Talk:Gun laws in Washington (state)

Link to the Ellensburg, Washington, wikipedia page

This link is provided in a very brief mention of "a case" involving open carry in Ellensburg. The link is totally worthless because the linked page has absolutely no information about the "case." If we are going to provide a link to the Ellensburg page simply because there is a page matching a word in this article, would we not also provide links for every other word in every article that matches any other page? Would we not provide links to the pages for Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah? These are all also places mentioned on this page that have their own pages. Why provide a link to one place page and not to the pages of other places? 192.180.104.206 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC) n4aof

Washington Initiative 594

I don't see anything about I-594 that passed November 2014.

• Camden, Jim (January 15, 2015). "Shea tells gun rights activists I-594 not law". Spokesman-Review. Spokane, Washington. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
• Cruz, Caitlin (August 13, 2014). "SPU shooter: Despite troubling history, law let him have guns". Seattle Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
• La Corte, Rachel (January 15, 2015). "State House joins Senate in ban on openly carried weapons". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
• O'Sullivan, Joseph (November 3, 2014). "Poll: On election eve, I-594 to expand gun-purchase background checks still leads". Seattle Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
• O'Sullivan, Joseph (November 4, 2014). "Voters approve measure to expand checks for gun buyers". Seattle Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
• O'Sullivan, Joseph (November 5, 2014). "I-594 supporters will make push in Olympia for stronger gun laws". Seattle Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
• Provenza, Nick (July 15, 2014). "Poll: Strong support for gun background checks". Seattle Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WA switched from May Issue to Shall Issue CCWs in 1968

According to this article: https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/15/ccw-weekend-a-stain-on-the-evergreen-state/

Someone may want to add this fact to the main article.

Washington state actually passed one of the earliest shall-issue permit laws in the country, enacting it in 1968. Only New Hampshire and Connecticut (which is a hybrid system; may-issue at law but effectively shall-issue in practice) beat the Evergreen state to the punch in that regard and it took Florida 20 years to catch up. Open carry doesn’t require a permit, but a concealed pistol license is easy to get as there is no state-required training course and the fee is one of the most reasonable in the country, so far as that goes.

Not quite constitutional carry, but not as intrusive as other states either. The stiff barriers for entry aren’t there, but some due diligence is involved.

Phantom in ca (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Daily Caller is not a reliable source. As far as I can tell the correct date is more like 1971, but we can check and see if we can find another source we could cite. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Semiautomatic assault rifle"

About the recent edits -- this one and this one -- around Washington Initiative 1639: If you look at the text of the law here, page 27 says, ""Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." But, that's the definition of a semiautomatic rifle. It's not necessarily an assault rifle or an assault weapon, which is generally defined to have other features such as a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. So, to avoid confusing our readers, I think this article should call them semiautomatic rifles, not semiautomatic assault rifles. That's what they really are, despite the wording of the law. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

We have here an article about laws in the state of Washington. You have cited the legal code which defines the terms used in the law. You then assert that, in your opinion, the terminology in the law is wrong. Yet you cite nothing. Has a higher court ruled that Washington's laws are flawed? Is the consensus of neutral expert sources that the terminology in the law is wrong? If so, can you cite evidence of this?

I'm well aware that anti-gun regulation partisans like to play word games with terms like 'assault weapon' but that is political posturing. Here were only interested in what reliable sources tell us. So far we have one reliable source and it's telling us how the law defines Semiautomatic assault rifle. We have zero sources saying otherwise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Still editing without citing any sources? Why? What's the basis for anhy of this? We don't insert our own editorializing into articles without a reliable source to back it up. So what if in your humble opinion the way the law defines assault rifle is "wrong"? Who cares what some Wikipedia editor thinks? Show me a reliable source that has a problem with it. If we can't cite one, then take the text of the law and our other sources at face value.

I'm not going to revert again, but it should be tagged as unsourced editorializing. Please seek consensus on the talk page before continuing with this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I've added a source, even though it really doesn't need one. If you know the definition of a semiautomatic rifle, then you would understand that I-1639 defined "semiautomatic assault rifles" to be synonymous with "semiautomatic rifle".Terrorist96 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You're citing an op-ed as a reliable source? This is exactly what the issue is. You're treating opinion as fact.

Jacob Sullum isn't particularity prominent but if he's the best we can find, then I'd accept him as a representative of this partisan point of view. An example of someone who holds the opinion that there is a problem with the way terms are defined in the law. Sullum is quite helpful for our purposes because he cites an actual independent, neutral reliable source, a New York Times news article which has no problem with the language of this law and takes no notice of the supposed problem with the word "assault". Sullum complains that the NYT has completely ignored what he thinks is a big deal. We can scour the news media and find a similar lack of pearl clutching over what Sullum thinks is a misuse of the word "assault": [1][2] via AP News. The Seattle Times mentions one individual who complaints not that the definition is "wrong", but that it would "stigmatize" other semiautomatic rifles. I guess the gun's feelings might be hurt?

It's totally fine if you want to mention the opinions of a gun activist like Sullum, but we can't treat his opinions as fact. The commentary needs to be moved to another section, and probably another article, such as Washington_Initiative_1639#Legal_challenges on the article about the law itself. You can write "Libertarian pundit Jacob Sullum said the law is overly broad in banning all semiautomatic rifles, and incorrectly labels all such rifles as 'assault' weapons." It's fine to summarize what critics of the law think, but not in Wikipedia's voice. Advice on how to handle this is at Wikipedia:Describing points of view. These opinions belong elsewhere in and need proper attribution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's start over. What exactly is your objection? Do you somehow think that the definition of "semiautomatic assault rifle" in the law does not encompass all semiautomatic rifles? Because it does. This is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. See WP:BLUE. If you disagree, find me a semiautomatic rifle that is not included in this definition. No one here is claiming or editing the article to say that the definition of assault is being misapplied. Yes, I believe it is being misapplied, as it is in standard politics, but that's not what the edit is saying. It's stating a fact that all semiautomatic rifles are now considered "semiautomatic assault rifles" in Washington, by definition. You even cited sources that say that. Your CNN link has it in the headline. So does the Q13 Fox article. All semiautomatic rifles. Not just "assault" ones, because all semiautomatics are under the definition of assault now, which is not the norm. For the last time, it's not a point of view. Now, what is your objection?Terrorist96 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So there is no confusion: Q: What does the initiative do? A: I-1639 raises the legal age to buy any semi-automatic rifle to 21, from 18. - (emphasis added) from the Seattle Times; As of January 1, purchasers of semi-automatic rifles in the Evergreen state must be 21 or older. - from CNN.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is treating the pearl-clutching reaction found at partisan activist sources like Reason as if it were fact. That source doesn't belong here at all; it fails the guidelines at WP:PARTISAN. It should only be used in the context of criticism or opposition opinions, and with in text attribution. Casting doubt violates the advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch; it's editorializing and weasely. It violates WP:WIKIVOICE by treading doubts held by activists as if they were facts supported by broad consensus. You have to get pretty deep in the weeds of gun rights media before you even hear anybody saying there's a problem here. I would guess that given the number of mass shootings carried out with the Ruger 10/22, calling it an assault rifle isn't much of a stretch of the imagination. You can disagree, but the legal definition in Washington is what it is.

The CNN source is fine. It conveys the news in pretty much the same tone as the other news media: "It's now illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a semi-automatic rifle in Washington state. Washington state is seeking to reduce gun violence by making it tougher to buy assault rifles. As of January 1, purchasers of semi-automatic rifles in the Evergreen state must be 21 or older." Where in the CNN source is there any fuss over definitions? Where in the CNN source does it complain about the word "assault"? It uses the terms semi-automatic rifle and assault rifles as if they are interchangeable and equivalent. Because as of November 2018, in Washington, they are.

So remove the pundit's opinions, and remove the editorializing. Match the tone found in neutral sources, not biased sources. That's all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, the only one here making a big stink about the definition is you. We're just reporting the facts which we apparently all agree on, that all semiautomatic rifles are now considered semiautomatic assault rifles in the state of Washington, by definition. No one has edited the article to question the wisdom of defining semiautomatic assault rifles to include all semiautomatic rifles.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I love how you went from insisting that the word "assault" be included, not once, but twice to removing it. You're impossible.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. I call it a compromise. If we can get rid of this and delete the not so subtle expressions of doubt, I'm happy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, and at what point are you going to add that the age was raised from 18 to 21? You removed it here and I'm now terrified of editing this article anymore.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

including prohibiting firearm purchases by persons under age 21 this isn't accurate as bolt action, pump action, etc. rifles and shotguns can still be purchased by 18-20 year olds. So remove that and add back the 18 changed to 21 for semiautomatic (assault) rifles.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Washington Initiative 1639 is the main article on the topic. Here on this article we only need a general summary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You don’t need a citation to state that “water is wet” either. Everyone that is not a hoplophobe knows that “Assault Rifles” are those used by “Assault troops” around the world: Rifles that fire “intermediate-range” ammunition (Note that they are NOT high power, to allow for control in automatic fire and to be able to carry more of the smaller intermediate-range ammunition) and are capable of “selective fire” (full auto, as a sub-machine gun, semi-auto or limited auto “burst” mode). Note also that no army in the world uses an AR-15 since it is not an assault rifle (AR stand for “ArmaLite”, the company that originally designed it) since it is not capable of selective fire - they use the M16 instead. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military M-16 and it was first marketed as “The Colt AR-15 Sporter” in 1964 When the anti-gun left realized that they couldn’t ban firearms that are clearly not rifles by calling them “Assault Rifles”, they coined the term “Assault Weapon”, which is solely a political term, not a military term. Thus they can achieve their “defenseless law abiding population” Utopian dreams, where only Criminals and the Police are armed. First you ban a certain firearm by defining it as “an Assault Weapon”, then (if the law survives the obvious violation of the 2nd Amendment), you keep adding other weapons to the banned list, until the law abiding is left with only a sling-shot to defend themselves and their family. BTW, if anyone is still falsely “convinced” that the AR-15 is a “High Power” rifle, one only needs to look at Albert Einstein’s famous equation: E = mc2 and replacing “E” with muzzle energy, “m” with the “mass” of the 223 cartridge’s bullet mass (practically, its weight) and “c” with the AR-15 muzzle velocity. If one does the math, one would “discover” that the Energy of an AR-15 ammunition is far less than a high power rifle, as a 30-06 rifle. The adapted equation is the one the industry uses to calculate “muzzle energy”. Also, if anyone believes that the ability to fire several rounds, one with each trigger pull, did not exist when the Constitution was crafted, read about the Girandone Repating Rifle (with a version sold to civilians), and the Belton rifle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcasas1 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Name of this article

Recently Tamzin renamed this article from "Gun laws in Washington" to "Gun laws in Washington (state)". In my opinion this significant change should have been discussed beforehand. But, let's talk about it now. I understand that "Washington" can refer to either Washington state or to the District of Columbia, but I think the old name is preferable. The D.C. article is called "Gun laws in the District of Columbia". Partly because of that, and partly in general, the name "Gun laws in Washington" does not need to be disambiguated. This is in contrast to "Washington" itself, which can also refer to the person, and to other things as well. What does everybody else think? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I can move it back if you want a proper RM. But to me it seemed pretty straightforward, and I've seen others make similar moves in the past regarding "in Washington" articles. Even just in the context of place names, "Washington" is ambiguous. People on the West Coast tend to hear it and think Washington state. People on the East Coast and outside the U.S. tend to hear it and think Washington, D.C. Even if we all erased George Washington from our minds, Washington would still be a DAB. And it doesn't really matter that the D.C. article doesn't use "Washington" in the title. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, primary-topic status is independent of what title is actually in use on an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: It's true that "Washington" as a place name is ambiguous, so renaming the article in this way is not completely unreasonable. But I do think the previous name is preferable and, as I said, did not require disambiguation. It looks like the article didn't have a hatnote to direct readers to the "Gun laws in the District of Columbia" article, and that would have helped also under the previous article name, but that would be easy to add. As for how to proceed, I'm not sure. Putting it back and doing a requested move might be a good idea. Or we could wait and see what other editors say, if anything, in this talk page section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: As you can see, the number of editors who have posted opinions here in the last two weeks is, well, not very large. But, I wonder what the members of the not-disambiguated WikiProject Washington would think about all this. Also... What do you think about the idea of renaming the article to "Gun laws in Washington state", without the parentheses? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I'm actually of the opinion that "Washington state" is what we should title Washington (state), but I think that title's been rejected in the past. But the titling of "child" pages doesn't have to match the "parent" page in all cases, so I'd be fine making that move and seeing if anyone objects. Alternately, I'm still also fine with reversing my move (dumping the DAB in draftspace provisionally) and putting this up for an RM. Up to you. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: The more I think about it, the more I like "Gun laws in Washington state", without the parentheses. Yes, I would favor that. I just posted on the WikiProject Washington talk page to alert them to this discussion. Let's wait another couple of weeks before taking further action, to see if anyone else posts here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Washington (state)" is the disambiguator preferred across most articles about the state. Using "Washington state" is not the worst thing in the world, but doesn't fit with WP:USPLACE. SounderBruce 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I prefer just "Washington". The main article needs to be disambiguated, but this doesn't need to be used in every other article that doesn't need disambiguation. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Reywas92: There's an article for gun laws in Washington D.C., called "Gun laws in the District of Columbia". That said, this article could still be called "Gun laws in Washington", with a hatnote added for the D.C. article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: There are now four editors who have commented on this question, including us, and opinions seem to be all over the map, so to speak. How about if I start a Request for Comment about it? We could leave the article title the way it is now until the RfC has run its course. Does that sound reasonable? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Mudwater. When a unilateral move is challenged, correct procedure is to move back and then RM. I'll do that in just a moment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A range of PAGs were provided on both sides of this discussion. Supporters of the move highlighted WP:PRECISE, whereas opposers highlighted WP:CONCISE in contrast. As for WP:CONSISTENT, it was noted that the current title is more consistent with other articles about U.S. gun laws, whereas the proposed title was more consistent with other articles about laws in Washington State. Ultimately, the argument that tipped the balance was on the question of primary topics. Supporters of the move demonstrated that there was no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Washington", and that, in such a situation, WP:NOPRIMARY calls for the primary title (here "Gun laws in Washington") to be a DAB page. Opponents of the move did not have a strong refutation to this argument, and thus this discussion has resulted in a consensus to move the article. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Gun laws in Washington → Gun laws in Washington (state) – "Washington", as a place name, is ambiguous. Even setting aside George Washington, Washington, United States redirects to the Washington DAB, not to Washington (state). In the informal discussion above, there's been some discussion of whether Washington, D.C.,'s corresponding article being at ... in the District of Columbia is sufficient for disambiguation. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. Thus, ... in the District of Columbia may resolve the ambiguity at that article, but it does not resolve the ambiguity at this one, no more than moving Washington, D.C. would make it acceptable to retarget Washington, United States to Washington (state). (I'm not even sure that ... in the District of Columbia is the correct title, especially as D.C. uses that form of its name less and less, but that's a matter for another RM I guess.)

I'm open to other ways to disambiguate this, e.g. ... in Washington state or ... in the state of Washington, but I do think it needs to be moved from its current title to some unambiguous one, with the base title disambiguated.

Courtesy pings @Mudwater, SounderBruce, and Reywas92. Note to closer: I have moved my previous DAB page to Draft:Gun laws in Washington. If this is closed as move, please move that back to mainspace. Is this is closed as keep, you can delete/tag the draft as G7 (linking to this comment), or just ping me and I'll delete it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the current title is ambiguous. Although the primary article needs a parenthetical because the state is not an overwhelmingly primary topic for the word "Washington", I believe the context of the rest of the title is adequate to be clear that this is not about laws in Washington, Pennsylvania, or the District of Columbia. A hatnote to the latter may be appropriate, but when there is only one article by the base name such as the current one, parentheticals should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I believe the context of the rest of the title is adequate to be clear Could you elaborate on that? To about half of the U.S., as well as most of the world beyond the U.S., "Washington" refers primarily to Washington, D.C. (This is, in part, an exonym—as a native [D.C.] Washingtonian I wouldn't be caught dead saying "Washington" [outside of "Washingtonian"], but that's what most outside the DMV call it.) What about the title "Gun laws in Washington" makes things clear to the average reader—who is likely unaware of the D.C. article, but who is likely aware that both jurisdictions have gun laws (D.C. rather famously)—that "Gun laws in Washington" will be about one Washington and not the other? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed move is not unreasonable -- and I appreciate the thorough explanation -- but I think we're better off keeping the name "Gun laws in Washington". However, a hatnote should be added to the article, saying "For Gun laws in Washington, D.C., see Gun laws in the District of Columbia". That should cover things nicely, in my view. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the hatnote, here. It should be removed if the article is renamed. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Rreagan007 who improved the hatnote, which now says "This article is about gun laws in the U.S. state of Washington. For gun laws in Washington, D.C., see Gun laws in the District of Columbia." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think a parenthetical disambiguation in the title is needed. The hatnote works fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason as Film industry in Georgia (U.S. state). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - To remain consistent with other pages related to Washington (the state) where confusion with Washington (the city in DC) is possible and not illogical. SounderBruce 04:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary per WP:CONCISE and WP:ONEOTHER. Now that there is an appropriate hatnote in place, that takes care of any possible reader confusion. A two-entry dab page would help no one who wouldn't be helped by that hatnote. Station1 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ONEOTHER only applies "if there is a primary topic". The standing consensus has been that there is no primary topic for the term "Washington" alone. Are you arguing that the gun laws of the state of Washington meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Gun laws in Washington"? If so, I guess I'm wondering three things:

  1. On what basis do you think it meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?
  2. Would the same argument apply to the article Washington (state)? and
  3. If the same argument would apply to Washington (state), should this not be a decision that we should implement consistently?

  If, on the other hand, this article doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for its current title, WP:NOPRIMARY is clear that a hatnote is not sufficient disambiguation. Graham (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  It did get double the pageviews of the DC article last year, but that's really irrelevant, as is Washington's status. The point is that there are only 2 articles, one of which is naturally disambiguated, so there is no direct title conflict. Therefore a dab page is unnecessary, as long as there is a hatnote in place, because they both perform exactly the same function: Someone landing on Gun laws in Washington is either already on the article they want, or they simply click once to get to the article they want. It's useless to make all those readers click through a dab page; there's simply no benefit. Station1 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:SHORTFORM the status of Washington is relevant as there is no primary topic for "Washington" and both Washingtons have gun laws. The fact the other article is naturally disambiguated doesn't mean this one doesn't get the qualifier as would be the case with many other Washington articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  SHORTFORM (just part of an essay that hardly anyone reads) not surprisingly generally favors the shorter form, i.e. the current title, just like policy at WP:CONCISE. That still begs the question, What readers would benefit from the proposed change? The answer is none. Station1 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:PRECISE the title should match the main article Washington (state) as there is gun laws in the other Washington as well as the federal government of the United States. The benefit is being unambiguous and consistent with the main article when ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you say the main article is Washington (state) rather than Gun laws in the United States, which refers to federal laws? This article is already consistent with other "Gun laws in State" articles, as is Gun laws in the District of Columbia (District of Columbia being equivalent to a state in this context). Why cannot any ambiguity be handled by the hatnote, which has the benefit of not inconveniencing anyone? Station1 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Its a descriptive title for both gun laws and Washington. Because the District of Columbia is concurrent with Washington which is why it redirects there but that doesn't mean its unambiguous if we have chosen "X in the District of Columbia" rather than "X in Washington, DC". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and per WP:CONSISTENT with Law of Washington (state), Cannabis in Washington (state), Capital punishment in Washington (state), Domestic partnership in Washington (state), Same-sex marriage in Washington (state) etc. Also, the current title creates unnessarary ambiguity with Gun laws in Washington, D.C. when it has already been decided that Washington (state) is not a primary topic. There shouldn't be a need to have this disscussion on every related article. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, in recognition of the fact that "Washington" is used not only to refer to the state of Washington and the District of Columbia, but also to the federal government of the United States, which has gun laws separate from the other two jurisdictions. BD2412 T 00:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support – As provided by WP:TWODABS (specifically WP:NOPRIMARY), if there is no primary topic for the ambiguous title, the ambiguous title must be a disambiguation page. (WP:ONEOTHER only applies if it can be established that the article is the primary topic for the title.)

  I haven't seen anyone make the case here that the article's current title meets the criteria set out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't meet those criteria. To anyone outside of the United States – and, it appears, to many within the US – Washington refers primarily to the American capital (as well as perhaps the country's founding president).

  Even if it is believed that the current title meets our criteria for primary topics (though I struggle to see how, in the absence of anyone making the case for it), surely we should be making the same change for the article Washington (state) and numerous other articles mentioned by Gonnym (in line with WP:CONSISTENT), provided there are no unique considerations here. If so, this discussion should be held in a wider forum per WP:CONLEVEL as "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", and the community's consensus has been expressed in previous centralized discussions at Talk:Washington (state). Graham (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the community consensus in the WP:CONSISTENT policy, per other sound and compelling support arguments and per the nom's argument. This request has been reopened because the previous closer had been warned not to close move requests and has been [blocked] in part for closing this request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENT with the understanding that a WP:LOCALCON here cannot decide to ignore what the community has decided on a project-level. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Originally I was opposed to this move. But now, after reading what others have said, I have mixed emotions about it. About WP:CONSISTENT, that says "We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects." "Gun laws in Washington (state)" would be more consistent with other Washington state articles, but "Gun laws in Washington" would be more consistent with other articles about state gun laws, so I think that's a wash. And with the addition of a hatnote, the reader can still get to the other article with one click, while other readers will already be on the article they were looking for. That said, WP:NOPRIMARY does seem to indicate the use of a disambiguation page in this case. In conclusion, I think I'd be okay either way. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Question: What about Gun laws in Georgia? There's not an article for gun laws in the country of Georgia, but there's a section of another article about it. As the hatnote says, "This article is about gun laws in the U.S. state of Georgia. For gun laws in the country of Georgia, see Overview of gun laws by nation#Georgia." Thoughts? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • That should be moved too, for the same reason that the state is not the primary topic, given that gun laws exist in both jurisdictions. In its place there should be a DAB between Gun laws in Georgia (U.S. state) and Gun laws in Georgia (country) (which already redirects to the appropriate section).
    IMO, the only time it makes sense to not disambiguate a "child" article is when only one "parent" has that subtopic—for instance Interstate 5 in Washington. Or I could also imagine an exception being made if a topic were overwhelmingly associated with one Washington, one Georgia, etc., but for whatever reason there existed an article in the context of the other one as well. Like, I dunno, if there were a Georgia (country) in the American Civil War, we'd probably keep Georgia in the American Civil War at its current title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Agreed per WP:SHORTFORM, both Georgias have gun laws. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • If anything, there's even less reason to move that article than this one, since there's no other article that would possibly take the same title. All that creating a dab page would do is make someone searching for "Gun laws in Georgia" have to stop at a dab page to click through to the article they want. Just like this page, no reader would actually benefit from a move. Station1 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm seldom confused by WP articles these days. A lot of good editors, to include a handful in this discussion, have worked hard to disambiguate articles on WP. I was confused when I came to this article. Was it about the state? the capital district? about ordinances in Washington, PA? in W. Iowa? in W. Missouri? in cities called Washington in several other US states? Gun laws are everywhere, now. So if someone searches for gun laws in Georgia, then yes, it's good to have a disambiguation page to help readers, global readers, of WP to find gun laws in either the country or the US state, whichever they want. WP cannot and will not just "assume" it knows what readers are looking for. Now that's policy. You seem to want to change policy, and as you know by now, an RM on an article talk page is not the correct venue for changing policy. That's what your arg is up against: community consensus. I for one cannot stand it when Wikipedia confuses me! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

      Very few people are confused by WP articles. That's mostly because they use Google, which "knows what readers are looking for". Just google "Gun laws in Washington" to see how many front-page hits are about the state vs DC. Very few people will be confused by this article, either, especially if they read the hatnote and/or first sentence. I'm surprised that you were. Contrary to trying to change policy, I'm very much in favor of WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISION, which says titles should be only as precise as necessary and no more. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether any particular title is precise enough, without assuming they disagree with that policy. Station1 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusion can exist in many forms, many places. You seem a little confused, because I didn't bring up PRECISE nor CONCISE. My support arg includes CONSISTENT, as do other support args here, and that's also community consensus of policy. Google is just a glorified index, and hatnotes and first sentences are not much a part of an index, only titles – those are what readers look for first and foremost. That's why the AT policy is as it is. I almost always agree with your rationales, Station1, however this one is perplexing. Nice to see you can be enigmatic, because everybody likes a good riddle! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

As you know, PRECISE, CONCISE, CONSISTENT, etc. are all part of the same article title policy. We just need to balance and apply all those factors to each case to provide the best outcome for readers. Looking solely at consistency, if we're trying to be consistent with just Washington (state), then yes, we'd add "(state)" to the title. If we're trying to be consistent with Gun laws in Georgia (or every other state), we would not add "(state)". If we're trying to be consistent with other articles that have Washington as part of the title, we can't, because some have "(state)" as part of that title while others don't. And when they do have "(state)", sometimes it's helpful and sometimes not. A foolish consistency leads to monstrosities like Category:Washington (state) state court judges. Station1 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree that there have been times WP editors have gone a bit overboard; however, I think it's better to tip a bit in that direction and get a little wet rather than to stay dry in the boat while others drown. All you seem to be saying is that it's okay to sacrifice precision for concision in this case, because adding "(state)" makes this article one of several "monstrosities"? Doubt that, actually, but won't argue further an issue that neither one of us appears to be able to reconcile. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No, not saying that at all. There's no sacrifice. The current title is precise and concise, and consistency is both impossible and unnecessary. The proposed title is hardly a monstrosity and really will make little difference, but to the extent it makes any difference, a dab page at the current title would be a slight detriment to those readers who search for "Gun laws in Washington" wanting this article, while the minority wanting the DC article would be no better off. Station1 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Seen no stats to warrant the conclusion that fewer readers would want the DC gun laws and would think it's the other way around. No, this article needs dabbing. Poor Pres. George, he gets lost in the shuffle everytime. According to our favorite search engine, there are at least 120 places called Washington in the US alone (9 Feb 2012), and yet as of 19 June 2015, there are only 57 places in the whole world called Washington. hmm, go figure, but I heard it on the Internet, so it must be true. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Gun laws in Georgia

Okay, that takes care of that. Now, what about Gun laws in Georgia? I suggest that we start a new discussion on the talk page for that article, proposing the rename. I can do that, or someone else can. It would be a middle path, between just renaming the article without discussion, and starting a new requested move there. What does everybody else think? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - \,,/ --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and moved it. The situation is nearly identical, so it seems unlikely a second discussion would generate a different outcome. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That should not have been done. It's obviously controversial based not only on the above discussion but also a previous move and reversal and discussion at the Georgia article. The situations are not ["nearly"] identical because in the case of Georgia there is no other article. Even if there is no primary topic for Washington, there can be for Georgia. That's what "tipped the balance" for the closer here. And in any case, the qualifier for Georgia articles is "U.S. state", not "state". WP:RM should be used for any move proposal, which might attract different participants and different arguments. Station1 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I said "nearly" identical. There is also clearly a redirect for Georgia the country and their gun laws, so it's not so different as you're claiming. You're more than welcome to make a technical reversal request though if you're truly bothered by it. As to "state" vs. "U.S. state", I suppose we can address that as well in the inevitable WP:RM... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've updated my comment to reflect "nearly". That redirect got a total of 8 hits in all of 2022, so it is quite a bit different. Station1 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)