Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Gun Control
Gun Control[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning.25 July 2013 (closed 26 July, reopened 1 August)
 | Futile. In light of the number of editors who have chosen not to join in here, this case appears to be futile. It appears that the dispute may have died away, but if it has not then in light of the procedural history on this, I'm afraid I do not have any particularly good suggestions about what to do next. I doubt that you would have any better level of participation at the Mediation Committee, which would doom a filing there, so yet another RFC may be the only choice. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Gun Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview What is the appropriate inclusion for information regarding Nazi use of gun control in the gun control article (Or if the gun control is merged into gun politics/firearm regulations, inclusion in the target article) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Two RFCs closed no consensus, procedurally closed DR (1st RFC still open), reams of talk page discussion How do you think we can help? Keep the multiple arguments on track , and make sure each one is resolved individually, without shifting to another argument midstream. Arbitrate how the multiple policies involved interact and how they should apply to this content. Opening comments by Gaijin42[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The topic is certainly highly controversial, but it is also very notable, and discussed in many reliable sources. It is a major part of the gun control debate in the US, and receives international attention . Opponents of the information may not declare by fiat that something is fringe, and violates npov, when npov specifically states that all notable viewpoints must be included, and that reliable sources are not required to be objective. this is not science, it is politics. The facts are indisputable (though the historical importance of those facts is questionable). The importance of those fats in the political debate is very controversial, but its notability is unquestionable. just saying that a significant political debate is not allowed in an article about politics is ludicrous. Andy's procedural complaint is complete bullshit. The AN is a question about merging, not appropriateness of content (And the content also exists in the article he has repeatedly said should be merged to, so the question applies there as well). He also specifically complains in the AN thread that I have not opened any dispute resolution processes, and then attempts to beurcratically short circruit the requested action! There is the bad faith. [[1]] Andy claims the GC article is a pov fork. He wants to redirect it to GP. THE GP ARTICLE HAS THE SAME CONTENT. So this dispute should be resolved one way or another, unless he says he does not object to that content in the GP article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Goethean[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by AndyTheGrump[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I consider the opening of this discussion a bad-faith action. As has already been confirmed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control, there is a clear consensus that the gun control article is a POV fork, and thus a contravention of policy. Rather than addressing the issue, Gaijin (and one or two others) are rehashing the same arguments for the retention of material relating to a fringe theory only of any significance to the US gun debate, and completely refusing to acknowledge the WP:WEIGHT concerns involved in dominating what is supposed to be an article covering a global topic with a crackpot proposition (that 'gun control' leads to 'totalitarianism') that has no credibility whatsoever amongst serious historians. Given the endless stonewalling, attempts to rig the debate with a clearly non-neutral RfC and other failure to engage in a genuine discussion on how the article can be made to conform with policy, I see no reason to assume that this supposed 'dispute resolution' is anything other than a further act of stonewalling, carried out with the clear intent to maintain the policy-violating article for as long as possible. It should also be noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Gun control, which shows some potential at resolving the issue via a complete re-jig of the two articles we have giving global coverage of firearms regulation - which includes contributors not even mentioned as 'users involved'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Scalhotrod[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I believe that "the information regarding Nazi use of gun control" is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Where it belongs is the purpose of a separate discussion. With regard to the topic of 'gun control in the United States', I believe that it is self-evident to be a distinct and notable topic either separate from or inclusive (as a major subsection) with the 'gun politics' articles (either in the U.S. or globally). My reasoning for this is the existence of firearm related legislation that has nothing to do with 'control'. One example I have been citing is this act which taxes firearm manufacture for the purpose of using the funds for wildlife habitat rehabilitation. As compared to, for example, this federal legislation.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by SPECIFICO[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by North8000[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
IMHO the main two problems there are: 1. Discussion is gridlocked due to failure to unbundle the questions. 2. Incendiary, insulting and nasty behavior by AndyTheGrump and Goethean. Both continuously tossing bombs and misstatements about other editors instead of discussing. Without those two issues I think this would have already been resolved. What few have noticed is that there are a whole lot of reasonable people there who are just trying to figure out the best thing to do and who appear positive towards some middle ground. DR would hopefully be organized enough to help on #1 and add some civilization to #2 and so I think it's a good idea. If the two mentioned persons would just look through their spit flinging they might notice that people (like myself) do not have the directly opposite positions as they have invented. Which is more good news for the possibilities of DR. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Justanonymous[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Miguel Escopeta[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The fundamental issue is the lack of respect of country-specific viewpoints. For example, one opening statement incorrectly states the dispute revolves around, "whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby". This is a total incorrect characterization of the dispute, as there is not a US gun lobby that is editing Wikipedia. Neither is the issue about "fringe" viewpoints. Rather, there is a fundamental difference of opinion in the amount of respect to be given to inalienable rights as recognized in the US Constitution vs. the viewpoint that rights do not come from God, but rather are privileges that only come from Governments or dictators. A fundamental dichotomy thus exists in viewpoints, and is at the heart of the problem of the dispute. Wikipedia articles should not be written to suppress different viewpoints, such as whether inalienable rights are granted by God to citizens, or whether subjects are only to be permitted certain privileges by kings and dictators. Address the suppression of properly cited and verifiable viewpoints, whatever they are, and respect the viewpoints of all major (non-fringe) cited facts, and the dispute largely goes away. The issue of content regarding Nazis vs. gun control is but one aspect of this overarching problem. Focusing on "Nazis" only clouds the real issue. Respect needs to be given to all significant viewpoints, provided supporting text is always properly cited with verifiable cites. We should not be suppressing viewpoints in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Steeletrap[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by Shadowjams[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Opening comments by ROG5728[edit]The use of gun control by Nazi Germany as a tool in their oppression of the Jews is a fact supported by numerous reliable sources and even quotes by Hitler himself. Whether or not some editors feel it's "unfair" to have gun control associated with Nazi Germany is irrelevant; the use of gun control by Nazi Germany is history and should be included. ROG5728 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Amadscientist[edit]Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
At the moment there is an open AN filing on this article and dispute. I will wait to make opening comments after it is decided whether or not to open this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by The Four Deuces[edit]The 1938 Nazi gun laws are as Gaijin42 says "discussed in many reliable sources." However as this example shows, they are mentioned as part of the "culture wars" in the United States as part of an irrational argument presented by gun enthusiasts. These enthusiasts in essence argue that the laws were an essential step for carrying out the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews and that "liberal" gun control laws in the U.S. will inevitably lead to a fascist/communist dictatorship in the U.S. Experts obviously refute this interpretation. I do not think that notable fringe groups outside the U.S. take any interest in this, since opposition to gun control is a peculiarly American phenomenon. Comprehensive books on the history of firearms laws throughout the world of course provide cursory mention of the laws as they chart the history of German firearms legislation from the Weimar Republic to modern Germany. None of them support the theory that the law helped Hitler consolidate power and mention that he actually loosened restrictions. In conclusion, I think that in this article, the laws only have relevance to the US gun control debate and the gun enthusiasts' views can only be presented as fringe, if at all. TFD (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Discussion[edit]Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this listing for discussion at this time, but would ask for a clarification. Content dispute resolution through DRN or mediation is a voluntary process. Choosing not to participate is, therefore, not a disqualification from or impediment to continuing to participate in editing and discussing the matter for which dispute resolution is sought. The absence of a major participant in a dispute will ordinarily cause a request for DR in those two forums to be declined since a successful outcome is not likely without the participation of all major parties. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency, I would ask: @AndyTheGrump: Does your procedural objection, above, mean that you are unwilling to participate in this process if that objection is determined in favor of continuation here? Such a determination is, in my opinion, very likely (though other DRN volunteers are free, of course, to disagree). Please answer in your opening statements section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we are working this out fairly calmly. Changes to other related articles seem to be paving the way, but I am unsure as to how this whole thing will unfold. Hopefully there will be no other polarizing events like another "Sandy Hook" that happen in the meantime. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|