Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 25 April 2015

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Gun control was copied or moved into Nazi gun control with this edit on 16:14, 24 March 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Nazi gun control in a nutshell: Since Nazi gun control is not (as of March 2014) broadly supported by scholarship in its field, this article was created to provide a forum for more extensive treatment that would be WP:UNDUE in an article about mainstream or less controversial topics. Since Nazi gun control is a small minority viewpoint, and since there is no Misplaced Pages consensus about whether or not it is historical revisionism, fringe theory, or something else, it is suggested that the proper contextual relationship between it and majority viewpoints be clear throughout.

Why this page was created

This page was created in response to apparently endless, heated debates on talk pages like those for Gun control and Gun politics in the United States. Specifically, an ArbCom was started on 5 January 2014 re: the Gun control article and questionable conduct that ensued during an Authoritarianism and gun control RfC and other discussions.

The discussion spilled over into the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, where a Split proposal was made on 29 January 2014. That fizzled out pending the ArbCom decision, but as of today (21 March 2014) the ArbCom is still open.

Where it goes, who knows, but my idea for this article is to present Nazi gun control arguments as (possibly legitimate) historical revisionism. (Personally, I consider it fringe, but my editor's gut tells me doing the article this way could cut down on future wars about other articles.) What I wrote in the Split proposal discussion was:

"So far, internal and external to Misplaced Pages, there seems to be an agreement that the Nazi gun law theory is the view of a tiny minority. Per WP:UNDUE: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

Some suggested that this article might be/become a POV fork, but I said then and I still believe that it's a WP:SPINOFF, though it might be acceptable under one of the other acceptable types of forking, like WP:SUBPOV.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I will... I created this article in good faith.

Lightbreather (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not create spinoff articles to present fringe theories. This issue has no significance whatsoever beyond the narrow confines of the US 'gun control' debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Andy. I do not question your good faith, but creating an article "in response to apparently endless, heated debates on other talk pages" does not serve an encyclopaedic purpose. It only creates a forum for "endless, heated debates". If the topic can be dealt with in a collegiate manner, it can be done on the existing pages. If not, creating a separate article will exacerbate rather than solve the problem. I think – and correct me if I'm wrong – that you believe by creating this article we can remove the content from the other articles, but I can guarantee you that's not going to happen. Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire, you wrote on the Gun control talk page (in reply to my notice re: the creation of this page), "In three years it has not been possible to get a single paragraph in article that is encyclopaedic and NPOV." True! But even if you or I or another editor are able to get a single paragraph into it now that is encyclopedic and NPOV, what are the chances that it will stay that way for even a few weeks or months? Soon, someone will come along and start tweaking it and adding to it... Even as much as is in it now re: this topic is already WP:UNDUE per the majority of editors who weighed in on the subject prior to the ArbCom. It is an almost exclusively U.S. argument right now, by a small but vocal group: possibly fringe or historical revisionist, depending on who you ask.

As for endless, heated debates, better to have them here than to take up so much energy on the Gun control article, which is practically paralyzed over this one issue. By giving the hypothesis its own article here, we divert the arguments from there (and other articles), for editors who want to discuss it. Until or unless more mainstream sources give this stuff credence, a separate article - this article, for reasons given above - is the best solution. Lightbreather (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying, instead of trying to improve a crap paragraph in an article, let's make a crap article and allow users to make it progressively more crap? I'd like to know which policy you're basing that idea on. Scolaire (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm proposing at all. I'm saying write an NPOV sentence in that article that links to this article, and work to make this article "not crap." (It is currently a stub - on purpose - and that's the crappiest part of it right now, IMHO.) That takes the pressure off of the Gun control page about how to develop everything else that should be there about the global/international gun control subject - but is not because of the time spent on this volatile fringe/historical revisionism (depending on whom one asks) topic.

The sentence there could be something like:

A small, but vocal and mostly U.S., group of gun-rights advocates believe in a historical revisionism hypothesis that Nazi gun control contributed significantly to the Holocaust. This hypothesis is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

So, that's actually two sentences - but it leaves the development of the controversial Nazi notion for a different, dedicated "fringe" page (until such time as there's widespread, mainstream acceptance). Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way this should go. I guess that the main criteria are wp:notability (essentially that there is suitable coverage of it in sources), whether or not it is a wp:fork (I think not) and whether it fits in the "scheme of things" with respect to other related articles (I'm thinking "yes" on this but am not sure.) I don't agree with the nutshell nor that the "why this article was created" constitute a reasons for existence, but if the other criteria are met, no such argument is required. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete article. This article is radically against multiple policies. First, the title does not reflect the scope, which includes "other authoritarian regimes". Second, the scope carefully excludes the Nazi gun policy that more likely did have a substantial effect: disarming citizens in occupied countries. Third, the content is not NPOV, as it categorizes all discussion of the subject as either revisionist or conspiracy-related. Fourth, this article is meant to be either a POV fork, or the sole solitary place where this information can be dumped without summarizing it anywhere else. Those reasons are off the top of my head, and doubtless more can be listed upon further contemplation if such were needed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If the scope includes 'disarming citizens in occupied countries', per WP:NPOV the article would have to point out that this has been normal policy in practically every case of a country being militarily occupied - and nothing whatsoever to do with 'authoritarian regimes'. This is what occupying powers do - as in the obvious example of the allied occupation of Germany after WW2. Where the death penalty was a possible sanction for infringement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to delete the article for a variety of reasons, but I'm happy to wait for the ArbCom decision first. As for usual practice in occupied countries, we'd have to follow reliable sources wherever they go. For example, those sources might point out that disarming an occupied country is much easier and much more effective if the previous tradition of gun-ownership was negligible----or not. They might point out that the Nazis disarmed occupied countries for a longer period of time than the norm---or not. They might indicate that US practice in Iraq and Afghanistan was identical to that of the Nazis in Poland --- or not. They might assert that disarming an occupied populace is much easier if the occupied country provides lists from their gun registration agencies --- or not. They might say that even a small oversight by a disarming army of occupation can result in major damage to that army via assassination of its officers---or not. I really have no idea. Let's not debate the fine points of the holocaust unless we have to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Wow, I'm about as anti-deletion as it gets, but in addition to being a mess, I'm not sure this article serves any kind of positive purpose other than giving the editors involved in the Gun Control content discussions a new place to debate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete article. Here we go again with another POV fork, filled to the brim with Original research, written exclusively by a single editor. This article, as it stands, ignores 20 or more Misplaced Pages policies. NOTE: Before anyone places a deletion tag, I strongly suggest that you read this first. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

Misplaced Pages works by a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. That means that you can copy or adapt content, but you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. In Misplaced Pages:Merging it specifies how to do this. Save the edit, leaving the following edit summary (as required by the Creative Commons Share-alike 3.0 license):

Merged content from ] to here. See ].

This edit, this one and probably others, including the expansion of refs, have clearly been copied and adapted from Gun control but there has been no attribution. Please remove all affected content at once. It can be replaced if proper attribution is given, and it would be polite to leave a note at Talk:Gun control to let editors there know that you are copying their work. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't done yet, but I should have given the attribution first. I apologize. I added the "copied" box to the top of the talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That'll do fine. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Given the above discussions, it seems evident that there is little support for this article - I have therefore added a proposed deletion template. If the PROD is declined, I will take this to AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Some people actually supported the idea of this article, depending on the decision of the ArbCom, which is supposed to be revealed tonight.

I would prefer that this fringe crap (IMO) not be in/on Misplaced Pages at all, but the the people who support it are just gonna keep pushing it and pushing it, so I'd rather they have a dedicated fringe/historical revisionism article than to keep disrupting every gun-control related WP article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't create articles on fringe subjects just because contributors refuse to work within policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. They create them to keep them from getting weight in non-fringe articles. As I said, I'd just as soon we didn't have an article like this, but it's OK under WP:FRINGE... as long as it's identified as fringe and editors don't try to drag more than a mention of that fringe into any other article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a long-winded debate. If you wish to contest the proposed deletion by removing the template, you are entitled to do so - at which point I will take the article to AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mercy, Andy! I was only explaining why it was created. If it gets deleted, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Preserved material

Some of the material I moved here today from the "Studies, debates, and opinions" section of the "Gun control" article was already here. I am preserving it here, just in case.

Modern proponents of the security-against-tyranny argument claim that the Nazis could have been inhibited by a more well-armed population (that claim is controversial)...

The following was inside the end parenthesis, after "controversial," in "Notes" format:

In response to arguments that German gun control laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, writers such as Bernard Harcourt agree that gun laws and regulations were used in the genocide of the Jews, but argue that the prior levels of gun ownership were not high enough to enable significant resistance, and that confiscation was a minor and incidental piece of the actions perpetrated by the Nazis. Gun control activists further argue that the use of Nazi allusions by gun rights activists is meant to raise undue fear about modern disarmament and "throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA", and groups such as the Anti-Defamation League also say that use of the Holocaust in these arguments is offensive to the victims of the Nazis. However, not all Jews feel that way.

1. Halbrook, Stephen (2000). "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews" (PDF). Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 17: 484.
2. Halbrook, Stephen (2006). "Nazism, the Second Amendment, and the NRA: A Reply to Professor Harcourt". Texas Review of Law & Politics. 11.
3. LaPierre, Wayne (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Regnery. pp. 88–87, 167–168.
4. Harcourt, Bernard (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review: 670, 676, 679. "To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide....istorians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich."
5. Aronsen, Gavin (January 11, 2013). "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
6. Seitz-Wald, Alex (January 11, 2013). "The Hitler Gun Control Lie". Salon.
7. Frank, Monte. "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights", The Guardian (July 13, 2013).
8. The Anti-Defamation League (January 24, 2013). "ADL Says Nazi Analogies Have No Place In Gun Control Debate". Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved February 2, 2013.
9. Coscarelli, Joe. “Jewish Firearms Group Compares Bloomberg Gun Control to Genocide, Nazis”, The Village Voice (March 9, 2011).
10. “Rabbi Defends Comparison of Gun Owners to Holocaust Victims”, WFLD, Channel 32, Fox News, Chicago (May 3, 2011).

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unused bibliography

• Aronsen, Gavin (January 11, 2013). "Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?". Mother Jones.
• Bard, Mitchell (2001). The Complete history of the Holocaust. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. ISBN 9780737703733.
• Bard, Mitchell (2008). 48 hours of Kristallnacht: night of destruction/dawn of the Holocaust: an oral history. Guilford, Conn: Lyons Press. ISBN 9781599214450.
• Brown, R. Blake (2012). Arming and disarming: a history of gun control in Canada. Toronto Ont.: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442646391.
• Chapman, Simon (2013). Over our dead bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's fight for gun control. Sydney: Sydney University Press. ISBN 9781743320310.
• Frank, Monte (July 13, 2013). "The Holocaust taken in vain to promote gun rights". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media.
• Halbrook, Stephen (1985). That every man be armed: the evolution of a constitutional right. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0826308686.
• Horwitz, Joshua; Anderson, Casey (2009). Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472021994.
• Polsby, Daniel D.; Kates, Don B. (1997). "Of Holocausts and Gun Control". Washington University Law Quarterly. 75 (3): 1237–1275.
• Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, N.J: Transactions Publishers. ISBN 9781412821292.
• Seitz-Wald, Alex (January 11, 2013). "The Hitler gun control lie". Salon. Salon Media Group.

Move

I have moved the article to a title that more accurately reflects its contents. I would have preferred to delete this article, but apparently it will be the only place at Misplaced Pages for well-sourced content deleted everywhere else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll give more details later, but I'm not sure the new title is better than the old one. Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe

The lead says: "Many consider Nazi gun control to be a fringe theory because it is not supported by history, Holocaust, legal, or political science scholarship." There is no source cited there or anywhere else that supports the "fringe" label. If a historian who is a reliable source can be found that describes the hypothesis as fringe then it needs to be cited here. The hypothesis is speculative, and it's very difficult to prove or disprove speculation; in other words, it may well be that this hypothesis is not falsifiable, in which case "fringe" may or may not be the right word for it. Additionally, I don't think we ought to be saying that the stuff Halbrook wrote is not "scholarship", unless we have a reliable source saying that it's not "scholarship".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The hypothesis is fringe because it isn't taken seriously by academic historians of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - the relevant academic field. And I would remind you that not only was this very issue central to the ArbCom case - which made entirely clear that "placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles" was sanctionable - but that ArbCom has previously made it very clear on previous occasions that undue promotion of fringe topics in general is likewise sanctionable. If it is your intention to attempt to Wikilawyer around policy by arguing semantics, I should warn you that I will have no hesitation in bringing the matter before ArbCom again if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that if we call the hypothesis fringe then we need a footnote, preferably a historian calling the hypothesis false. I will install a "cn" tag if no source is provided. A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. Can we not come up with a footnote that says the mainstream historical view is that disarming the Jews made no difference? Can we not come up with a footnote saying the mainstream historical view is that the resistance in other countries would not have been stronger if the populace had had more gun rights prior to invasion by the Nazis?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made my position clear - promotion of fringe theories unsupported by the relevant academic field is contrary to policy. ArbCom has already made it clear that they are of the same opinion. I have also made clear my position that this article should be deleted. I am not interested in further debate, and have no intention of getting sucked into another round of circular arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be deleted, don't worry Andy. The mob has been aroused, and the reliably sourced information will soon be gone from Misplaced Pages entirely. This article is merely a transit station on the way to oblivion. Cheer up. And stop accusing me of promoting anything here. This is an interesting subject that has appeared in reliable sources and ought to be covered neutrally rather than censored to death. Asking for a damned footnote is not equal to promoting fringe theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I shall nominate the article for deletion as soon as the ArbCom case closes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Hypotheses? Um...no. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

The last sentence of the lead says: "Many consider Nazi gun control to be a fringe theory because it is not supported by history, Holocaust, legal, or political science scholarship." A footnote to this sentence of ours says:

First of all, instead of "Many consider" we ought to have written that political scientist Harcourt considers....

Also, I don't think that we characterize Harcourt fairly. Harcourt does not dispute, for example, that Halbrook "presents the first scholarly analysis of the use of gun control laws and policies to establish the Hitler regime and to render political opponents and especially German Jews defenseless." That's hardly an accusation that Halbrook & company are fringe nutcases as we imply at the end of the lead. Far from dismissing this all as nonsense, Harcourt calls for study by historians (Harcourt admits that he is not a historian). Harcourt calls for historians to seriously consider this hypothesis, both in the title of Harcuort's article ("....Call to Historians"), and elsewhere ("What we really need now is more historical research and serious scholarship.").

I realize that people who would like to ban guns want Harcourt to have dismissed Halbrook as a fringe nutcase, but clearly Harcourt did not do so, and so I will remove the last sentence of the lead until someone can provide proper sourcing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've been told many a time, before: We don't delete it; we tag it as needing citation. Lightbreather (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did tag it. Then a source was provided. And the source did not support the sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the user that added the source. I browsed through the article and found one. I just disliked seeing that tag. I didn't even look at the source, just picked one up. I apologize for this and want you to know that it was my mistake. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hat note and lead

I think this edit is problematic. It's important to say up front that the theory has not been proven to the satisfaction of most mainstream scholars. Moreover, simply wiping from the lead their characterizations ("questionable", "dubious", "tendentious") is not a good idea. What's going to happen with edits like this is that the article is going to end up even more to the editor's disliking than it was in the first place. That's just the way it works with controversial articles like this. Administrators will swoop in and editors will be blocked (at least). Look at the warnings atop this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all I'm going to revert those characterizations, you added them today, and it is what I would consider Undue weight and sort of cherry picking terms from articles characterizing their disagreement. Consensus should be gained for that Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'll be expanding upon this very soon. —Godsy_CONT) 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you prefer the "fringe" characterization that has been all over the article for many months? Because that's where this article is headed, very fast, although I won't be the one to make any changes like that. You've removed the statement that, "Most mainstream sources consider this claim to be historically 'dubious', 'questionable', and 'tendentious.'" The three cited sources were cited in the lead for months, and now you've taken them out. I disagree with that. You want the lead to only cite Halbrook and Cottrol, neither of whom opposes the theory that the Misplaced Pages article is describing? That's grossly undue weight, and is totally different from how the lead was prior to your edits today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:Though I think due weight should be given to the view that this isn't a mainstream theory, I think the last sentence of the lead "The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship." clearly conveys that. This article is about the theory, if it is Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories truly, I might personally question whether this should be included in the encyclopedia. As long as it is included however, my statements should hold true. Though the dissent definitely warrants a mention in the lead and a section of it's own, but spreading liberally through the entire article is undue. I think the "About" should be neutralized to something like "This article is about a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes". Perhaps that should be removed altogether and just have the redirect for German gun laws there. just because something is theorized doesn't convey that it is true. It has a potential to be true but that can be said of most counterfactual ideas. —Godsy_CONT) 00:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, you should probably be aware that the subject matter of this article has been the subject of considerable discussion, including an ArbCom case (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control), and while ArbCom doesn't rule directly on content matters, it was clear from the evidence presented that the 'nutshell' note at the top of this page regarding the position of mainstream scholarship regarding the issue is an accurate reflection of the situation. To be specific, there is no meaningful support for the 'Nazi gun control theory' as promoted by (mostly U.S.) pro-gun activists amongst the relevant academic field - recognised academic historians of the Holocaust. Accordingly, it is a fringe theory, and Misplaced Pages has a duty to describe it as such. 'Neutral point of view' does not involve the entirely undue promotion of pseudohistorical fringe theories regarding one of the defining historical acts of the twentieth century created by partisan activists for the self-evident purpose of influencing another debate about another issue in another time period entirely. These are the facts of the matter, and you would do to reflect on them before engaging on the issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding to what AndyTheGrump said, Godsy, if you'd like the article to be deleted, I'm sure you can get plenty of support for that, as indicated at this talk page above. However, if the article remains (which I think it ought to), then we need to at least put some footnotes in the lead other than footnotes to sources that have no difficulty with this controversial theory. For example, you could reinsert the footnotes (i.e. the ones that you deleted) at the end of the sentence that says: "The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your views of the matter AndyTheGrump, I am not here to form an opinion (or to reflect) on the matter itself. The theory itself should be described, who peddles or believes in it or not is not my concern. Anything I suggest to change will be based on my interpretation of Misplaced Pages Polices and guidelines. @Anythingyouwant, I agree with you, though not in the from that you added before. I'm sure we can come to an accord on how to add that though. —Godsy_CONT) 00:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, you repeatedly removed those footnotes from the lead, so please feel free to put them back into the lead. If you put them back and I don't like the way you've done it, then I'll say so here at the talk page. Make sure you say in your edit summary that you're merely putting back what you previously removed (that should protect you from any accusation of edit-warring).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

{{About|a theory not widely supported by scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}. would that be acceptable to you Anythingyouwant? And yes, I'll add the other back shortly. —Godsy_CONT) 01:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with how the hatnote is now. The present version of the hatnote seems preferable to the one you propose, but I wouldn't object to either. My advice is to leave alone what you can live with, because other editors will not be as flexible as me. The main thing I'm asking you to do now is reinsert some footnotes into the lead, so that 100% of the footnotes in the lead are not supportive of this theory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Added the footnotes back in, does that sound alright to you? I can also reposition it within the lead as well.—Godsy_CONT) 01:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe tomorrow I'll make some slight edits (e.g. change "Pro-gun" to "pro-gun").Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, with a few other small fixes. —Godsy_CONT) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory should be described, certainly - in terms that make it entirely clear that it is a partisan theory concocted by pro-gun activists, and unsupported by academic scholarship. As Misplaced Pages policy requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the hat note

First of all the hat note is used improperly in this article per WP:TRHAT- it is tendentious material: having a tendency; written with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one; implicitly or explicitly slanted. Even if it is not considered that, it would fall under WP:LEGITHAT, not belonging in the hat note. Beyond that, I think the information expressed in the hat is already given due weight (if not overly so) in the article. I would propose to change the language in the hat note to {{About|a theory not widely supported by scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany|Gun legislation in Germany}} OR perhaps more appropriately simply {{For|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}. The hat note is not the place for a disclaimer, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Stating that the theory (an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true) is "unproven" adds no benefit to the reader as theories are not fact, they are ideas. It is expressed clearly in the article that this is a highly criticized theory for several reasons, with two sentences in the lead and half the article (one of the two sections). The hat note in its current form is improper and is unnecessary. —Godsy_CONT) 22:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote quite properly distinguishes between historical fact (as covered in our article on gun legislation in Germany) and the subject matter here - a partisan theory put forward by pro-gun activists, unsupported by academic historiography concerning the period, and based to a significant extent on simple misrepresentation of the historical record. It is not a 'disclaimer'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Politics, government, and law History and geography Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The issue is whether the hatnote is improper in its current form.—Godsy_CONT) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, particularly the section entitled 'Statement should be neutral and brief'. Your statement is neither neutral, nor brief, and accordingly this RfC is malformed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: Fixed. —Godsy_CONT) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What? You consider a 226 word statement asserting that existing content is 'tendentious material' to be 'neutral and brief'? Your understanding of the word 'neutral' clearly differs from mine... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's my comment on the issue. "RfC: Changes proposed in the hat note." is my neutral statement. If the format isn't proper at the moment, I will be working towards a fix. —Godsy_CONT) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to put a very brief statement of the issue immediately after the big yellow box.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How's that? —Godsy_CONT) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing it. Please adjust however you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —Godsy_CONT) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing other people's posts is contrary to policy, and it still fails to explain in neutral terms what the issue is, and what the options are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out proper format, sorry if anything went amiss. None of the statements setting up the RFC are mine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy:

Please copy an exact copy of the "current form" you were referring to at the time you posed the RfC, and notify those who've responded, so that we're sure that we're all talking about the same thing. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: Although it is not clear from the edit summaries, this RfC was started at 22:27, 7 April 2015, at which time the hatnote read (and had read for less than 72 hours):

This article is about an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany.

Prior to the current series of changes to the hat note, which started at 12:12, 5 April 2015, the hate note read (and had read for months - since at least May 2014):

This article is about a fringe theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany.

It is nigh impossible for an uninvolved person to sort out what the respondents to this RfC were referring to when they commented below (23:16, 7 April 2015 through 10:58, 19 April 2015). --Lightbreather (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

{{About|an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}} is the version that was referred to as current before this in my comments. Everyone except possibly User:Sitush who joined the discussion around the time IP 99.242.108.55 altered it, would have seen the version in question on the article. Everyone who contributed here saw the same current version until that point, so no other notifications are necessary. notification:@Sitush: —Godsy_CONT) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• Proposal/Support (from above) First of all the hat note is used improperly in this article per WP:TRHAT- it is tendentious material: having a tendency; written with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one; implicitly or explicitly slanted. Even if it is not considered that, it would fall under WP:LEGITHAT, not belonging in the hat note. Beyond that, I think the information expressed in the hat is already given due weight (if not overly so) in the article. I would propose to change the language in the hat note to {{About|a theory not widely supported by scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}} OR perhaps more appropriately simply {{For|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}. The hat note is not the place for a disclaimer, WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Stating that the theory (an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true) is "unproven" adds no benefit to the reader as theories are not fact, they are ideas. It is expressed clearly in the article that this is a highly criticized theory for several reasons, with two sentences in the lead and half the article (one of the two sections). The hat note in its current form is improper and is unnecessary. —Godsy_CONT) 23:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Update After much discussion, I fully support "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." per Anything and Scolaire below. I might suggest changing "claim" to "theory", but that's not a sticking point. Secondly, I would support an altogether removal of the hat note as a last resort (if that gains more consensus than the initial). —Godsy_CONT) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Would the following be better? "This article is about a widely-rejected theory according to which the Holocaust might have been prevented if the Jews had not been disarmed. For...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it would still be an improper use of the hat note. —Godsy_CONT) 23:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't support your brief version ("For the history of German gun laws see Gun legislation in Germany") because the reader would be competely mystified about why this article isn't part of the history of German gun laws.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also be okay with the removal of the hat note completely. I do think it is related because people may want to see what the German gun laws were, since claims about them being related to something else are being made in this theory. Maybe it would be better in a related article section. I seriously doubt anyone could confuse this theory for the German Gun laws of the past, as theory is in the article title itself.—Godsy_CONT) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. The guideline WP:LEGITHAT seems pretty clear that "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." But perhaps there is an exception somewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The hatnote explains what this article is about - a pseudohistorical partisan theory - and directs readers looking for the actual history of firearms regulation in Germany to the relevant article. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

While it may do that, it is violates WP:LEGITHAT (perhaps even WP:TRHAT) making it an improper use of a hat note and against policy. —Godsy_CONT) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, no it isn't, and please sign your posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You can state that, however unless you know of a policy I am unaware of, or would like to clarify, it is an infringement. —Godsy_CONT) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Merely asserting that it violates policy doesn't make it so - it is up to you to demonstrate the fact, rather than merely asserting it, and then demanding that others prove you wrong. And I'd like to know how a hatnote could distinguish topics without describing them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do demonstrate that above at length citing policy. You express your opinions about it, citing no policy. WP:Hatnote is clear what a hat note is and is not. If I can clarify anything more for you, let me know. —Godsy_CONT) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to cite policies the hatnote doesn't violate. And you have yet to explain how a hatnote can distinguish between topics without describing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

By that line of thinking, {{About|a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}} which complies with WP:NPOV and WP:TRHAT (which the current version does not), would be acceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it too, by having a description in the hat note AND having it filled with partisan unnecessary language. It is a theory and by the very definition does not need proven (theory NOT scientific theory). The view that it is not mainstream is expressed in the lead, and in 1 (an entire section) of the 2 sections of the article, it is undue in the hat note because of that in itself and specifically per the WP:TRHAT and/or WP:LEGITHAT policies (whichever way you view it). If that isn't demonstrated and clear to you, then to quote you AndyTheGrump, "Your understanding of the word...clearly differs from mine." —Godsy_CONT) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the language is partisan. In my opinion, it accurately describes the subject matter of this article - a fringe theory about firearms regulation in Nazi Germany concocted for the purpose of influencing the gun debate in the United States. Though 'theory' is actually stretching it rather, since it isn't so much a theory as outright misrepresentation of the facts, combined with inherently unverifiable (actually meaningless) assertions regarding how things might have been different had they been different. That is what the article is about - and a hatnote distinguishing this article from our historical one needs to state what the subject is. Evidently you are under a misapprehension common amongst new contributors - that WP:NPOV policy somehow dictates that we give 'equal weight' to both sides when discussing controversial topics. We don't, when one is fringe partisan propagandising, and the other is the position adopted by the academic mainstream. Articles reflect the academic consensus, and the consensus on this topic is clear enough. Accordingly, that is what the hatnote should describe, if it is to accurately summarise what the article is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Hatnote the governing policy of hat notes, is at odds with the language (whether it is partisan or not is an opinion). Though it may possibly be true, it does not belong there. "Unproven" is redundant to theory AND "a small minority of scholars" does not belong there per WP:LEGITHAT (on the assumption it does not fall under WP:TRHAT looking at it from what I take to be your point of view). I understand that WP:NPOV doesn't give opinions equal weight. With this being an article on the theory itself (not a section in a larger topic) an impatial tone is necessary. —Godsy_CONT) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

So your position is that a hatnote which accurately describes the content of the article is a violation of policy? Interesting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Misplaced Pages:Hatnote isn't a policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Guideline", my point remains the same however. My position is that a hat note should follow the guideline. While the theory may be used as partisan propaganda, it doesn't necessarily discredit the theory as a whole. Who agrees with it or not is irrelevant really, as this is a theory. If the article were under its former name "Nazi gun control", then there would be a lot more issue and ground to stand on with the description. This is not WP:PSCI, because as I stated before this is not a scientific theory, it is Counterfactual history (an idea).—Godsy_CONT)

Nope. You don't get to Wikilawyer around the requirement that this article complies with WP:NPOV policy - which requires that partisan fringe viewpoints be described as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of its "WP:FRINGELEVEL", the place to express that is not in the hat note, per the guideline. And this article complies with the WP:NPOV policy that requires more weight be given to certain views over others (if not overly so in some respects). —Godsy_CONT) 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV policy applies everywhere - including hatnotes, obviously. Your argument that the hatnote should misrepresent the article content is a novel one (at least as far as I'm aware), but not one that seems likely to convince anyone, I'd have thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We differ in the idea of what would misrepresent the article content. I never stated the WP:NPOV policy did not apply. —Godsy_CONT) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Regardless of its "WP:FRINGELEVEL", the place to express that is not in the hat note". That clearly reads to me like a proposal that we ignore the self-evident fringe nature of this so-called 'theory' when we summarise it in the hatnote. Something that you have repeatedly argued. In direct contravention of WP:NPOV policy. Per policy, the hatnote must describe the article as written - not another one that you'd clearly prefer to have in its place. If you want to argue for changes in the article body, feel free to do so (but not in this thread, it is confusing enough already). Meanwhile, the hatnote will, per both WP:NPOV policy and common sense, tell our readers what the article is actually about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This idea is covered specifically in WP:LEGITHAT. The hat note is not the place to express extra info about the mainstream prevailing opinion (or to be redundant). I'm not expressing an opinion on the articles content at this time (nor should you assume what it would be). And the current hat note does not accurately describe the article in the its current state.—Godsy_CONT)

• Comment Sorry that I have not read all the discussion. I notice that similar articles, such as Moon landing conspiracy theories do not have hatnotes. It would seem odd to have one for that article because it would seem to give legitimacy to a fringe view and wonder if it is necessary here. TFD (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that notion, I don't think it is necessary. —Godsy_CONT) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting comment, TFD. Seems to me that the hatnote here could at least be shortened, because it is large and obtrusive. For example: "This article is about an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." A hatnote on an article like this isn't completely unprecedented (e.g. see Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories). Perhaps we could imitate that one instead of shortening the present hatnote: "For the prevailing historical account of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany". That would clue the reader in to the fact that this article is not part of any prevailing historical account.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be the opposite of an improvement. I'm not going to even address unproven, because it is redundant to theory. "This article is about a theory supported by a small minority of scholars". It is already quite clear that this is not fact, merely a "theory" by the title. This would be in the spirit of a disclaimer, which Misplaced Pages does not have per WP:NODISCLAIMERS. "This article is about a theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." That would be a concise and clear hat note (though I'm trending toward the view one may not be necessary). —Godsy_CONT) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Such proposals are often based on wild claims about archaeological finds, cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, and narrative accounts that seem to be about trans-oceanic voyages.

Claims of contact other than the Norse settlement of Greenland and the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement in Newfoundland are generally controversial and considered debatable. These claims are often based on circumstantial or ambiguous evidence. The scientific responses to such pre-Columbian contact claims range from dealing with it in peer-reviewed publications to outright dismissal as fringe science or pseudoarcheology."

Those are direct quotes from the article you cited and these are the hat notes- "For the prevailing model(s) describing the geographic origins and early migrations of humans in the Americas see Settlement of the Americas." "For more details on Native American genetic heritage, see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas." Now that serves a purpose, directing readers to the prevailing models of the topic. Nazi gun control theory redirects to another topic, not so closely related (and with the use of unnecessary language and rhetoric). I would also like to point out that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories is a scientific theory, while this article is not, therefore it's not held to the same standards.

Now I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I can see the idea that linking to German gun laws could create a false sense of validity for the theory. While I think that it simply directs readers to the other article, I can follow that other line of thinking to a certain point. {{For|a historical account of German gun laws|Gun legislation in Germany}}, perhaps that would be acceptable. —Godsy_CONT) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, that last suggestion does not give the reader any idea why this article is not a historical account. Try this: "This article is about a widely-rejected theory. For a mainstream history, see Gun legislation in Germany." That seems entirely concise and accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The definition of theory- "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" covers that, renders those phrasings redundant, and adds the notion of unnecessary potential bias to the language you're suggesting. —Godsy_CONT) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get that definition from? Here is the lead definition at dictionary.com: "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Merriam Webster — an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events; an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true; the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.

From your source a "guess or conjecture" is also a possible definition. The second definition is also close to that "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

What I take from it is a separation between theory and scientific theory. I don't see this being touted as scientific theory, more as an idea. On an note unrelated to this rfc I think a section in the article about what the theory says/is titled "Overview" or something may be due (that is if this idea is even rigidly defined).

P.S. Einstein's theory was scientific and so is that (the scientific theory) form of use. —Godsy_CONT) 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would personally suggest this: "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control laws had a measurable impact in facilitating the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." 184.162.103.228 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote reminds me of the quote from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Imagine a hatnote at "Moon landing conspiracy theories" saying, "Contrary to what CONSPIRACY THEORISTS believe, MAN REALLY DID LAND ON THE MOON!!! For the true story of what REALLY happened, see "Moon landings."" That approach makes the reader doubt the official story. TFD (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the comments immediately above by TFD and IP 184, perhaps this would be an improvement: ""This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." That's shorter (24 words compared to the present 36), but seems just as informative, and seems to address the Misplaced Pages guidelines mentioned above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement, and I would be okay with that. I might suggest "This article is about the claim that the Nazi's used gun control to facilitate the Holocaust. For the History of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." (claim could be swapped with idea or theory, but wouldn't have to be). That would read better. —Godsy_CONT) 21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I can say that the apostrophe is a very bad idea. Not Nazi-bad, but still. Also, I'd really like to shorten the hat by at least a third, because such length as we have now is overdoing it. Let's see what Andy and others think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant, Scolaire, and The Four Deuces: How about "This article is about the claim that gun control was used to facilitate the holocaust. For the History of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." Attempt at a shorter version per Anything's request, but I'm still okay with the other per Anything's reply to TFD and 184.162.103.228. —Godsy_CONT) 23:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because it's the "Nazi gun control theory", therefore it is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. —Godsy_CONT) 03:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support "This article is about the claim that Nazi gun control facilitated the Holocaust. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany." Accurate and concise. Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with this version. Just reading the title, I thought the article was about what Nazis thought about gun control, so I would argue we need a hatnote. However, commenting on the content of the article ("unproved", for intance) does not belong in a hatnote. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with this version, the only change I would suggest is changing " claim " to " theory " so it would conform with the title of the article. If the article were named "Nazi Gun Control Claim", "claim" would be appropriate. —Godsy_CONT) 03:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to match the title, and a different word ("claim") actually gives the reader more info than simply repeating what's in the title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

While that may or may not be true, as I've stated on certain wordings above, the hat note is not the place. I do however think even with "claim" in it, this version is a vast improvement over the current hat note. —Godsy_CONT) 05:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would support User:Scolaire's proposal, along with the change to theory put forward by User:Happysquirrel. The current hatnote wording is tendentious and clearly not NPOV. JamesBay (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBay: I believe you mean myself, I don't believe Happysquirrell has advocated that. —Godsy_CONT) 23:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would support Scolaire's proposal as a second choice - after simply restoring the original hatnote (below). Lightbreather (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Changed my vote. See below. Lightbreather (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• I also support Scolaire's proposal per WP:LEGITHAT, as a first choice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for supporting "my" proposal. But in fact all I did was to support Anythingyouwant's proposal :-) Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I was merely anticipating your opinion. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Improper The current hatnote is improper in that it's summary is neither short nor neutral. I would propose a hatnote similar to.

This article is about a theory relating the Third Reich's gun control laws to their oppression of minorities. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany.

While that would be an improvement over the current hat note, I would question using the term Third Reich over Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is perhaps more common and identifiable to the average reader. Also, I don't like using "relating the", it makes for an odd sentence. It reminds me of the concept of WP:REFERS, which I don't always agree with, but do in this case. —Godsy_CONT) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - This proposal jumped the gun. If there is any RfC to be considered first, it is this: We need a consensus on whether or not the Nazi gun control theory is a fringe theory. That is the question, and I wish I'd seen that clearly sooner. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't got a clue what I am supposed to be commenting on regarding this RfC because it appears to be malformed. However, this comment by me below explains my position. Basically, there should be no hatnote. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Restore original hatnote

• Support as proposer. Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Time moves on, and the original is rarely the best. If it was about a fringe theory regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes, it should be titled "Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes gun law theory". It's not. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've made my position overly clear above. —Godsy_CONT) 21:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with your assessment of the subject of the article. However, it does not belong in the hatnote, which is just there to redirect people who may be at the wrong place. Discussions of the validity of the theory belong in the body of the article. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 21:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, why have a hat note, just work it into the article see WP:CRITICISM. It's not like this article is an alternate name to the article Gun legislation in Germany.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

note: I came across this RfC via Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this article should have a hatnote, when I saw the title I assumed it was to do with gun legislation not the actual contents. However the hatnote needs to be neutral I make a suggestion above. SPACKlick (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Every single hatnote that has replaced the "original" hatnote has been more compliant with policy, especially WP:LEGITHAT. So, I join the very clear and blindingly obvious consensus not to restore the "original" hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There should be no hatnote. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Another Proposal

On a completely different take, and using some of what User:AndyTheGrump has been saying about argument versus theory, here is my suggestion:

This article is about the argument in US gun debates. For the history of German gun laws see Gun legislation in Germany.

Basically, this doesn't have us trying to explain the theory in the hatnote. It helps those who think that the article is about what Nazis thought about gun control. I am basing myself on how, in hatnotes for people, it says things like "This article is about the Italian actress, for the American boxer see Y", rather than "This article is about the popular/unpopular italian actress who played in WYZ, for the American boxer see X". This also incorporates what a lot of people have been saying about how it should be clear this is a US idea, and the context of how and why it is used. Plus it is very short. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 12:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment We would probably need to have a corresponding note at Gun legislation in Germany because dabs work both ways. I really do not see the point of all this. We might as well have an animated GIF showing a red flashing light. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a hatnote is not needed as a disclaimer, nor would such be proper. However, because the title Nazi gun control theory could be read (and certainly was by me at first) as refering to theories held by Nazis regarding gun control, I think we do need a hatnote, just to reduce that confusion. Also, I don't believe we need a hatnote pointing here on German gun laws because the odds of someone winding up there while looking for this article are slim. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 17:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Conditional support if the original is not restored; Happy Squirrel's proposal is better than the last Godsy-preferred version: This article is about an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany. Lightbreather (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship.

this passage is unsupported by rs and contradicted in the next section. Stephen Halbrook could definitely be considered mainstream, written several books and articles on the topic of gun control some of which have been cited by other Supreme Court rulings (Heller and McDonald). He has testified before congress on multiple occasions. how more mainstream can one get than to be quoted by the supremes? i suggest we remove this disputed trivia. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As one of the authors of the theory, of course he supports it. But his area of expertise is the Second Amendment. Others, who are Holocaust experts, do not support it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Halbrook is not a historian of Nazi Germany, or of the holocaust. His expertise regarding the U.S. constitution and U.S. firearms law is of no relevance to the topic of this article. His polemical writing on the subject of this article is not by any means 'mainstream' - it is partisan, and intended to promote a particular perspective for the purposes of influencing a debate again unconnected with either Nazi Germany nor the Holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

While Lightbreather makes what seems to be a reasonable point, I agree that this article could use some work in that regard. Based on what I take as the opinion of some users that this is WP:FRINGE, the WP:NPOV is greatly affected. Since the article is already heavily written as if that were the case, consensus would be needed to change it. Andy likes to share his opinion that this is purely partisan propaganda (which I don't share). —Godsy_CONT) 22:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is based on verifiable evidence - that nobody but pro-gun lobbyists promote this 'theory', and that they do so with the explicit purpose of influencing the debate over current firearms regulation, rather than as an exercise in historiography. Given their propensity for getting historical facts wrong, being told that they have the facts wrong, and carrying on repeating the same counterfactual assertions, I'd say that 'propaganda' was a pretty accurate description. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"that nobody but pro-gun lobbyists promote this 'theory', and that they do so with the explicit purpose of influencing the debate over current firearms regulation", this is an opinion, not "verifiable evidence". You're entitled to it, and I don't think us discussing the matter will lead to anything productive. —Godsy_CONT) 00:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your evident inability to see the evidence staring you in the face, I suspect you may well be right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't claim to be well-versed on the matter, but I think it's not as clear cut as you're trying to convey it to be. The position you're taking is as bias as the claim itself may possibly be. —Godsy_CONT) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So you haven't bothered to do any research, but decide to accuse me of 'bias' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You really like to put words into my mouth. I said I wasn't well-versed, meaning not "comprehensively knowledgeable" about the subject. And by claiming your position is bias, I mean that your opinion is clearly "particularly hostile and slanted" towards the theory (and some of the research/researchers) because from my understanding you believe it is solely politically charged and singular in purpose. You seem to put more weight in how the theory is used than the actual theory itself, and I fundamentally disagree with that. The article should focus on the theory itself and what it states, which it does not do at all. Who agrees and who doesn't, or how it is used (while there is a place for that in the article), shouldn't take up the majority of the article or be given undue weight. —Godsy_CONT) 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you mention "undue weight", it is worth quoting what it actually says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It does not mean that fringe views never published in reliable sources deserve the same weight as mainstream views. TFD (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That is true, and I'm not advocating equal weight. Simply pointing out that the mainstream view is clearly given more weight (especially with some of the terminology used to describe the theory), and it may be considered too much (unfairly represented). —Godsy_CONT) 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory has never been advanced in any peer-reviewed sources and is only taken seriously in the echo chamber to defend "gun rights." When it is mentioned in peer-reviewed sources, it is in articles about the U.S. gun debate, not about Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. Reliable sources have in fact mentioned that the theory could be seen as Holocaust trivialization. Per weight, we should not give any more credence to the theory than reliable sources do. TFD (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory is taken seriously enough by mainstream sources to analyze it and disagree with it. Here's one that came out this year.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is reported in reliable sources writing about gun control because it is part of the public debate. Similarly other books about U.S. politics mention the views of truthers, birthers, deathers, etc. That does not elevate those views to the mainstream. TFD (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, but it does elevate the material to legitimate subject-matter for Misplaced Pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes made to lead without consensus

This article was basically stable for ten months (May 2014-March 2015) before Godsy rewrote the lead at the beginning of this month, without consensus. Among other changes (as noted in Hat note and lead discussion above), he reordered it to give (consciously or not) undue weight by prominence of placement that old "security against theory" argument, and he flipped the questioning of the authors of the theory around into questioning the critics of it.

Wanna talk about the hatnote? That's one thing - discussed above. The lead? That's another thing altogether. I see an effort here to take an article about a fringe theory and give it more validity than it is due, and wiping out the scholarly criticism (again, as noted in discussion above, and an example of in this edit - ). Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, please see next discussion: "Is it a fringe theory?" Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, perhaps unwisely, I made some edits today which changed the hat note and lead together. It was not my intention to convey in any way that the lead should be held to the same standard as the hat note. Second to avoid adressing the speculation of reasoning behind my edits (which were purely meant as WP:NPOV and other general fixes), I'm only going to comment on the current version as of the beginning of today. I didn't realize how controversial this article was at the beginning and I can understand that those edits could be perceived in a different way. This is the version before the changes introduced by User:Lightbreather today (Nazi gun control theory#Nazi gun control theory arguments— changes were made to this without consensus, on an unrelated note). I will be expanding upon this (perhaps below in "Is it a fringe theory?"). —Godsy_CONT) 23:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your change today was a complete overreach and clear violation of consensus. The edit has been reverted by another editor, and I agree with their statement that, "A mass revert to February version clearly violates consensus. For example, see Talk:Nazi_gun_control_theory#Restore_original_hatnote". —Godsy_CONT) 00:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree. There was no consensus. There was one determined editor (you) and a handful of others sort of participating, but the main question was swept aside while side-stepping the issue of whether or not this theory is fringe. My efforts, that one and the one I am making now to turn around this Titanic, are to prevent another ArbCom. You wanna push Nazi gun control theory as NOT a fringe theory? By all means, hang yourself... because that is what the past has shown on this subject. Better to take a breath, step back, and once again ask and once again answer the question: Is Nazi gun control a fringe theory? Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You're (again) making statements based on your assumptions of my position or beliefs. I have stated that I have issue with the hat note and certain wordings within the article; I have questioned the definition of theory, as it is used in this case; I have made changes in the article and discussed on this talk page things related to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I have not shared an opinion as to whether I personally believe this to be fringe (either it is or isn't by a technical definition my opinion wouldn't matter anyway) OR whether I care for (like) the theory (or its authors and possible motives), nor do I plan to. I do not plan to edit according to your personal ideas/rules, conform to your "survey" (by answering your irrelevant and unnecessary question), or take a breath and step back. —Godsy_CONT) 11:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it a fringe theory?

I have actually restored the last stable version, before all this debate - which has NOT lead to any consensus. First order of business to agree on - and that was originally removed from article - and an important point: Is the Nazi gun control theory a FRINGE theory? Should we put this into a formal RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging those who have contributed: Goethean, Anythingyouwant, Tutelary, Iselilja, Miguel Escopeta, AndyTheGrump, Jamesx12345, James500, Godsy. Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Anythingyouwant has decided to pick what they think is the last stable version of this article - though they do not indicate which version that is! It is quite clear that the last stable version is the one from February 24, 2015 - less than two months ago. After that is when Godsy started making all their changes. Hindsight is 20/20, but we need to restore this puppy to February, and not to one of the more recent versions, because we all screwed up and skipped over the removal of the fringe-theory material without a proper discussion with more people. Actually, Anythingyouwant, you perceived this at the time, and I regret that I and others didn't respond to your warning sooner. (See Anythingyouwant's discussion Hat note and lead, started April 7, 2015. Note that before he started this discussion, the last discussion on this page had been started one year before - in April 2014! )

It may be painful for Godsy, but we need to back up to that point, and I implore that another contributor to this article see the good sense in what I'm saying and restore the Feb. version. THEN, let's start over from square one with the question, Is the Nazi gun control theory a FRINGE theory? Until there is consensus on this, it is an exercise in futility (warring and ArbCom) to do anything else. Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

LB, my most recent article edit summary said "A mass revert to February version clearly violates consensus. For example, see Talk:Nazi_gun_control_theory#Restore_original_hatnote. I will stick with 1RR on this." So, all I did was revert your two consecutive edits which threw this whole article back to February.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The last ONE edit was back to Feb - not two. Anyway, thanks for explaining, but you should have written "Restored to last version by Godsy" in your edit summary (and left out your not AGF comment). I am here to tell you all, you are skating on thin ice here, as the last Nazi-themed gun-control ArbCom demonstrated. Stepping back to square one is the way to go, not resuming from Godsy's original, misguided (assuming good faith) scrubbing of "fringe" talk and support from this article. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We have enough difficulty discussing article content, I think, without critiquing each others' edit summaries. I think mine was fine, it didn't assume bad faith or any kind of faith, and it simply treated two consecutive edits of yours as a single edit, since they were both aimed at reverting material that's been in the article without dispute for week(s).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The comment was just a reason for reversion, I don't see how it could be construed as not AFG. In my opinion rather than "Restored to last version by Godsy" as you suggested, Anything's gave clarification.

And I fundamentally disagree that we should go back to February, (though I may be bias having been one of the contributors) I think the current version is better. I was not involved in the ArbCom matter, and do not have ill-intentions for this article. I do not adhere to this "thin ice" concept of yours, WP:Be bold.—Godsy_CONT)

A version reflecting a "rough consensus" was reached per Hat note and lead. The thing that could not be agreed upon was the hat note, hence the RFC. A mass revert as you performed, to what you consider "stable" is not consensus. Because something remains unchanged for a period of time does not mean it is in the correct form or cannot be improved. —Godsy_CONT) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear that you see it that way, and I'm telling you that it's no-where near enough of a consensus when it comes to things that are prefaced by the word "Nazi." The discussion was you, Anythingyouwant, and AndyTheGrump. Even if it had been a consensus at the time - and it wasn't - it isn't now. Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And I am not saying that there was bad faith on your part, but that RfC was poorly formed. The question was, and is, "Is Nazi gun control a fringe theory?" To talk about anything else right now is a waste of our time. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And I understand you see it this way, the RFC regarding the hat note being against policy would still be applicable regardless of the outcome below. It is governed by different standards that would remain unaffected by whether or not this is Fringe.

@Lightbreather: Frankly, I see this section overall as unimportant and disagree with your principles/ideas behind this being the only thing worth talking about. If you want to gain consensus to add the fringe wording back in, so be it, but consensus is needed. It was never really gained for its addition in the first place— which I believe was added by you in this edit. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point. —Godsy_CONT) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: and originally here. —Godsy_CONT) 01:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the Nazi gun control theory a FRINGE theory?

Yes. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we put this into a formal RfC?

Conditional "Yes." - If we are unable to come to a consensus. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No - because it is a matter of policy, and we can't overrule policy by consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No - as it would be a waste of time. and perhaps along the same line of reasoning as Andy. —Godsy_CONT) 02:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Whether the subject of this article is a fringe theory or not is an issue of policy - specifically Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, from which WP:FRINGE is derived. It is not something that can be determined via votes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I am fairly certain for the time being, that I agree with Andy's assertion above. —Godsy_CONT) 23:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but if anyone reads previous discussions here they will see that you consider this a fringe theory. However, you don't think there should be an article about this at all, right? And as I said in the Proposed deletion discussion that you started last April:

I would prefer that this fringe crap (IMO) not be in/on Misplaced Pages at all, but the the people who support it are just gonna keep pushing it and pushing it, so I'd rather they have a dedicated fringe/historical revisionism article than to keep disrupting every gun-control related WP article.

And if Godsy and others succeed here in removing the classification of this article as an article about a fringe theory, they will once again start trying to slide this thoery into every other gun-related article in Misplaced Pages. You and I both know that is a fact. Lightbreather (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it comes back to discussing deleting it again. But if we do that, someone will start another version of it and this warring starts all over again. It is our fault - and I mostly blame myself - for not being vigilant when Godsy started down this path, but it is not too late to get this thing back on track and answer the questions posed above. Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you let me voice my own opinions on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We do not create spinoff articles to present fringe theories.... 21 March 2014, AndyTheGrump

Misplaced Pages doesn't create articles on fringe subjects just because contributors refuse to work within policy. 22 April 2014, AndyTheGrump

The hypothesis is fringe because it isn't taken seriously by academic historians of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - the relevant academic field. And I would remind you that not only was this very issue central to the ArbCom case - which made entirely clear that "placing undue weight on inappropriate material in articles" was sanctionable - but that ArbCom has previously made it very clear on previous occasions that undue promotion of fringe topics in general is likewise sanctionable.... 29 April 2014, AndyTheGrump

For cripes' sake Andy, I don't want to argue with you. If you refuse to help me keep this article classified as an article about a fringe theory, then nominate it for deletion again, and I will vote for it. It means we'll have to battle about it all over again in the near future, but I have a broken arm, broken spirits, and no energy for the POV direction this article has taken since April 5 when Godsy decided to remove "fringe" from the article and otherwise try to make the theory sound legitimate. Lightbreather (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would appreciate it if you let me voice my own opinions on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your attempts to assume what I think, or to lump me in with other editors. You may be pushing the limits of the WP:CONDUCT policy with these statements. —Godsy_CONT) 01:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your conduct has been stellar here. If you have a complaint, gather your evidence and start the appropriate process. As for me, my arm hurts, my husband is cooking, and I am signing off for tonight. I predict this article is going to cause a lot of grief if we don't all swallow our pride, fall back to the Feb. version, and resume this discussion with a renewed commitment to do it right. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So if we don't go back to your preferred version in your preferred way, you believe it will be detrimental to the discussion. That's not quite how it works here, but thanks for the input. trying to illustrate a point, not intentionally being sarcastic or claiming to know what you believe/think —Godsy_CONT) 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably stepping on a nest of hornets here, but I believe that there are actually three separate issues here that people are trying to clump in various ways

• Is this a fringe theory? IMO yes, and I don't believe I am alone. This means, if I understand policy right, that if this is a fringe theory, discussion of this theory should stay on this article, and that, since most reliable scholars do not agree with the theory, the section about the disagreement should be larger and more prominent.
• What should the hatnote look like? This is intensly debated, and I don't see much consensus yet. Most people seem to agree that short is good. Some policies state that hatnotes are just for disambiguation (am I right?). Some people feel that a statement that this is a fring theory should go here, because it is a description of the topic. However, I would argue that editors could think that the theory is false, and still not want that in the hatnote, because they feel it is not the place. So this is a separate issue.
• What should the lead look like? Again a separate topic.

I hope I have not missed any other important issues. I just wanted to point out that trying to simplify this enthusiastic and thriving debate (which I feel might get us somewhere (but then I am an optimist)) to only one of those three points may be leading to confusion and bad feelings as one editor feels betrayed because another who agrees with them on one issue disagrees on another.Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest, in apparent contradiction to all my previous arguments, that this isn't a 'fringe theory'. Not because it isn't fringe (it clearly is, since it is only held to by partisan participants in another debate entirely), but because it isn't a 'theory' at all in any useful sense. It amounts to speculation about how things could have been different if things had been different - making it entirely incapable of falsification, and thus of little merit as a subject of academic discourse. It is a fringe argument, certainly, if it is actually about the supposed subject matter (Nazi Germany and the Holocaust), but elevating it to the level of 'theory' and describing it as a subject of scholarship looks to be a mischaracterisation of what it is actually about. It is an argument based on counterfactual history put forward to influence the U.S. gun debate, rather than as an objective exercise in historiography, and needs to be described in those terms. Assuming that we need to describe it at all here - as a fringe argument put forward in a political debate, it probably only needs mention (in passing, as fringe - the current Gun politics in the United States article probably gets this about right) in the context of that particular debate, in the relevant article. Giving it an article of its own deprives it of context, and gives it an appearance of significance it probably doesn't deserve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

IP edit to hatnote

I don't think it's a great idea to muck around with the hatnote in the middle of an RFC about it, but an IP has done so. The edit inserts the following bolded language: "an unproven theory supported by a small minority of United States gun rights scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes|the history of German gun laws." Aside from making a verbose hatnote more verbose, I don't think the hatnote is now factual; if we consider the whole group of "gun rights scholars", is it really true that only a small minority of them subscribe to the theory in question? I have seen no evidence about that in the Misplaced Pages article. I assume that "gun rights scholars" means scholars who support gun rights.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I would have already reverted it, but have hit my limit for the day and feel it would be inappropriate. —Godsy_CONT) 01:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It IS "an unproven theory supported by a small minority of United States gun rights scholars" (and not even Holocaust scholars, for that matter). Let's assume they're scholars. They're all U.S. "scholars" and they's a small minority of "scholars." It's a fringe theory that will remain unproven because it is a counterfactual history theory. Now, I'm signing out for the night. Lightbreather (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it falls under WP:TRHAT. Even if it doesn't, it still does not belong there per WP:LEGITHAT. The RFC covers this extensively. —Godsy_CONT) 01:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact - a pertinent one given that it makes clear who holds to this 'theory'. Vague assertions about a minority of 'scholars' that fail to explain the context may be convenient if one wishes to hide the clearly-partisan background to the 'theory', but they add little of encyclopaedic merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy, do we have any source that says that most pro-gun scholars reject this theory?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hum, I see what you mean - an unintentional ambiguity in the wording. It should probably read "an unproven theory supported by a small minority of scholars - U.S. supporters of gun rights - regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany...". Except of course that the 'theory' is not only unproven but incapable of falsification. The real problem here is with the word 'theory' as much as anything. It isn't 'a theory' in any useful sense, instead consisting of vague assertions about how things could have been different. Which by and large isn't what the relevant scholars of the subject - historians of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany - generally consider productive. Which in turn makes the word 'scholar' somewhat questionable too. Halbrook for instance is clearly a scholar of U.S. law, but his speculations regarding the consequences of Nazi firearms regulation are only marginally 'scholarly', and not recognised as such (or at least not recognised as having any great significance) by mainstream historians of the period. The hatnote perhaps unintentionally elevates Halbrook and co's arguments to a position within academic discourse that isn't actually merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The hatnote should not be there, period. It is judgemental/point-y and, just as we don't have a POV-y hatnote at Flat Earth, so too we should not have one here. Having such a thing immediately detracts from any value that the article might have. The primary purpose of hatnotes is for disambiguation and no disambiguation is required here. Obviously, there should be a link to the legislation article within this one but the two seem not to be connected in any way that requires an announcement. Are we going to start adding hatnotes to articles about religions saying, for example, "There is no God, see Richard Dawkins."

Whether or not the article should exist at all is a matter for WP:FRINGE, AfD and the like but the simple solution here would appear to be to revise the basic wording. Somewhere above, AndyTheGrump mentions the word "argument" and replacing theory with argument seems a neat way to ameliorate some issues. Unless someone thinks that would be weaseling? The Nazi gun control argument is a belief held by some people that ... kind of thing. - Sitush (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The word "claim" might work (suggested above by IP184).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There can be issues with using claim. I don't know if they would really apply here but using it in an article title etc would certainly sounds like weaseling to me. See WP:CLAIM and WP:WEA for some background. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've re-read WP:FRINGE this morning in preparation for resuming participation in this discussion. Before I do that, I want to apologize for some of my snappy comments last night. My broken elbow, which I expected to be less of a problem than it has become, is causing me a great deal of discomfort and stress, and (this is part of the stress) apparently, according to my orthopedic surgeon, is going to for the next 6 to 12 weeks.

Anyway, this theory/argument/claim is definitely fringe, and WP:FRINGE has quite a bit to say about that. Not only is it fringe, it's fringe that's actively pushed by a cadre of pro-gun editors on Misplaced Pages, as evidenced by the gun-control ArbCom that wrapped-up last year at about this time. No-one, as far as I know, is trying to push Flat Earth beliefs into articles about controversial, modern debates - say like Global warming. Except maybe for some primitive cultures (I dunno), no reasonable people today believe that Flat Earth is a real "thing." But there are honest-to-god, otherwise apparently reasonable people alive today trying to push this idea that IF the Jews had been armed, it would have made a significant change in the outcome of the Holocaust. More than that, they try to connect that counterfactual history exersice about Nazi gun laws with modern gun-control debates by legitimate governments not run by maniacal despots.

The editors who are trying to legitimize this theory, in order to continue and expand upon featuring it in gun-related articles are, for the most part, the same people who believe in New World Order (conspiracy theory). In fact, I would not be at all surprised if the "Nazi gun control" theory was born of that madness.

Flat Earth doesn't need to mention "fringe" prominently in the hatnote and the lead paragraph because no-one is trying to pass it off as a real thing. Per WP:FRINGE, we need to make it clear to our readers and editors that Nazi gun control is a fringe theory. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are being arrogant/narrow-minded. Flat Earthers do believe the place is flat; Christians do believe in God; Gallileo was persecuted for his thoughts about the planets. You say "no-one is trying to pass it off as a real thing" but that just betrays your "I don't believe it" POV. If the article is to be neutral, we must avoid judgements. Almost everything you have said on this page has been replete with judgement. You probably need to take a step back and just let the uninvolved determine the outcome of the RfC etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am the IP that added the "United States" to the hat. The elephant in the room here is that this counterfactual "claim" has only been promoted by US gun scholars for use in their own political endeavours within US gun politics. Scholars in the rest of the world do not subscribe to this self-serving view, and, as has been stated in the article, some are appalled that it cheapens real knowledge of the Holocaust.This is just one more example of the proliferation of articles that deal strictly with US gun politics but that are implied to be of worldwide importance.There needs to be some honesty in all of this. This should either be merged into one of the many articles on US Gun Politics or at least it should be labelled as such. We could do away with the hat if the title and the body of the article clarified that this was yet another article on US gun politics and no claim is made of it having any weight in true scholarship of Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. I've replaced "supported" with "promoted" in the hat. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@99.242.108.55: have you got reliable sources to back that up? Looking to avoid WP:OR here. Per WP:BURDEN, we need to find a source for it before adding it to the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It concurs with what is already in the article. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing one of the sources - would you please direct me to which source, exactly? Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, IP, the entire gun control issue is massively skewed towards the US on Misplaced Pages. It bores me to tears, usually, and is certainly a hot spot for soapboxing on WP by both sides. As far as merging/deleting or whatever goes, I did say that is another discussion. On the point of the hatnote, however, I, erm, stick to my guns. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct, but that doesn't mean it should just keep getting worse. Using the hatnote with accurate language at least helps to rein it in a little. I hate to shoot holes in your argument, but just exchanging one weasel word for another is hardly hitting the target. There must be members of the WP Firearms project who see this problem of treating US gun politics as representative of the rest of the world who would like to sort it out and clearly define the boundaries. It would make the project much better.99.242.108.55 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing one word for another can have an immense effect on perception and meaning. However, my main point here is that we do not need the hatnote. Any change of wording would be in the body of the article, not some red flag notification inserted by people pushing one POV or another. - Sitush (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The theory is supported by some scholars who support US gun rights, but do most scholars who support US gun rights OPPOSE the theory? That's what the hatnote currently suggests.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed "supported" and put "promoted" in its place. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So, just for those trying to keep up, the current hatnote (after replacing "supported" with "promoted" reads:

This article is about an unproven theory promoted by a small minority of United States gun rights scholars regarding gun laws in Nazi Germany and other authoritarian regimes. For the history of German gun laws, see Gun legislation in Germany.

Neither this version or the one before it (using "supported") suggested that "most scholars who support US gun rights OPPOSE the theory."

"Gun rights scholars" does not imply "pro gun rights scholars." 99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested reading

For anyone new to this debate, I highly suggest you review: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control (that ran Jan-April 2014)

You might also want to read Authoritarianism and gun control RFC, which is the RfC that started mid-December 2013 and preceded the gun control ArbCom linked-to above. (The RfC had two questions. Seven (7) of the 21 editors who voted "No" to the second question - Is coverage of gun control appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article? - explicitly called the theory "fringe." That is part of why this article was created.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitler and Russia

Re: this change. The conversation cited in the source is one conversation about Russia that was recorded on one day. It is no secret that Nazi Germany used entire regiments comprising people from countries that is had conquered, nor that Hitler's attitude to the people of Russia was even more extreme than his general attitude towards Slavic populations. I'm not even sure that the sentence is needed but if it is then it should reflect the source and also omit Hitler's own historical revisionism, which was apparent in an earlier version.

Disclaimer: I talked a lot about this stuff with Trevor-Roper, whom I knew. However, right now, I'm just following the source. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably remove the sentence pretty much for the reasons I've already stated. We are not qualified to interpret primary sources, the source in question is primary and is time-restricted to an extraordinary degree. Trevor-Roper himself knew that Hitler said a lot of off-the-cuff stuff that made little sense. We can present the hypothesis that is the subject of the article without even having this sentence. - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, as I said in my edit summary "If the clarification is due,... add it back in." That aside, I can't imagine who would want those that they planned on conquering or victimizing (as the prior wording stated) to be armed. So, the sentence serves little purpose for me personally (though that idea/thinking on the sentence is very generalized). —Godsy_CONT) 05:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That particular Hitler quote is a common feature of arguments by people who support the theory. One can do a google search to confirm that. Therefore, I support keeping the notion in some form or other. Also, Hitler was apparently not speaking just about Russians but about subject races plural.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That was what I gathered and was the reason I removed "in Russia". I'll leave it for others to decide though, as it is more source related than it is a policy/guideline issue (and doesn't really bother me). Overall the new version Sitush implemented, as opposed to the old one which used the word "victim" among other differences, may be a better choice of wording. —Godsy_CONT) 13:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is an argument commonly used by supporters then quote and cite the supporters. Do not put it in our own voice when it is not what the source appears to say. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; we need to be very careful what we say in the encyclopedia's voice on articles like this one. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Per request, I added this:

DeFoster, Ruth. "American gun culture, school shootings, and a 'frontier mentality': An ideological analysis of British editorial pages in the decade after Columbine”. Communication, Culture & Critique, Vol. 3, pp. 466-484 at 477 (2010) quoting an op-ed by Richard Munday, "Tightening gun controls is pointless", The London Times (March 13, 2009).

Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. (2008). Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations ("new" ed.). Enigma Books. p. 321. ISBN 1936274930. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not great, sorry, and is a classic reason why once a discussion gets underway it is better to propose than to be bold. We are still citing the primary source; we're jumping through hoops for the secondary sources, which ultimately seems to be an op-ed; and the spelling is Adolf on Misplaced Pages. I'm going to look at that secondary source later today. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the cited secondary source, and maybe you'll feel better about it. I certainly feel better about citing a secondary source instead of only citing a primary source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is an out-and-out op-ed, written by Richard Munday, who apparently wrote much the same in the Daily Telegraph and the Washington Times. Your source says

In his last op-ed, on March 13, 2009, in the wake of the Winnenden shooting, Munday proposed arming teachers, Israeli-style, and compared those who would enact stricter gun controls to Hitler, who once remarked that the most foolish mistake would be "to allow the subject races to possess arms."

Your source also notes that this was a dramatic shift in editorial policy. I've no idea what the editorial stance is for the Washington Times but the other two papers are pretty notoriously organs of the right-wing here in the UK. We really, really should try to avoid op-eds because they tend to distort. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to remove mention of Munday and his op-ed in the footnote if that will calm the waters here. But the journal article by Ruth DeFoster is obviously not an op-ed, and amply supports the text in the Misplaced Pages article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC

You may also be interested in this link, which I am not suggesting to insert into this Misplaced Pages article, but which again includes that Hitler quote. Obviously, I am not agreeing with the use of the quote by any of these sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The journal article does not support the statement. It merely quotes the op-ed and is indeed a review of British op-eds in terms of their reaction to Columbine. Stop cherry-picking and find one of the supporters whom you claim commonly use the argument. It looks possible that the book review might lead you to something, although it is behind a paywall here. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you have apparently said above that you would like to exclude any op-ed in which a supporter or opponent of this theory mentions the Hitler quote, and now you would apparently like to exclude scholarly articles in reputable journals (written specifically about gun culture) that document use of the Hitler quote by supporters of this "theory". Plus excluding, of course, the primary source. So I am kind of at a loss as to what could be left.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, here is the quote from the Washington Times book review:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire sentence is problematic, not just the quotation - the assertion that advocates of firearms regulation have been compared to Hitler is self-evidently true, per Godwin's law if nothing else, but that isn't what Halbrook & co are doing. Their argument isn't that 'gun control' advocates are Nazis, but that such regulation enabled Hitler's genocidal policies. As far as I'm aware he has never even remotely suggested that his political opponents are actually planning genocide: that sort of nonsense is fortunately restricted to lunatic fringe websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Halbrook and many others have employed the Hitler quote, which seems pertinent to this article. And we have lots of sources, so maybe something can be worked out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the complete removal of this is the way to go. —Godsy_CONT) 16:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the quote has been used. That doesn't make a misleading assertion as to Halbrook's actual arguments legitimate (and it doesn't do him any favours to do so...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant and AndyTheGrump:How about a pure quote not asserting anything? "Adolf Hitler once remarked that 'the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.'" —Godsy_CONT) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How about just omitting it entirely, as I mused earlier in this thread? It isn't necessary, it is misleading and it is going to cause a lot of heartache (seemingly) just to make a point-y connection that supporters = Nazis. I'm new to this subject but it really doesn't seem contextually correct at all. If one of the "theory" supporters has made it clear that it is a core part of their argument then we could attribute it to them but what I am seeing at present is a game of flimsy connections and I worry about the rationale for making them. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing what? You've already ruled out op-eds, scholarly articles, and primary sources. See WP:Censorship. Can't we describe opposing arguments fully and honestly? Even when they are foolish?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup: quoting a primary source without indicating why it is considered relevant is questionable. And frankly, without an indication of context, looks like cherry-picking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not only the sentence, but its placement - as the lead sentence of the "Nazi gun control theory arguments"! - and the sources, which I am still trying to make sense.

I request that this material NOT be re-added until there is consensus here about what it says and where to place it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler once remarked that 'the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.', which is vital to the theory." Or something along those lines would be appropriate. That way we include the quote as it is part of the theory; don't make any assertions or connect it with something it isn't necessarily connected to; and avoid any improper/unnecessary wording. —Godsy_CONT) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Halbrook considers something Hitler said in 1942 to be 'vital', considering that his arguments are based around firearms regulations enacted in 1938. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Me, too. Although if we have a source written by him that says so then obviously I'd have to accept that is at least his opinion, whether or not others in his general camp agree. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are loads and loads of people who have used this Hitler quote, Halbrook included. It was used in the Washington Times book review of Halbrook's book, quoted above. Now, we could insist that nothing gets mentioned about it here unless the author uses magic words like "vital to the theory" or "core of the theory", or unless the author specifically argues that Hitler in 1942 was pretty much the same Hitler as in 1938. But, FWIW, I would regard all such filters as amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT at best.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to re-visit WP:BLP. We do not go around tarring people, or at least should not. I've just fixed another of your indents also. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Who have I supposedly tarred?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A request that article content be sourced is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. If there are sources stating that this particular quote is of significance to Halbrook's arguments, cite them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I already quoted a book review of his book above. Honestly, I could cite Glen Beck and a whole lot of other people whom I don't respect very much quoting this same Hitler quote. Will that be regarded as a verboten primary source here? Fine, then I cited a scholarly article and am accused of cherry-picking, I cite op-eds and am told we can't cite op-eds in a controversial article. I mean, for Pete's sake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that the Hitler quote comes up in the argument - the question is whether it actually has the significance you claim for those promoting this as an 'academic' argument. This article isn't about random things Glen Beck might have said on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Glen Beck has a way bigger audience than Halbrook for this stuff, so why woukd Halbrook be so much more notable? But, like I said, Halbrook has been spouting it too, and I've quoted a book review of Halbrook singling this out. I just get the feeling that I could quote a hundred books here and still encounter an effort to fight the argument by removing it. Wouldn't it be better to fight the argument by describing the most notable responses to it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The size of Glen Becks audience has nothing to do with it - his comments on the subject haven't been the subject of discussion and analysis in secondary academic sources in the way that Halbrook & co's have. The claim that the topic of this article is notable is directly based on the existence of such sources. We don't create articles on topics just because some random TV pundit talks about them. And for the umpteenth time, I'm not disputing that Halbrook has referred to the Hitler quote - I'm disputing your claim that this quote is seen as 'vital' by him. A suggestion that actually does Halbrook no favours, since an argument based around a few words uttered by a man who spent much of his life uttering rambling and contradictory statements (see for example our article on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler for an example of how you can use his own words to 'prove' almost anything) would lack all credibility as serious academic historiography. Halbrooks argument is based around Hitler's policies, not around his rhetoric. The quote may be useful as a soundbite, but it has little to do with Halbrooks actual argument, which is based on events long preceding the quotation in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How about this, assuming the Hitler quote is in Halbrrook (haven't read it so I can't say). Right after we mention Halbrook's book/article, we say. "In this book he states that Hitler said that" and then put the quote. That way we are not assuming he put any importance on it, just saying he said it. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Material in (lead of) first section w/out consensus

First, Anythingyouwant added this as the lead sentence of the lead paragraph of the "Nazi gun control theory arguments" - without consensus:

Like all conquerors, Hitler did not want his victims to be armed.

He restored it after my attempt to restore this article to the last stable version.

Until a few moments ago, he and Godsy had tweaked to their liking to this:

People who advocate stricter gun controls have been compared to Adolf Hitler, because he once remarked that "the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."

1. Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations (2007). p. 321. ISBN 1936274930.
2. Robberson, Tom. “Let’s stick to the facts when discussing gun control”, Dallas Morning News (opinion) (January 15, 2013).
3. DeFoster, Ruth. "American gun culture, school shootings, and a 'frontier mentality': An ideological analysis of British editorial pages in the decade after Columbine”, Communication, Culture & Critique, Vol. 3, pp. 466-484 at 477 (2010) quoting an op-ed by Richard Munday, "Tightening gun controls is pointless", The London Times (March 13, 2009).
4. Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. (2008). Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations ("new" ed.). Enigma Books. p. 321. ISBN 1936274930.

I see that AndyTheGrump removed it (which I was about to do, thank you) and it needs consensus before it is returned. Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the section above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I haven't finished my first cup of coffee. I will join in there. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert 2?

I brought this to Godsy's attention privately, but he has deleted it without comment or action, so I am placing it here.

He made this edit with the edit summary "revert 2." It is clear from his edit history of the last 30 hours that this is a technicality, which THE BIG, RED BOX at WP:3RR makes quite clear. Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy's preferred lead

Godsy changed the lead from this:

The Nazi gun control theory states that gun laws in Nazi Germany were a significant component of the Third Reich's plan, and that victims, especially Jews, might have more effectively resisted repression if they had been armed or better armed.

Proponents of the Nazi gun control theory are primarily U.S. gun-rights advocates, and discussion of Nazi gun laws in this context is almost exclusively aimed at U.S. gun laws and policies. It is often framed as a security against tyranny argument. When discussing the theory, adherents sometimes cite other authoritarian regimes like the Khmer Rouge, which they suggest could have been inhibited by more private gun rights and gun ownership.

Questions about the validity of the theory and the motives behind it's inception have been raised, because of its prevalence and use being primarily by pro-gun advocates. The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship.

To this:

The Nazi gun control theory states that gun laws in Nazi Germany were a significant component of the Third Reich's plan, and that victims, especially Jews, might have more effectively resisted repression if they had been armed or better armed. It is often framed as a security against tyranny argument. When discussing the theory, other authoritarian regimes like Stalinist Russia and Khmer Rouge are sometimes cited, and it is suggested that they could have been inhibited by more private gun rights and gun ownership.

Questions about the validity of the theory and the motives behind it's inception have been raised, because of its prevalence and use being primarily by pro-gun advocates. Discussion of this theory is often politically charged, and aimed at certain U.S. gun laws and policies. The theory is not supported by mainstream historical, legal, or political science scholarship.

1. Halbrook, Stephen (2 December 2013). "How the Nazis Used Gun Control". National Review. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
2. Cottrol, Robert (November 7, 1999). "The Last Line of Defense". Los Angeles Times (opinion).
3. Cite error: The named reference Nuckols130131 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference Winkler2011p83 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Harcourt2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Spitzer2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference Kohn2004p187 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference Bryant-HolocaustImagery was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Without discussion or consensus, and he keeps insisting one his preferred version - without discussion or consensus. After almost two years of working on gun control articles I have learned that there is a good way to structure leads: Paragraph 1: A very BRIEF, neutral description of the topic. Paragraph 2: A BRIEF summary of the pro- arguments. Paragraph 3: A BRIEF summary of the con- arguments. Otherwise, the pros and cons try to top load the lead for Google search results (and the skimming reader, too).

Despite the reasons he gives for the change, the effect is to ensure that the "security against tyranny" argument shows up front-and-center on this article. It gives undue weight and legitimacy to this fringe theory. (Note also how he loaded the lead with Halbrook and Cottrol sources, even though this article was writen using WP:CITELEAD.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire article should be locked down for at least a week and people should discuss things here until some sort of consensus forms. It is getting silly, and opening more and more concurrent threads is not going to make it any better. Too many excitables or summat. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I would support liking it down to the last stable version, before Godsy started his edits on April 5. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just lock it down at whatever state it is in. This is so childish: my dad's better than your dad sort of stuff. Unless something is a violation of copyright or BLP, a few days is small fry. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am pinging admins Newyorkbrad, GorillaWarfare, and Mike V, who can perhaps help to guide these discussions and keep them from spinning out of control. NYB and GW were arbitrators on the gun control ArbCom (GW is still an arb, but NYB is not); Mike V is a SPI guy. Both GW and Mike have CU rights. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is going to use their checkuser rights unless and until a SPI is filed. Either do so, or stop bringing this up - it is getting tedious and it achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure my participation here will be valuable. I know very very little about the subject, and this discussion seems well under control now that the edit warring has stopped for now. AndyTheGrump is correct that you should file an SPI if you think socking is an issue here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I would not oppose a one-week lock-down, though I do not relish the thought of spending an entire week discussing whether the most provocative (if erroneous) argument on one side of this particular controversy ought to be censored out of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Instead of seeing potential censorship, think in terms of neutrality and due weight. It need not take a week, either. If consensus forms for doing X, Y or Z then an admin can be requested to do just that, while those discussing here move on to the next chapter in the saga. I just feel that there is a lot of back-and-forth going on in the article itself and ultimately it means we are trying to hit a very tricky moving target. A bit of stability could work wonders. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You are oversimplifying it. You make it sound as though I changed it first from that other version, which isn't the case. The one I keep restoring had input from many users and discussion at Nazi gun control#Last sentence of lead and Nazi gun control#Hat note and lead. I will not be replying anymore in this section as I have asked you to stop stating what I "prefer". You have no authority to state/speculate about my thinking. —Godsy_CONT) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you were willing to make that questionable, technical "revert 2" that you made less than an hour ago, it is quite clear that you have a preferred version than you are loathe to discuss. You are edit warring. Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would like to see the sentence about the theory only existing in US gun debates moved higher. If we state that right off the bat, and maybe even in the hatnote, the rest of the article can just calmly discuss the theory and arguments on both sides after making it very clear early on how geographically and contextually constrained the whole debate is. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

IP edit to lead

Our friendly IP has modified the lead to read "It is often framed as a "security against tyranny" argument in U.S. gun politics". I agree with the intent of the edit, but to me it reads like if the theory is used another way in other places, rather than not at all. Is there a less ambiguous way of putting it? Evrything I can think of is clunky. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 19:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The mislabelled link for "security against tyranny" appears in Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Security_against_tyranny and should read as such. I simply changed the already clunky--and misleading, for whatever reason--mislabelling of the link. Your sentence that begins "I agree with the intent..." was not finished, so I'm not sure what you would like to change. Thanks for pitching in. Our friendly IP,99.242.108.55 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel that it can be read as meaning that that is how the argument is used in the US, but that it might be used differently elsewhere. Perhaps it should be split into two sentences or clauses something like "This argument is only used in US gun politics where it is framed as a "security against tyranny" argument". Anyhow, I just want it to be very clear, not suggesting it is in any way worse that what came before. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please make the changes as you determine.99.242.108.55 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems more like an argumentum ad hitlerum. It compares supporters of gun control to Nazis. TFD (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, note the "framed as". The comment refers to how the proponents classify it. However, you could probably add a sentence right after saying something to the effect of "It can also be seen as a form of argumentum ad hitlerum". It actually might make for a more balanced lead. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Implemented the suggestion. Sorry for mis-spelling User:The Four Deuces in the edit summary. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 03:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

These are probably the best suggestions I've seen. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Counterfactual history

In an attempt to get away from "theory" and its associated baggage, can we change:

1. The theory suggests that victims might have successfully resisted Nazi repression if they had been armed - or better armed to

• The response to this hypothetical question suggests that victims might have successfully resisted Nazi repression if they had been armed, or better armed

And

2. Advocates of Nazi gun control arguments propose a counterfactual history in which the Nazis did not disarm groups like the German Jews and other suppressed populations to

• Advocates of Nazi gun control ruminate on the possible outcomes if the Nazis had not disarmed groups whom they singled-out for persecution.

You'll note that this also drops one of the mentions of Jews, who at present are mentioned 15 times while Gypsies, homosexuals and Poles are each mentioned once. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1. Prefer use of "counterfactual history" in 2. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Theory is in the article title/name. Perhaps an appropriate preemptive action would be to propose an article name change, if you believe the term is incorrect. Otherwise its use within the body text shouldn't be an issue. —Godsy_CONT) 09:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The problems with using theory have already been discussed above. Short form: it posits something that is capable of being tested at some future time, which is not the case here. Renaming has been mentioned also but it doesn't have any bearing on either of my suggestions: the word is used often enough elsewhere but the examples I give are particularly gruesome phrasing. Further, my second suggestion above is actually related to using counterfactual history, which has already been used earlier in the same section of the article and is another piece of baggage. In fact, although I know we have an article for it, the thing looks to me - with my several history degrees, albeit from prior to the term being much used - like an oxymoron. There is no need to use buzzwords like this, certainly not repeatedly. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not just call it "argument" throughout? That is what it is called in US Gun Politics, which, in my opinion, is where this article belongs. It is not a theory and it is only part of US gun politics. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading the ArbCom case, I agree this should not be put back in the US Gun Politics article. I would, however be open to calling it an argument throughout, even in the title. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that makes at least three of us who would prefer "argument" in the title and elsewhere. I think it was AndyTheGrump who first mentioned this aspect of semantics, somewhere further above. I'd still appreciate thoughts about the revised sentences, regardless of the article title. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I worry the language may not be neutral. If I read policy right, we want to use really neutral language a let the sources and information speak for themselves. For the first one, I feel that "suggests" already gives an adequate sense that this is just a thought experiment. For the second, I agree the Jews hardly need mentionned 15 times in an article of this length, but I worry that ruminate may be not quite the right word (consider, wonder, ask maybe). Anyhow, those are my thoughts, but my field is math, so I'm no expert on these semantics. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 14:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with some changing ruminate to something that is arguably less loaded. It is a somewhat highfalutin' word anyway. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested move

This has come up a few times, so I thought I would propose it in a more organized way. Should this article be moved so that the title is something like Nazi gun control argument (US gun politics) or something else. The reasons are:

• Theory has a wide range of meanings in various fields and can be confusing. In math, a theory is an area of study and is an organized system of rock hard facts. In science, a theory is a verifiable hypothesis, which has usually stood long enough to be respectable etc. The only use of this theory seems to be as an argument in the gun control debates in the US.
• To combat a certain US-centerism and make Misplaced Pages more open to diverse people by making it clear when something is specific to the US, just as when something is specific to another country.

Arguments against that I can think of is that:

• It is called theory in mainstream sources.
• It respects the definition of a counterfactual historical theory.

Any thoughts? Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 14:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I may change this if it were not just the idea, but a specific title—Godsy_CONT) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment What are we supposed to be supporting or opposing here? It seems to be yet another ill-considered, kneejerk proposal. As Godsy says, there is nothing specific to !vote on. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was rather hoping people would suggest a better title. My suggestion was just intended to get the ball rolling. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 14:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's ok but what the heck is Lightbreather really supporting? Supporting a vague suggestion of a change of title is just a waste of pixels and yet more drivel that has to be read on an increasingly confusing talk page.

Since this article does at present appear to relate entirely to the US, how about Nazi gun control debate in US gun politics ? - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support with a possible change of debate to argument. This is way better, thanks! Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove hatnote

As Sitush suggested two days ago, shall we remove the hatnote?

• Support. Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support if the title is changed to something that makes it clear that this is not an article regarding theories held by Nazis regarding gun control. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support As Squirrel says, it has to be clarified that this "theory" (I really don't like calling this a theory) is limited to gun politics in the US, it has very few adherents, and it is not part of mainstream Holocaust/Nazi Germany scholarship. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. All of that should be in the lead paragraph. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There is a RfC going on. Why are we trying to trump that in a separate thread? Yes, the hatnote should go; this is probably not the way to do it. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Security against tyranny"

Per WP:LEAD - Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article - I have removed the "security against tyranny" sub-argument from the lead and added it to the "Nazi gun control theory arguments" section, where it can be developed... probably using existing article sources. (I am going to look for them next.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your edit summary: the source is there to back up the Reductio ad Hitlerum link, not the security against tyranny statement, which I agree needs a source. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! I will restore it for that... give me a minute. Lightbreather (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, re this revert: . Your edit summary says, "see several talk sections, and numerous people have contributed to this lead."

1. Please provide links to the discussions/diffs that show any discussion on this talk page re "security against tyranny" since you started editing it on April 5.
2. Also, where is the discussion that shows consensus to move that material to the lead paragraph and otherwise change the prominence of placement that you made to the lead?

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, the material was not removed, just moved to the arguments section. Work by other editors was preserved. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 02:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it goes to accurately describing the theory in the lead. If you want to remove just that sentence and not alter the entire wording of the lead, I would not oppose it, though it seems to short without it.—Godsy_CONT) 03:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

But leads are supposed to be short. However, for balance, if the security against tyranny goes back to the lead, I feel the Reductio ad Hitlerum should, but I will not make the change until this disagreement is settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysquirrel (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, I agree that it adds balance. WP:LEADLENGTH, is a general guide to lead length. —Godsy_CONT) 21:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure either should go in the lead, and I'd like to see a broader discussion here before it is put there - if it is put there. (Until now) uninvolved editor, Aquillion, seems to agree, and perhaps they will join the discussion.

In past conversations this term "security against tyranny" was introduced, but my first question is... Is that a term used in reliable sources? Lightbreather (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The article as a whole and the lead

@Namlong618, AndyTheGrump, Anythingyouwant, Scolaire, 99.242.108.55, Faceless Enemy, and Cullen328: Two editors seem to be set on removing most of the work that has gone into the article this year. The article, lead, hat note, and even possibly title need some work, and the discussion needs to take place in civil manner (unlike in some places above on this talk page) and without accusations. The language we use should be neutral while giving due weight to both sides (more weight to the "mainstream"). We should accurately describe the theory (as that is what the article is about) and give it a fair depiction, or the article shouldn't even exist. Having it say that it is a "fringe theory speculating" in the first sentence is improper. Restoring it to an old version from about 2 weeks ago, and throwing out all the work that has gone into it isn't an improvement. Pinging most that have contributed this year. —Godsy_CONT) 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC) @Sitush, Darkstar1st, and Happysquirrel: ping 2 —Godsy_CONT) 22:15, 22 April 2015

The 'theory' is fringe. It has received no recognition from within the relevant academic field: the historiography of Nazi Germany and the holocaust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't, merely that "Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research – denialist histories, for example – should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." per Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. WP:SAY says "speculates" isn't proper. It should be accurately described, and using "fringe theory" is improper and pejorative. Not that this should even be a point of discussion, as I don't care to discuss an old version recently restored. Look at any other article we have here on Misplaced Pages that could be considered a "fringe theory", we don't describe it in that way (at the very least in the opening). I'm not saying you're statement is untrue, just that your comment is about one small part of my statement above, not addressing it as a whole. —Godsy_CONT) 22:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

'Speculating' is an entirely proper word to use for an argument based entirely on the premise that things could have been different if things had been different. It is counterfactual history, and thus pure speculation from start to finish - it has to be, since there is no way whatsoever to verify it one way or another. As for your statement 'as a whole', it is obvious that you prefer your version of the article, but "I've put a lot of work into it" isn't a valid argument to retain it against consensus. And yes, we do sometimes describe fringe 'historical theories' as fringe, in the same way that we describe pseudoscientific 'theories' as pseudoscience . AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of those are fair points, and I thank you for the clarification. I still disagree with you on the use of speculating per WP:SAY. And to be clear "I've put a lot of work into it" is not what I'm saying, several other editors have contributed as well. —Godsy_CONT) 23:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to you and the work you have done here, Godsy, I am of the opinion that this is not a theory, as it does not meet the requirements. I'm not sure what the two sides are other than it being a theory or not and it being a fringe theory, if it is a theory.The overall weight of the evidence is that this is just an unprovable argument that has been used solely as artifice in US Gun politics. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps my example was not a good one, several other changes were reverted as well. I agree, it is just a Counterfactual history "theory", and by definition it can't be proven. I have expressed my views on the use of "theory" above in other sections and don't care to get into that again here. Firstly the "theory" should be accurately described, then it should be clarified who and how this theory is used. That's purely what I am advocating in general. This section is mainly against the blanket revert.—Godsy_CONT) 23:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The "theory" is briefly but accurately described in the current lead sentence:

The Nazi gun control theory is a fringe theory speculating that gun laws in Nazi Germany were a significant component of the Third Reich's plan, and that victims, especially Jews, might have more effectively resisted repression if they had been armed or better armed.

The only thing that we disagree on is whether or not to call it a "fringe theory" or something else. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Re speculate: math is my field, so I will give an example from there. Prove is not explicitly mentionned in WP:say, but in anything but math, I think most editors would argue it is POV language. However, in math, it is perfectly appropriate, because that is what math does. Thus "proove" violates wp:say except in math. I feel the same is true here. When a historian is proposing a counterfactual argument, they are "speculating". This is in fact the correct word for what they do and it is appropriate in this context, just like "proove" in math. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 00:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding calling a fringe theory (argument, whatever) what it is in the lead, and writing that it "speculates" (or "suggests" or whatever, rather than "says" or "states"), these are the lead sentences of articles given at WP:FRINGE as examples of fringe theories:

• Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that...
• The Moon landing conspiracy theories claim...
• "Paul is dead" is an urban legend and conspiracy theory suggesting...
• Astrology consists of several pseudoscientific systems of divination based on...

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add, I use WP:SAY and other WP:WORDS guidelines too, and regularly, but WORDS says its advice should not be applied rigidly (its emphasis, not mine). If there is one place where an exception should be expected, it's an article about a fringe theory. The Contentious labels section of the WORDS guideline also says: Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call it pseudohistory? This is why I think we should stop right now and try to agree on what to call this thing. Lightbreather (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I happily removed this article from my watch list. But then I got pinged by Godsy, which is no problem, but I'm not sure I can help much. I agree with Godsy that the hatnote is too long and violates WP:LEGITHAT, and I agree with User:Sitush that it would be an improvement to just remove the hatnote altogether --- but that's probably not going to happen, and I think the hatnote is a bit better than it was last month. Regarding the word "fringe" in the lead sentence, it's probably better to actually quote the cited sources in situations like this where the wording is disputed. Also, the lead sentence now says that the theory in question is "speculating that gun laws in Nazi Germany were a significant component of the Third Reich's plan...." Well, it was an emphatic part of Hitler's plan to disarm subject races in 1942, and proponents of this theory often quote that 1942 statement, and this Misplaced Pages article does say that Nazi laws "disarmed 'unreliable' persons, especially Jews". So I don't see any speculation on that particular point, and the speculative part is instead what would have happened if more of his victims had been armed. Maybe there would have been more incidents like the excellent (though sad) assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, who knows? Anyway, take it easy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

'Unbalanced' template

I see that Godsy has added an 'unbalenced' template, claiming that "This article may be unbalanced towards the mainstream viewpoint". Can I ask how exactly being "unbalenced towards the mainstream viewpoint" is supposed to be a problem: per WP:NPOV "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence", and the 'theory' has no prominence whatsoever in academic historiography concerning the supposed subject - Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. I suggest the template be removed, as all it tells us is that the article complies with Misplaced Pages policy (or at least, that Godsy's assessment of it is compatible with it complying with policy). Not a legitimate argument for adding a template... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories states, "...restraint should be used with... qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." —Godsy_CONT) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the problems with the lede could be avoided if we stopped describing this as a 'theory', fringe or otherwise. It isn't a theory by any useful definition, and we tie ourselves in knots trying to make out that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. —Godsy_CONT) 03:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How about Nazi gun control conjecture?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a conjecture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion (that arms would have helped Holocaust victims) based on incomplete information (about what effect the arms would have had). Anyway, if you don't like the word "theory" for this article, feel free to suggest an alternative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Debatable. According to the article in its present state, the strongest advocates are a lobbyist and a lawyer. Both are well-respected in their fields (e.g. Halbrook has won two cases at SCOTUS), but neither are academic historians, and the narrow version of the argument (specifically focused on Hitler and the Holocaust) is inherently untestable, as it is counter-factual history. However, the hypothesis "more gun control leads to a greater risk of a democide occurring" is testable. The problem with testing it is that there are relatively few democides (thankfully), so any results would probably have the confidence interval of a coin flip. I don't know of any academic historians who have tested that particular hypothesis. I haven't read either Halbrook's or LaPierre's books, so I don't know whether the Misplaced Pages article is currently mischaracterizing the conclusions they reach. If they're narrowly focused on the Holocaust, then it's just counterfactual history. But I doubt that's the case - there would be little point in writing a thought experiment up into a book unless you wanted to use it as part of a bigger argument. Has anyone here read either of the books, and, if so, could you please chime in? Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read all of Halbrook's book, but here's a video interview in which he argues that what happened in Germany is a reason to avoid excessive gun control now. Likewise, here's a review of his book that concludes "The broader lesson of this book should not be : As the American Founders suspected, civilian disarmament and tyranny often go hand in hand." As to the general question whether a strong culture of gun rights renders tyranny less likely, it may not exactly be a counterfactual history question, but it still seems difficult to definitively answer. For instance, if most of a population is armed but a small group doesn't bother, then maybe the small group is more vulnerable than if no one were armed. Doubtless many other factors come into play.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories again, I'm simply advocating that this "should be described clearly within... own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." I think that was one of the reasons that others have brought up, as to why this article was created. —Godsy_CONT) 03:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how this is "unbalanced." I don't think it is. From my knowledge of the the argument, it has been completely covered, citing the authors who promote the argument. Any greater detail and it descends into even less than a fringe theory. I also believe that the language is neutral and certainly not slanted toward criticism of the argument. I ask Godsy how we might make this more balanced? 99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The main thing that needs changed is the lead. In its current form, it not only doesn't read well, it doesn't describe the idea clearly and objectively with restraint on qualifiers (per WP:FRINGE) within its own article. —Godsy_CONT) 01:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You made the same argument a few indents up. Do you think if you keep saying the same thing we'll change our minds? Which qualifiers do you think are unrestrained? Fringe? Speculate? We've already talked about these. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the question wasn't responded to above: This article is about a fringe theory. The Contentious labels section of the WORDS guideline also says: Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. Should the lead sentence begin?

The Nazi gun control theory is a pseudohistory argument that...

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Or?

The Nazi gun control theory is a counterfactual history argument that...

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"'Pseudohistory' is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism." So you're suggesting we use a term is actually defined as pejorative per its Misplaced Pages page? This is Counterfactual history, not "rewriting accepted history". (wrote that before you updated with the second option) The latter (counterfactual) would be an improvement, if argument were changed to theory as the sources use the term theory and the title is currently "Nazi gun control theory".

Not that there is much point in discussing this version as a more current one may end up restored per talk (and add back many editors contributions). Even if it isn't, the wording needs changed to comply with Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, which says to describe the idea clearly and objectively within its own article (as I've stated before). The lead doesn't read very well in its current from and is broken into too many paragraphs (WP:LEADLENGTH & WP:LEADPARAGRAPH). —Godsy_CONT) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I write before those suggestions? If WP:WORDS says it's acceptable to use pseudoscience to describe a fringe scientific theory, why should it be unacceptable to describe a fringe historical theory as "pseudohistory"? You've said you don't dispute that it's fringe, but you don't want to let the reader know up front that it's fringe (which is why it has its own article, rather than give it undue weight in other articles.) You want to call it a "counterfactual history theory"? We can't. A counterfactual history argument can't be proven as a theory can. Lightbreather (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW: I deleted "pejorative" from the "Pseudohistory" lead per what I wrote in the edit summary and the discussion that I started on that article's talk page: Pseudohistory is not a pejorative. Lightbreather (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So that lead currently reads: "Pseudohistory" is a term applied to a type of historical revisionism. Lightbreather (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, the topic of the this article still does not fall under the definition of Pseudohistory. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the definition of theory (as it is used here), as I've expanded upon my views on that matter in one of the sections above.

Update: And I'd like to add that it appears in these versions (as I mentioned in a section above), that you added that term (fringe theory) to the article originally here and in a second place here. To my knowledge there was no consensus for the addition of that wording.—Godsy_CONT) 07:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I added it because it kept coming up in discussions over and over again in discussions on this page and others. However, "fringe" is gone (for) now and described as a "counterfactual history argument." Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed "theory" to "argument" throughout per the shift in discussion of at least the past week and the explicit suggestions of Happysquirrel, AndyTheGrump, Sitush, and IP 99.242.108.55, with whom I now agree on this matter: this IS an argument more than a theory. And since Godsy doesn't like "fringe" or "pseudohistory," and all agree that this is a counterfactual history argument, I replaced "theory" with "argument" in the article title, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you have had warnings in the past about your various underhand methods of canvassing for support. Pinging people whom you know have been recent participants in this ongoing discussion is just another example of it, imo. I certainly neither need nor want a ping from you whenever you think it might be to your benefit. - Sitush (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, "underhand methods of canvassing?" First, "canvass" and "ping" aren't interchangeable. I did not "canvass" you or the others, appropriately or inappropriately. I told Godsy that you and the others agreed (in various discussions above) that "argument" was better than "theory" to describe this Nazi gun control thing. I pinged you to give you the opportunity (benefit) to say - in case I misunderstood what y'all wrote in the last week re "argument" v. "theory" - "I'm sorry, LB, but that's not what I said/meant." I did not want what I said to come to your attention later and have you say, "I didn't say that! Please let me know when you talk about me or something that I said." Lightbreather (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to explain the argument in greater detail as well as the argument against it in greater detail. TFD (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nazi gun control theory, argument, claim, conjecture, hypothesis, speculation, debate

I'm not wild about "argument" in the title because it's unclear whether it refers to the argument between opponents and supporters of something, or instead refers to an argument made by one side. The Misplaced Pages article on counterfactual history uses the word "conjecture" but maybe there's something better than that. I don't think "US" belongs in the title in view of stuff like:

• DeFoster, Ruth. "American gun culture, school shootings, and a 'frontier mentality': An ideological analysis of British editorial pages in the decade after Columbine”. Communication, Culture & Critique, Vol. 3, pp. 466-484 at 477 (2010) quoting an op-ed by Richard Munday, "Tightening gun controls is pointless", The London Times (March 13, 2009).
• Springwood, Charles. Open Fire, Understanding Global Gun Cultures, pp. 37-38 (Berg 2007): "Consider, for instance, a pamphlet distributed by the pro-gun lobby in Brazil, which featured an image of Hitler giving a Nazi salute.
• Chapman, Simon. Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, p. 221 (Sydney University Press, 2013): "Internationally, the gun lobby is fond of comparing gun control agenda with that of Hitler in pre-World War II Germany."
• Brown, R. Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun Control in Canada, p. 218 (University of Toronto Press, 2012).
• Squires, Peter. Gun Culture or Gun Control?: Firearms and Violence: Safety and Society, p. 230 (Routledge, 2012): "Comparing British gun control policies with Nazi rule prompted a wide spectrum of commentators to criticize the SRA."

Mentioning the U.S. in the title might rule out stuff like that. But the word "debate" seems fine instead of "argument" or the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't thrilled with the change to argument either, but I think it was a slight improvement. Debate may be better. I thought that this version with the change of one instance of "posit" to "ask" and this version's hat note was a good combination of editors efforts. @Lightbreather: Maybe we can find a way to reimplement it, with some small changes? —Godsy_CONT) 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant and Godsy: As noted above, Happysquirrel, AndyTheGrump, Sitush, IP 99.242.108.55, and I all agree that "argument" is better than "theory." Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Godsy agrees that "argument" would be an improvement. The real question is if anything would be even better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, did you weigh in on "argument" v "theory"? Anybody else? Lightbreather (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, the "version" you linked to is again about your preferred version of the lead, which already has a discussion - lead - above. You have not yet defended and received consensus on the change you made to the format of the paragraphs. Please take it there. Spell out exactly how you want the lead to read and see if you get a consensus. Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Actually it was a combination of your changes and mine. If there is a specific part of it you'd like to bring up for discussion, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Instead of all this pointless back and forth, I'd like to actually get some work done in the article. You seem to be the one most opposed to the changes in the lead. I don't plan to "defend" them or believe that a "formal" consensus is neccesarily needed, as there was none for the previous lead (which was written mainly by you). If we work together I think we can greatly improve this article and come to a reasonable compromise, if you're interested in doing so. —Godsy_CONT) 02:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that Lightbreather and Godsy need agree not to make changes to the article. The pair of them are making it an almost impossible task for others. I've been away for a little over 24 hours and the thing has yet again been bouncing all over the place and we are still fiddling with a hatnote that is subject to RfC. This mix of bold edit-and-talk is not working, and POV obfuscation/bulldozing (take your pick) by use of this method is likely to end in formal article bans. I am actually very close to suggesting one. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You've brought up that RfC more than once. Can something be done to wrap it up? It's been a week since the last vote, and I think most of us aren't even sure if everyone understood what they were voting on. If we can get that RfC closed, perhaps someone can craft a better one. (I personally think we should start with getting wider input on whether or not the argument is "fringe," as how to present this article - and how the material is used in other articles - hinges on that.) HOWEVER, Anythingyouwant, whom I thought had dropped this, appears to be back again. He was an involved party in the (Nazi) gun control ArbCom (as was AndyTheGrump), harassed me across multiple articles about his view of Nazis as "tyrants" versus my take on the subject.

Long story short: With Anythingyouwant and AndyTheGrump participating here, the chances for nasty talk-page exchanges are high. And with Anythingyouwant and obviously NOT new editor Godsy tag-teaming me... Well, I have to wear an uncomfortble Robocop thing on my arm right now, plus physical therapy three times a week, and the last thing I want is to get dragged into an ArbCom enforcement proceeding - which I see coming up in the near future. I am just going to sit back and watch now. Lightbreather (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources and arguments that Anythingyouwant introduced above are the same ones that were being thrown around this time last year. U.S. gun-rights advocates who buy into this Nazi gun control thing have been trying to spread the idea around, so it has been mentioned - very briefly - in a handful of non-U.S. sources. It is a U.S. gun-rights fringe theory that some are trying to sell globally. Lightbreather (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not like any of the names. Do any sources give it one? TFD (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Opponents often call it a "lie" and supporters often call it "truth". Not great alternatives.  :) It's also been called a "counterfactual" as described in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Counterfactual" is an adjective. We could call Nazi gun control a "counterfactual history argument," but not a "counterfactual." Whatever we call it, it falls under WP:FRINGE because "Identifying fringe theories" says: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. Lightbreather (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TFD and others, Mark Nuckols (one article source) wrote:

The second pillar has fewer scholarly pretensions, but it employs even more historically dubious arguments. It suggests, for example, that the Holocaust could have been avoided if Germany's miniscule Jewish population had been better armed. It also argues that Ukrainian peasants could have defeated the Stalinist regime, backed by the NKVD and the Red Army, if they had possessed individual firearms. But these counterfactual interpretations of history are wildly speculative -- and downright implausible.

Harcourt wrote:

Now, much of the rhetoric is questionable as a historical matter. It turns out, for example, that Hitler's infamous quote, rehearsed in so many newspapers, is probably a fraud and was likely never uttered.

Bryant wrote (citing Halbrook):

Proponents of the Holocaust argument maintain that the Reichstag's 1928 gun law enhanced regulation of gun ownership, thereby furnishing Hitler with a handy instrument for disarming his opponents in 1938....

Bryant preceded these words by saying, Maier's test for tendentiousness may be applied to the arguments of Poe, Zelman, Halbrook, and there confreres.... In conclusion, Bryant wrote:

In exaggerating similarities and ignoring differences in their comparisons, gun rights advocates violate Charles Maier's test for tendentiousness. Their use of history has selected factual inaccuracies, and their methodology can be questioned. More generally, rather than examine evidence scrupulously, some adherents of the Nazi analogy cherry-pick it by decontextualizing their data and disregarding evidence at odd with their thesis.

1. Nuckols, Mark (January 31, 2013). "Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group.
2. Harcourt, Bernard E. (2004). "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)". Fordham Law Review. 73 (2): 653–680.
3. Bryant, Michael S. (May 4, 2012). "Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control". In Carter, Gregg Lee (ed.). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law. Vol. 2 (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 411–415. ISBN 9780313386701. OCLC 833189121. Retrieved March 21, 2014.

The descriptors "dubious," "questionable," and "tendentious," were added to the lead on April 6 by Anythingyouwant, but Godsy deleted them later the same day.

It would make our job a lot easier if they all called it a fringe argument, but WP:FRINGE says, We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field.

I believe, as WP editors, that barring a preponderance of sources (as in this case) that call the argument in question a fringe theory outright (the word "fringe" does appear in a few of the article's source), if it falls under WP:FRINGE - you treat it like fringe. What we have here is a fringe argument. Lightbreather (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• Stub-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment