idea that Stephen Halbrook is such a major figure in the gun control debate that his frankly idiotic theory that gun regulation in the United States is just like the Holocaust, is ludicrous, laughable, and completely indefensible. Your edit is a clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and in a better world, there would be consequences for your behavior. The fact that your edit is not reverted and that your misbehavior is condoned shows that Wikipedia lacks the will to enforce its own rules. — goethean 15:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
What part of "ALL all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic do you fail to understand? Do you deny that these views are published and meet reliable source criteria? Keep in mind "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" the violation of NPOV is the attempted complete censorship of a notable viewpoint. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Globally, this isn't significant. This isn't an article about the US. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement for "globally significant" in the policy. More generically speaking, there is no qualifier for significance over the entire geographic scope of the article. About 90% of all material in all articles would be excluded by that non-existent criteria. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you are endorsing the systemic US-centric bias in Wikipedia articles. That violates WP:NPOV. Giving undue space to an extreme minority view, as this article does, is a violation of NPOV. I attempted to repair this bias and my edit was reverted twice. — goethean 17:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You counter the systematic bias by adding in information from other locations, not by removing information. ", this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions," Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact remains that dedicating a section of this article to Stephen Halbrook's theory is a blatant violation of NPOV. — goethean 17:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
My intention was to make this an international article reflecting the formatting from the "Gun politics" article that seems to be broad in scope to include other nation's regulations and political infrastructure.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping score

We seem to have several intertwined discussions/issues/debates we are trying to settle or reach a consensus on if possible. Here's how I see it...

  • Does the "gun control" article in its current form adequately represent the topic from an international perspective?
  • Are gun control and gun politics distinct topics?
  • Regardless of the above, is "gun control" part of the topic of "gun politics" or is "gun politics" part of the topic of "gun control"?
  • Does gun control equate to gun politics?
  • Does gun politics equate to gun control?

Maybe it would be easier if address this in smaller pieces versus the mish-mash we having currently.

One observation, I'm beginning to doubt whether we are all using the same definition or interpretation of the words "control" and "politics". In this regard, I find this quote from the politics article rather interesting...

Politics: History: The state: The origin of the state is to be found in the development of the art of warfare. Historically speaking, all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.

...and here we are debating "gun politics".

As food for thought, Gun politics does exist as a separate article and has sections for numerous countries. There are then separate articles for individual countries. There are also separate "gun control" articles (although fewer) by country.

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that people are using different definitions of words - but Wikipedia articles aren't about words, they are about subjects. The subject matter of our current 'gun control' and 'gun politics' articles is clearly the same in both cases - regulation of access to firearms. The title isn't what matters. Subdividing a topic on the basis that different words are used to describe it doesn't make sense. Not that this is what has been done here anyway. What has been done is that the 'different words' have been used to promote a particular fringe perspective on the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
For Pete's sake Andy, I'm trying to facilitate communication and resolution on this Talk page. Your fastidiousness is admirable, but how about helping to solve the situation? By the way, thank you for agreeing with my point... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump Is it your opinion that the topic of gun politics is restricted to "regulation of access to firearms" Or, would that topic also include regulation involving firearms that is not restricting access? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are asking here. What form of regulations are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
All regulations regarding guns are gun politics yes? Are all regulations regarding guns by definition gun control? Or are there regulations regarding guns that can be categorized as gun politics, but not gun control? (IE, conservation taxes, self defense laws, import duties, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you even bother to read what I write? I am not the slightest bit interested in yet more facile debates about what you think the words 'gun control' or 'gun politics' mean. It doesn't matter what you think they mean. We go by reliable sources, and no sources have been provided to demonstrate that the subject of firearms regulation can be subdivided in the way this article purports to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Subtopics of topics are given split out articles constantly WP:SUMMARY. They do not need to be independant areas of research to have standalone articles. Every "Article" of the constitution has its own article, but they are never discussed in some context that ignores the constitution. They are a notable sub part of the constitution. Gun control is a notable (most notable?) sub-part of gun politics. The existing gun politics article is essentially List of gun laws by country currently, and does not significantly discuss gun politics, or gun control as an overall concept. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No source has been provided which defines any such subtopic. The purported reasons offered for the split are pure WP:OR, and clearly intended to maintain this article as a POV fork to present a fringe viewpoint on firearms regulation. This is a violation of policy. The articles must be merged. Any 'overview' must clearly be based on mainstream sources, and should go into the combined article. This is all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful to focus this discussion on the following thesis: Gun Control is a subset of Gun Politics and should be addressed in the relevant Gun Politics sections. Something notable and standalone, such as "Gun control movement in the United States" can have its own article, but then the article title should properly reflect its content. Jaytwist (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Who's thesis is that? Nobody has produced a source that supports it, as far as I'm aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If we want to crystallize on an example of what is probably the actual core issue, where would gun control in Nazi Germany be covered? North8000 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest under Gun Politics/Germany/Nazi Germany after a proper merge of content. Jaytwist (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It is already covered at Gun politics in Germany. — goethean 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There you go, so a separate Gun Control article on the same topic is a redundant fork. Jaytwist (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's so strange, it almost feels that this is the third time I've said that. [21][22] — goethean 22:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that explains the difference between gun control and gun politics and defines and identifies the major literature on the former. TFD (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
TFD, Who are you replying to? I believe that the two articles should be merged. — goethean 03:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I was mixing you up with another editor. TFD (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing keeps getting repeated which is so clearly wrong that it isn't going to go anywhere are claims that somebody's unsourced claim will prevail unless somebody finds RS's that address and refuted this particular wikipedia debate (= that particular pair of terms). This has NO basis in policy, isn't going to go anywhere, and I wish folks would just stop repeating it. The sourcing requirements are for presence of content in the article, and for suitable coverage of the topic for existence of the article. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if we temporarily made the erroneous assumption that the two terms are synonyms, "Gun Politics" would certainly be the article to get deleted/ merged. As a rough indicator of presence in sources, "Gun Control" is 36 times more prevalent than "Gun Politics" in a Google search. (21,600,000 hits vs. 600,000). North8000 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI "Google result counts are a meaningless metric".[23] Not that it matters - decisions regarding deletion/merging of content aren't based on titles, - particularly when they are synonyms. Which they clearly are since nobody has provided even the slightest evidence that sources make the distinction. Repeating the same old BS doesn't make it true - this article is a POV fork, and it would be a POV fork regardless of what it was called. And POV forks are a violation of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Per my post two posts up, you are doing the same thing yet again. It has NO basis in policy and makes no sense. North8000 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikiopedia policy forbids POV forks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You are hopping between arguments, some would think to avoid resolution on either one. This was about (essentially) your claim that your unsourced assertion (that they are synonyms) wins unless someone produces a source that makes a statement about the particular pair of terms in dispute here. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles are about topics not words. There is no doubt that the two articles cover the same topic and therefore policy requires they be merged. If you think there is a topic separate from gun control called gun politics, then you should have no problem finding a source that defines the topic, explains how it differs from gun control and identify a body of literature. It has already been shown that a book called Gun Politics says that it is about gun control. It is part of the nature of language the English language that writers do not repeat the same term over and over again but may use different words for the same concept. For example, a book about mansions may refer to them as large houses, big houses, large residences, big residences, large homes, big homes, etc. It does not mean that each time they substitute these words for mansion they are refering to a different concept or that we should have articles about each and every one. TFD (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a huge number of overlapping topics - that is not a matter for blanket assertions of "we can't do it" - it is a matter for discussion at the proper noticeboards - such as WP:AfD where discussions about merging and the like take place. I suggest you place the matter on the proper noticeboards, and abide by such decisions as are made at the noticeboards. Collect (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the correct procedure is merge. And if you think they are overlapping topics, you have no problem finding a source that defines the topic of "gun politics", explains how it differs from gun control and identify a body of literature. TFD (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad to know that you are now the king of Wikipedia -- but for some really silly reason I had thought WP:CONSENSUS was the rule.. Glad you set me straight - whatever dictum you come up with is now sacrosanct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

By "consensus" you mean that if you and a couple of like-minded people slightly outnumber people who disagree with you, that means you are right and no one should challenge what you say to the end of time. Incidentally, it would be helpful if you sometimes weighed the arguments that different editors provide. TFD (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you were responding to me - note that I am an outside person to all of this, and find your apparent demeanour to be less than helpful here. If you were not trying to be snarky, I think you well ought to correct your use of "outdent". Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thats really not a fair characterization of Andy or anyone else commenting here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"slightly" The heavily involved editors are at a stalemate here. What is the !vote count of previously uninvolved editors? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We have an 11 year old article on an immensely wp:notable topic, and far more wp:notable than "Gun Politics" Now we have a few people trying to make up new rules, that unless somebody comes up with a wp:RS that directly addresses their unsourced assertion regarding those two particular terms (being synonyms) that the distinct and far more wp:notable article would get deleted/ merged. This has become a weird place. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the subject of the regulation of firearms is notable, and you know it. What you have entirely demonstrate is that reliable sources divide the subject in the arbitrary manner that our articles do. It is blatantly obvious that this subdivision is being used to justify a POV fork which presents what is clearly a fringe POV even in the US as some sort of matter of international significance. It isn't. Nobody else takes this bogus 'historical' argument seriously, and it simply doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article purporting to discuss the regulation of firearms at an international level. This isn't an argument about article titles. I wouldn't object to the merged article being called 'gun politics', if this was considered the best option - what matters is the content. Presenting a factually-incorrect fringe pseudo-historical argument that has some leverage amongst sections of the US gun lobby as if it is of any significance to broader debates regarding the regulation of firearms is entirely contrary to the principles by which Wikipedia operates. If the NRA or whoever wants to peddle this half-baked propaganda, it can - but not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
At a minimum it is a notable minority view. It is in hundreds of books , and almost many major neutral books on gun control as a whole mentions it. Its been raised by federal appeals judges, in gun control court cases. One of the more notable proponents of this idea argues gun control in front of SCOTUS and wins, and has been repeatedly cited by SCOTUS. Your definition of WP:FRINGE is lacking. There is no fringe here. there are facts. The facts are indisputably true. The importance or meaning of those facts is subject to some controversial opinions. But they are notable opinions. There is ZERO factual dispute of what actually happened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about comparing US gun control to Nazis? You can't be serious. — goethean 16:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the nazi use of gun contol is a) factual. b) in the opinion of some notable commentators and sources notable.
Well, outside of the US right-wing media, that's plainly bullshit. — goethean 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Such an eloquent, well cited, policy backed argument! [/sarcasm] Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, you have definitely proven yourself to be open to being persuaded by well-constructed arguments. [/sarcasm] — goethean 19:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Gaijin42, cite your sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Read the archives. cite yours. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two arguments going on here. One is about structure - should Gun Control be merged into Gun Politics? The second is about content - should certain assertions be included in a Wikipedia article? I would like to propose that we tackle these in order because bouncing between them is what has repeatedly taken this discussion to a stalemate. With that in mind, how would the editors feel about an RfC regarding the following simple, one-part question: Should "Gun Control" be merged into "Gun politics"?. Jaytwist (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that is really two questions: should there be a merge, and what should the merged article be called. I suspect we've been tying ourselves in knots at least partly because 'gun politics' isn't a very sensible name for an article - it is far from obvious what it is supposed to be discussing. I can't see another RfC here solving anything anyway - you can't separate the 'structure' debate from the 'content' one, and it is clear that those supporting the existing state of this article aren't interested in doing anything but stonewalling. I think that it might be better to see if we can find a way to involve a broader cross-section of Wikipedia contributors in a more general discussion of how we should cover issues related to firearms regulation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Broader than the RFC which had a very large number of previously uninvolved editors (yourself included) commenting? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes - and it should start by actually explaining the issues, not by asking a series of leading questions clearly intended to arrive at a particular response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If so, given the immensely greater wp:notability of the "Gun control" term, the more plausible question of merging "Gun politics" into "Gun control" should be posed. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no policy regarding the 'notability' of 'terms'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It is an article naming policy. Andy, you are certainly not the one to talk on that. The main argument used by you and others who are trying to get the article deleted is by inventing a non-existent policy. Essentially claiming that your unsourced claim that they are synonyms shall prevail unless someone provides RS'ing that addresses that particular pair of terms and says that they are not synonyms. There is absolute no policy or guideline says this and it is ludicrous to think that a source would address that particular pair of terms. Like if I said that "elephant" shall be considered a synonym of "bicycle" unless you can produce a RS that says that "elephant" is not a synonym with "bicycle". North8000 (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Notability is not the sole criterion with regard to article naming and just because a term gets a lot of journalistic usage does not necessarily mean it is the best name for an article. In any event, I agree that we should seek a broad consensus regarding the question of whether firearms regulation should be covered under "Gun politics", as "Gun control", or as something else. I will wait to see if someone with more experience on this topic is willing to create a reasonable RfC before taking it on myself. Jaytwist (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
North8000, policy regarding article names has nothing to do with 'notability'. And please stop repeating your ridiculous and irrelevant analogies - you have repeatedly been asked to provide a source which demonstrates that this article is discussing a different subject from the 'gun politics' one, and have failed to do so. And since there is no evidence that the two articles are on different subjects, there are no grounds whatsoever to oppose merger. As to what title we give the merged article, I am open to suggestions - and have already stated that I wouldn't rule out 'gun control' if there was widespread support for that. This does not however mean that the article can violate WP:NPOV policy by promoting a fringe perspective pushed by supporters of the US gun lobby. And such material should only be discussed, if at all, in an article on the situation in the US - and must of course be presented as the fringe perspective it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The analogy was to point out that your demand is ludicrous, and your claim that your theory shall prevail if that ludicrous demand is not met is also ludicrous. Maybe we can both just stop repeating that.

One article or two?

If we could set the volleys aside for them moment, on the "one article or two" question, there are three ways to compare things:

  1. The current two titles
  2. Current content of the two articles
  3. The content that would correctly be covered by the current two titles.

North8000 (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • My opinion on #1, "Gun control" is widely defined. Tow definitions that I found are: Per Dictionary.com, gun control is: "Government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms" Per Websters gun control is: "Regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns". I can't find any dictionary definition of "Gun politics". What it brings to mind is the political aspects that drive decisionmainking on gun control in places where what is commonly known as politics operates. For example, not under totalitarian regimes. Under this idea, "gun politics" would be a subset of gun control. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My opinion on #2. The current content of the two articles is very similar. 100% of each is about gun control as defined by those two dictionaries. While there is no real definition for "gun politics" , about 30% of each article falls under what would seem to be gun politics. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My opinion on #3. "Gun control" is well defined in dictionaries and is a very broad title; it could handle everything related to gun control, including the debates and politics stuff. "Gun politics" is not really defined. From the impression it gives, about 1/3 of what is in the two articles (the debates and politics stuff) could fall under it. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My opinion on a conclusion: If the title were broad enough, it would probably be best that they be one article. "Gun politics" would certainly fail that test and it or even the possibility of it is a poison pill for a merge. "Gun control" would pass that test. Maybe some other term would pass that test. And so a good name would be an important precondition towards getting sufficient support for a merge. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

- - -

There is nothing to 'compare' until you provide a source that justifies dividing a single subject in two'. Just how difficult is this to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop; repeating that ludicrous demand is getting disruptive. This is an attempt to address that question in a legitimate fashion.
The only thing that is 'ludicrous' here is your endless insistence that we subdivide our coverage of firearms regulations into two articles on the basis of nothing whatsoever. This is a violation of policy - Wikipedia doesn't permit POV forks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice try - putting that it is a "POV fork" in as an implied premise. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It is self-evident. No source has been provide to justify the split other than the opinion of those supporting it. POV by definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The "self-evident" thing works both ways. Its appears "self-evident" that gun control is part of, but yet distinct subject, the topic of gun control. It seems ludicrous that you can't even attempt to comprehend this even when examples of this concept are presented over and over. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, while Andy keeps throwing baseless bombs and setting the curtains on fire, perhaps the adults here could carry on an actual discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, because only the "adults" would want to have two separate articles on the exact same subject in order to preserve a comparison of US gun laws to Nazi genocide taken straight out of the right-wing media. Andy's comments are on target. You have been making highly contrived arguments for months in order to preserve an article which is very clearly a POV fork in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. Stop calling people names and come up with a course of action that follows Wikipedia policy. — goethean 00:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK well, while Andy and Goethean keep throwing baseless bombs and setting the curtains on fire, perhaps the adults here could carry on an actual discussion. Goethean's last launch indicates that they didn't even read what I wrote before firing. If the adults think that I posed the question well, could they comment on it? If they think not, could they pose a question likely to believed as trying to get at the heart of the matter in a neutral way? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, i think politics is the parent article and control the child. Gun politics are any laws or policies regarding guns, and gun control is the sub set of that specifically dealing with restricting access/ownership of guns (with a nice area for things like registration that don't actually restrict ownership, but are pretty much universally considered gun control by both pro and con). I don't object to an RFC or AFD to as a method to resolve the impasse, and i think that the content RFC above is applicable regardless of the outcome of this question. The wording of the question needs to be addressed to more than just the current state of the articles (which do largely overlap) but also the concepts/topics at a whole, so that the content can be appropriately merged, or split, and so that the wider community has some understanding of what the dispute we are actually discussing is. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Amen! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree on which term is broader /broad enough to cover the material in both articles. I am also concerned that the great effort to eliminated the gun control article is to be able to exclude gun control material. So I think that choice of a name is essential to further discussions. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Every law about guns controls the manufacture, sales, ownership or use of firearms. Every firearms law is gun politics. TFD (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but all gun politics (or firearms law as you put it) is not about gun control. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem in finding examples and identifying literature about this non-gun control gun politics. Otherwise it is just an imaginary hypothetical that does not merit an article. TFD (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
We have not had any problem finding examples, we've posted them several times. PLEASE scroll back and look at them. As for "literature", why does something that is as Andy is famous for saying, self evident, need a citation? Examples of gun related legislation that has nothing to do with "control" have been cited. Its been proven that "gun politics" does not equal "gun control". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
In fact as I pointed out to you, you have provided no examples and no literature. All I have seen are things like a book called "Gun politics" which says on the first page that its subject is gun control. I know the examples are bogus, you know they are bogus, I know that you know they are bogus. Why not just say you want two articles about the same thing and stop arguing. TFD (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the verbal/wiki maneuvers and hyperbole aside, I tend to view the two titles as separate topics with a large overlap. And that the two articles both get into both topics and so there is a lot of duplicaiton between them. There is also concern that the folks working so immensely hard to eliminate the "gun control" article are the same ones who wanted to exclude coverage of many instances of gun control (e.g. gun control Nazi Germany) might see this as a route to exclude that coverage. E.G. to later claim that such are not "gun politics", while they clearly fall under the definition of "gun control". So I do think that some change is required, if we could find a good way to do that that satisfies the main concerns. It might be more de-overlapping of the existing two articles, or it might be combining them, but the selection of a title is inextricably linked to any decision to combine them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have stated several times issues with the existing politics article 1) It is half "List of gun politics by country", and half "gun politics overview". those two topics should be split. 2) The "overview" portion is largely in reality discussing gun control, and that content should be merged to here (or to some other target gun control article). TFD's argument is completely facetious regarding topic distinction. WP:SUMMARY clearly and explicitly allows for multiple articles on the same topic, focusing on different aspects. As gun control is by leagues the most important and notable part of gun politics, it deserves its own detailed article. Yes, this article needs to be significantly improved - which would be much easier to do if we weren't rehashing the same argument for 6 months. TFD is correct that most sources discussing gun politics are discussing gun control - but it is inherently obvious that those sources also discuss aspects of politics that are not control. Attempts to deny this are intentional obtuseness.Gaijin42 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)3
I think that that end result would be fine too, even if I don't 100% agree with the particular "subset" statement. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You can agree with each other all you like. Unless you can provide the necessary sources to justify this arbitrary forking, the articles will have to be merged, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, just ignore WP:SUMMARY which clearly outlines this scenario. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then cite the sources you are going to cite in the main article to explain what the 'subtopic' is. Except that there aren't any. This article is a POV fork, as defined in Wikipedia:Content forking and no matter how many times you repeat the same old drivel, it isn't going to alter the fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't think there are sources that define gun control? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I wish you would really participate in the discussion instead of just continuing to toss the same improbable hand grenades. Like repeating an assertion that an 11 year old article on an immensely more wp:notable topic is a "fork" North8000 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the specific part of policy that you believe requires articles created under WP:SUMMARY to have specific sources defining of the scope of the related articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Much has to be done to justify the split, but it is not the case the basis for an article split has to be based on characteristics which reliable sources recognize as grounds for a split; only that it be based on characteristics which reliable sources recognize. If that were done, it would take it out of the realm of WP:POVFORK. However, Gaijin, do you have any description of the difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong in saying "you're all wrong". North8000 seems to be saying the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Many sources define gun control as legislation or policy restricting access to firearms. This is a blindingly obvious subset of "legislation or policy related to firearms" (regardless of if it is gun control or not).

Among MANY sources linked (see above or archives), here are some recent ones discussing gun politics outside of gun control

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Stand your ground laws" relate to self-defense, and are not specifically about guns. However to the extent they widen the accepted use of firearms, they are a limitation on gun control and therefore part of that discussion. Laws against gun manufacturer's liability are also a limitation on actions by gun control activisits and again part of the gun control debate. The same with doctors asking about gun ownership. TFD (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec)
If reliable sources don't describe the difference, then we need to. As it stands, all of those are arguably "gun control";
  1. "Stand your ground" laws clarify when it is legal to use firearms (and probably deadly force, in general).
  2. PLCAA is (according to its wording, in spite of the extremely biased article you pointed us to) an attempt to block state laws, regulations, and court procedures, which would, in effect, ban guns, even though they don't say anything about banning guns.
  3. The last regards efforts by the AMA, and other allegedly medical organization, to suggest that guns are a health hazard and should be banned.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Can I remind contributors that this article is supposed to be giving a global perspective on the subject - centring the discussion once more on the minutia of US firearms legislation is exactly what we shouldn't be doing if we are to achieve neutral coverage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin Use of firearms is not the same thing as access to firearms, which is how reliable sources define gun control. Lawsuits would potentially have an effect of limiting access to firearms if manufacturers stopped making them to avoid that liability - but that would not be due to government regulation restricting ownership. If we were discussing the CDC restrictions, which explicitly ban research that could be used for gun control, I would agree. But the physician questions have no relevance for research used for gun control - they are questions intended to improve safety behavior as the NPR article makes clear. Although these may ultimately have effects on gun ownership, they are not governmental regulation doing so. Using your defition of secondary and tertiary effects would make almost any action by anyone that is related to guns, gun control. (BTW, regarding biased article, are you saying that the NIH link was biased?) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying the NIH link is biased; it's an opinion piece, describing only the effect of the law in preventing lawsuits, not the benefit of the law in eliminating "nuisance" lawsuits. The CDC and NIH (1) assume that all deaths and injuries by firearms are "bad", whether or not intended and (2) ignore deaths and injuries prevented by firearms by stopping crime. It seems the politically correct thing to do. It may be that the conclusions (if it weren't an opinion piece) were valid, but no reasonable approximation of evidence has been used in any of the articles I've seen on gun control. We can argue about the "intent" of doctors asking questions about firearms; it can be argued that the AMA position is that no home with children should have firearms of any sort (probably including toy firearms), and so doctors' asking questions would be with the overall intent of eliminating firearms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin So, I don't disagree with you regarding the biases in the CDC or the NIH, but those biases are irrelevant to if the topic they are discussing is gun control or not, or gun politics or not. Yes the law has positive and negative effects on lawsuits. Those lawsuits may have secondary effects on the gun marketplace and therefore gun ownership - but it certainly is not government regulation of access to guns. If that particular topic were to be discussed in the politics article, it would of course be balanced by other sources for a balanced view. Yes, the AMAs position may be that nobody should own guns, and they might take actions to try and help that happen. But that is also not government regulation restricting access to guns. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control/Archive_6&oldid=1073140047"