Jump to content

Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Merger proposal to Universal background check (6 April 2015)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clearly to retain separate articles. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: an earlier proposal to merge UBC into GSL was closed as no consensus. However, the two articles have evolved since then, especially the UBC article.

Per WP:MERGEREASON, articles should be merged if "there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability."

The UBC article and the GSL article overlap almost entirely. Right now, "private sale loophole" appears in both pages in boldface - it seems more analogous to GSL, but redirects to UBC. The only difference is that the "UBC" article applies to all private sales, and we have danced around other private sales on the GSL page by artificially limiting its scope to private sales at gun shows. Note that each article links to the other as a "main article" for one of its sections. Also note that any and all UBC proposals would close the GSL.

Other parties agree that the two terms have a huge overlap:

  • Gun control advocates:
  • Gun rights advocates:
  • Third parties:

Merging the two articles is the right thing to do, and will improve the encyclopedia. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why have you made this proposal so soon after the last - less than three months ago - and especially while there is an open good article nomination? Lightbreather (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same reason that I gave January 29 (9 or 10 weeks ago): Each topic is notable in its own right, although this article is complete (hence the good article nomination), while the UBC article needs further development. Lightbreather (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Being flammable and being non-flammable are both notable, but they are fundamentally the same topic. WP:NOTE isn't the issue here, though this section provides some more guidance ("Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page") Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Some might argue using the same logic you given here that numerous articles be merged. For instance, maybe there should be one "Carry (firearms)" article, but there are not one, not two, but threefour: Open carry in the United States, Concealed carry in the United States, Concealed carry, and Constitutional carry! You didn't answer my other question. Why propose this merger again so soon, especially when it's nominated for GA status? Why not wait to see if it passes that? Lightbreather (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Concealed carry is the international version of Concealed carry in the United States, so that comparison and merge suggestion is pointless. If the GSL article is lacking in support for international representation, then that is another fault in it. Perhaps we should disambiguate this article with Gun show loophole (United States) unless material concerning the rest of the world can be added.
As for merging Open carry and Concealed carry, that is equally pointless (by any logic) since those are separate and distinct issues each with their own separate legislation, legal issues, and debates. Granted they are linked and have some overlap, but not enough to merge them together, and not like the overlap between GSL and UBC. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - These are separate (but related) issues, merging them will lessen the distinction and confuse not only Readers, but Editors as well trying to manage content in the articles. Yes, there will be redundancy between the two, but that is an acceptable situation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, would you please clarify for me how they're separate? As I see it, the readers need to understand one article to understand the other. The only difference between the two is "at gun shows" (GSL) versus "for all sales" (UBC). Am I missing something? Or does that distinction alone warrant a new article? Also, as editors, we will miss out on some of the better sources for one article or the other because they mention GSL versus UBC. The two sides' arguments are the same for both, with an "only more so" tacked on for UBC. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Faceless Enemy, to expand further on my objection, its also based on the current state of the UBC article which, in my opinion, reads like a promotional piece written by the Brady group. I'm not entirely satisfied with the state of this article either since every opportunity to bash the NRA seems to have been taken. Furthermore, a good portion of the content is anchored by and based upon shooting incidents versus ongoing efforts by legislators. That's sensationalism, not good writing or a balanced and complete reporting of facts or chronology. This article is a group effort, so I am just as much "at fault" for this as anyone else involved. Consequently, I am interested in the outcome of the GA review.
UBC may or may not be the solution to the GSL, I don't know, but for now they are separate and distinct issues with separate applications of law from state to state and separate approaches. For example, here in California the approach has been to shut down or make illegal many gun shows that are held on public property. There have been different approaches in other states, so its not a "cut and dry" issue much like the rest of the gun control v. gun rights debate.
At the very least it seems premature to combine them when both issues are far from being resolved. If UBC is implemented in the future and specifically for the purpose of addressing the GSL, then it would make sense to combine the articles, but not at this time. This is IMO one of those "wait and see" situations. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article describes the current reality while the other describes something that requires unlikely legislative action. I see no compelling argument to merge, and the pending GA review is just another reason to oppose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line between the two articles? Is one about current law and the other about proposed legislation? Or do we have a cutoff date? Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As much as I respect your desire for "article efficiency", I think this is a "wait and see" situation where we have to just continue to fend off the POV pushers until something definitive happens via legislation or court judgement one way or another. There are plenty of other good causes to address in the mean time. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:38, 14 April 2015 (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.

Duplicate References

[1] This reference is already in the Overview and in the Lead. It does not belong in the Recent Developments section. Please revert/delete, @Rickpa66: -- Darknipples (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I have done a modest, partial rewrite of the lead section. (Old version, new version, diff.) I believe that the new version of the lead is a substantial improvement, and significantly clarifies the subject, while not actually adding or removing all that much material. It would be nice if other editors would take some time to assess this change, calmly and with an open mind, and not revert it merely because they didn't write it themselves. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Revised 2001 BJS report

[2]

I believe this report is also responsible for the "40% of all guns bought in the US are sold without a background check.." quote. Any thoughts? Darknipples (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Additional citation [3] Darknipples (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: the recent addition similar to this of yours to the article, mind providing the location or an exact excerpt? I can't seem to find it in the source. Secondly, I'm not sure that addition is warranted, though I'd be happy to discuss it. Twinkle cut off part of my edit summary unfortunately.
"and nearly forty percent of state inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check", at the least it could be phrased a bit better and split to its own sentence.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to nit pick, but leaving the article as unbalanced as it was, leaving it the way Mudwater left it, regardless of how you wish to interpret the quote, this article warrants information regarding private party sales and background checks. Not too mention, no one knows what page or where the quote Mudwater left even is. Darknipples (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Darknipples: I assume you are referring to this edit? From looking at the statistics on the first page of the source ([4]), it shows that gun shows (part of the title and topic of this article) were the source of the firearm of 0.7% in 1997 and 0.6% in 1991 carried by state inmates at the time of their crime. My question is where does the source cited ([5]) state or show that "nearly forty percent of state inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check". Secondly this article isn't about "firearm[s] obtained without a background check", it's about the gun show loophole, so I'm questioning it's inclusion. While gun shows don't require background checks, other sources do not as well, so stating that addition here seems possibly problematic. I'd appreciate if we could keep the conversation on focus and WP:CIVIL, and refrain from comments of this nature. Update: You linked "Mudwater" as if it were an article title. Mudwater.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"Secondly this article isn't about "firearm[s] obtained the weapon without a background check", it's about the gun show loophole, so I'm questioning it's inclusion." Are you serious? Background checks are an essential component to GSL. I'm almost tempted to think you are joking here, but that would not be wise of you. If you've come here to troll or vandalize, you are in the wrong place. Where is the quote you decided to leave in place for the reference used? It says very plainly, in text and charts on the page I gave using said source, that 60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail), after BRADY LAWS were instated. Furthermore, you are leaving the article unbalanced and biased. Finally, I shall say that I was completely within the bounds of civility on your TP. Darknipples (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers at gun shows." -from the lead of this article. Stating that 40% of firearms used by state inmates during crimes didn't go through a background check may be accurate, but it doesn't really belong in the article because the guns were not bought at gun shows. The other information you removed, directly concerns guns shows.
"Where is the quote you decided to leave in place for the reference used?" While I've already explained where Mudwater's addition came from in the source, I'll do it again: It's on the first page; under the "Highlights" section (green background and white lettering); under the section "Source of gun" (bold lettering); It is also reiterated to the right of that in the summary paragraph, combined statitstically with flea markets.
"I'm almost tempted to think you are joking here, but that would not be wise of you. If you've come here to troll or vandalize, you are in the wrong place. -User:Darknipples" I think we define civility differently. WP:AGF.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

GSL is not just about guns that were bought at gun shows. Also, this article does not mention the words GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, not even in context to the quote cited. Maybe try reading the article a bit more to see why it's purview includes "sales or tranfers that do not include background checks". Darknipples (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

With how certain parts of the article currently read, I can understand your viewpoint. Others read like it is specific to gun shows. Perhaps we can agree that some overall rephrasing of the article for clarity is due.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Since GSL isn't even mentioned in this citation I'd say we need an RS check before anything else is done with it...(edit: The citation and quote are already in the body. See under EARLY EFFORTS section;"Analyzing data from 1997, the National Institute of Justice released a report saying that among State inmates who owned a gun, fewer than 2 percent bought them at a flea market or gun show.[24]") Darknipples (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It's a report from the US Department of Justice and they're unlikely to use a political term like this. Gun show is present in the report. In fact quite a few of the other sources cited in the article don't use the term verbatim. What are you questioning the reliability of the publisher (the US Dept. of Justice) or the sources reliability on the topic at hand (it describes statistics relevant to the topic). It it passes both with flying colors. It's a bit dated, but a lot of the other sources are too, so I see no issue with this.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether you disagree or not, I'm sending this to RS. Godsy, you seem to have this article confused with another one called Gun shows in the United States. This article is about a political concept, not just "gun shows". I recommend you use caution here, until you have done some more research. I suggest you look through the archives to see what has already transpired via the previous GSL talk pages, it will help save you and everyone here some time. Darknipples (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand what the article is about. Go ahead and post it at WP:RSN.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Darknipples: I thought the dividing line between this article and the UBC article is that this article is about private sales at gun shows, while that article is about private sales in general. Or am I wrong? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Faceless Enemy: Feel free to check my previous statements in the archives....Looks like there will be a lot of that in the near future...Let's see what RSN says about this cite in regards to political context. Darknipples (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Darknipples: I looked through the archives. The clearest dividing lines I've seen are here ("This article is about the gun show loophole and efforts to make all gun show sales - whether through a dealer or a private seller - go through a background check. In recent years, notably since the series of mass shootings in 2012, there has been less focus on the gun show loophole and more focus on making background checks universal - apply to all gun sales - whether through a dealer or a private seller - independent of venue. Universal background checks would apply to all sales, with a few exceptions." - Lightbreather) and here ("This article describes the current reality while the other describes something that requires unlikely legislative action. - Cullen328). Personally I prefer LB's cutoff to Cullen's, though I still don't agree with either. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to Godsy's previous statement...

  • "Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers at gun shows." -from the lead of this article. Stating that 40% of firearms used by state inmates during crimes didn't go through a background check may be accurate, but it doesn't really belong in the article because the guns were not bought at gun shows. The other information you removed, directly concerns guns shows.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)"

This is why Godsy's edits concern me. The GSL article can always be improved, but I draw the line at setting double standards for quoting a source that doesn't speak directly to the article's political concept, yet is used to mention offhand data speaking points for only one preferred political perspective. Not only that, when I tried to add balance using the same source in the same manner, I got rev/deled, and here we are... Darknipples (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What you consider "adding balance", I consider adding possible origanal research. "60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)" (your statement of sourcing) to turn that into "and nearly forty percent of state inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check" isn't necessarily true. Even taking that sort of leap, the source lists 13.9% in 91 and 20.8% in 97 (so unless I'm looking in the wrong place though it wouldn't be appropriate to tie the sentences together in that manner if that's the case) the statistic you listed is incorrect. The other half "Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows" is explicitly true.
My apologies, if my meaning wasn't very clear there in the above quote. The title "Gun show loophole", is not the best or overly clear. As I pointed out before "how certain parts of the article currently read" focus specifically (perhaps incorrectly) on gun shows. Hence the topic is not overly clear, a clearer title such as "Private gun sales 'loophole'" would be better.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional clarification: My issue is with the info you added in your attempt to "balance" the statement. While I think the source is fine, I'm okay with omitting the source and both halves the statement. If someone else wishes to advocate the former halves inclusion though, I think it would be reasonable. On a tangent that doesn't really apply in this case: Excluding sources because they don't explicitly mention the "loophole" is a bit bias, because the idea that there is a "ambiguity or inadequacy in the system" is an opinion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Update/clarification: "data speaking points for only one preferred political perspective". Whether relevant data lines up with a particular side or not shouldn't really be a factor in its inclusion. If the balance is accurate and sourced, it should of course be added. That wasn't the case in this instance.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States". That seems to be the actual subject of the article. It's not limited to gun shows, and it's not a loophole either. (2) "60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)". This statement is blatantly incorrect, since, as the article says, "17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales". In general the lead section needs to emphasize more that background checks are not required for private sales under federal law, but some states do require them. As currently written the lead is misleading on this important point. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the whole article could use a rewrite. Here's a random example: "Private-party sellers are not legally required to ask for identification. Unlicensed private parties cannot initiate a background check without the help of an FFL, except in Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon, where they may do so voluntarily." Really? What about the 17 states and D.C. that do require background checks for private sales? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
To all this concerns. First of all, this citation is going to RSN, before anything MORE is used from it. It is already in the article. As far as re-writing the NAME of article (as well as THE WHOLE ARTICLE) while it's waiting on a GA accord is odd to me. It also seems a little bit "convenient" with regards to your personal political preference, Mudwater. Darknipples (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) To me it seems obvious that the U.S. Department of Justice is a reliable source for information about background checks and gun crimes. But if you want to submit it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, that's fine with me, and please post a link to that once you do. (2) Yeah, I forgot about the Good Article Nomination. That was four months ago. Hopefully someone reviews the nomination pretty soon. (3) I don't think you know what my "personal political preference" is. For example, I'm in favor of requiring background checks for all firearm sales. Are you surprised? But, I'm also in favor of Wikipedia articles presenting as balanced and unbiased a view as possible, so that's how I try to edit. To be frank, I think there are some editors who try to skew articles to favor their own views as much as possible, consciously or otherwise, and I try not to be one of them. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mudwater: RE:(3) I know that you've tried multiple times to change the name of this article unsuccessfully and without warrant, among other things. So that's not surprising. We can dig into the archives and determine the rest. Darknipples (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Darknipples: —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mudwater: There doesn't seem to be a point in responding sometimes. I've tried to get focus the discussion on the topic at hand with the hope of some productive discussion/collaboration, but a wall of accusations, assumptions, and an unwillingness to really discuss the issues are all I get in reply from a certain direction. I thought a user was taking the source that I agree is obviously reliable "to RSN", but I haven't seen it posted there yet.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: I'm pretty sure I'm the one that started this talk section after this cite was duplicated in the lead. When it was again duplicated in the body, I left it, and tried to add more from the source, but you decided rev/deleting via a double standard was a priority. As far as getting this to RSN, I'll make sure it gets done today, I didn't realize I was bound to any specific deadline, as no one had given any. Darknipples (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"'60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)'. This statement is blatantly incorrect, since, as the article says, '17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales'"
"What you consider 'adding balance', I consider adding possible origanal research. '60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)' (your statement of sourcing) to turn that into 'and nearly forty percent of state inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check' isn't necessarily true. Even taking that sort of leap, the source lists 13.9% in 91 and 20.8% in 97 (so unless I'm looking in the wrong place though it wouldn't be appropriate to tie the [different statistics] together in that manner if that's the case) the statistic you listed is incorrect. The other half ([which you attempted to add balance to)]) "Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows" is explicitly true [from the source]."
Hence the reversion which was not "via a double standard".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Link to RSN [6] Darknipples (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional cited source already used in GSL article (Highlighted on P. 4) [7] Previously mentioned citation regarding the same 40% figure. [8] Darknipples (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I realize RSN is still currently active, but after speaking with the other editors I'd like to concede the 40% figure, and ask what objections any of us would have, if any, to simply adding the entire context, like so...."...among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." - P.1 [9] - (as the first paragraph of the section currently reads) "In 1996, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) said that an increase in gun shows resulted in "a readily available source of weapons and ammunition for a wide variety of criminals...."[23] Analyzing data from 1997, the National Institute of Justice released a report saying that among State inmates who owned a gun, fewer than 2 percent bought them at a flea market or gun show.[24] Attorney and gun rights advocate Dave Kopel said "gun shows are no 'loophole' in the federal laws," and that singling out guns shows was "the first step toward abolishing all privacy regarding firearms and implementing universal gun registration."[25]" Darknipples (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Early efforts

This first statement in this section "In 1996, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) said that an increase in gun shows resulted in...." isn't accurate according to it's context (see quote on the "introduction page" just after/below the 8th bullet point). If you read the context, it's actually referring, more specifically, to the passage of FOPA. [10]. It is then corroborated by the NRA citation in the "Early efforts" section that says "Attorney and gun rights advocate Dave Kopel said...[28]" - "(The main reason for the growth in gun shows in the last decade and a half is that the Firearm Owners Protection Act provided for licensed firearms dealers to conduct business at gun shows in addition to selling from their storefronts.)" [11] (See the quote in the 11th paragraph from the top, third sentence). I think a more accurate and comprehensive context is in order, one that essentially picks up where the "Background" section left off. Here is a suggested edit.

  • "In 1996 the Violence Policy Center released Gun Shows in America: Tupperware® Parties for Criminals, the first study to identify problems associated with gun shows.[12] (bullet point 5). The VPC study documented how the 1986 "Firearms Owners' Protection Act" (FOPA) led to the proliferation of gun shows, which resulted in "a readily available source of weapons and ammunition for a wide variety of criminals, as well as Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh" [13] (in section titled "And the infamous")(These two are also mentioned, specifically, in paragraph 5 of the NRA citation). According to the VPC, the utility of gun shows to dangerous individuals stems primarily from the exemption enjoyed by private sellers from the sales criteria of the Brady law, including a background check. [14] (third paragraph, directly under the second bullet point). "Analyzing data from 1997, the National Institute of Justice released a report...". Darknipples (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[15] p. 262 "The VPC study points out that both convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as well as Branch Davidian leader David Koresh frequented gun shows and were able to stock-pile weapons by making such legalized purchases at gun shows. Opponents to gun show legislation point to a Justice Department study in which arrested persons were asked where they had obtained their guns." [16] "That redefinition of what it meant to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms opened up what came to be known as the "gun show loophole," in which private sellers ultimately were able to circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees."(located about half way through the article) Darknipples (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the GA review

The GA nominator has been banned by arbcom, are there any other active editors willing to take on the review? Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: Issues have been raised about the article's content and title. Can the nomination simply be delisted, if no one volunteers to take on the review, and no one objects within the next few days? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Godsy: My plan is if no one volunteers to help the article to GA, to quick fail the article in a week or so, else I'll give it a review. Though judging from the section below, it seems that there are plenty of active editors on this article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Zwerg Nase is on the case. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zwerg Nase: Pinging in case you didn't notice this section, before you spend much time on this. No one has volunteered to take on the review (the nominator is blocked), and the article might be eligible for quick failing per WP:GA?. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Godsy: Thanks for the ping, I'll look into it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Why so eager to fail the article? Doesn't seem very AGF to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be happy to help if someone would refer me to how to do the review. Darknipples (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note the timing of Winner42's new section regarding the GA review was only 24 hours prior to @QuilaBird:'s & @Godsy:'s NPOV tag on the article. I'm trying to AGF, but I have to say, it seems a bit too coincidental. Darknipples (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I don't understand, what would anyone have to gain by placing the NPOV after I started considering a GA review? Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything, and it is not meant as a personal attack, but I think it's important to take note of actions that continually hinder this article's progress. Obviously, this is a politically contentious article, and there have been editors in the past (and likely in the present) that do not agree with it's existence on WP. I can also tell you that certain editors have even been banned for issues related to the editing of this article. (edit) We've waited for months to get a GA review, now it seems to be at risk of quick-failing because of this tag regarding an issue that has already been resolved more than once, if I remember correctly. Darknipples (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about quick failing, User:Zwerg Nase and myself are in the GA cup which disallows quick failing or quick passing of articles. Surely both pro and anti gun editors here would appreciate an impartial review of the article's neutrality as required by the 4th GA criteria, but perhaps I am just naive. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gun show loophole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


On it! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples, Mudwater: It is hard for me to review this while it undergoes heavy changes. Any end in sight? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: As I've explained on the talk page -- see my posts there, and in the talk page archives, for a full explanation -- having an article called "Gun show loophole" violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. A better title would be "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". There's been a lot of discussion about this issue, but as far as I can tell there's not going to be a consensus about it. At the current time I'm not planning to say much more about this. As far as the article itself, I have made some edits to it, but not that many. So for my part, I'd say go ahead with the GA review. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm pretty much done with making updates. As far as the NPOV tag, I feel it will be resolved as soon as we get some more impartial opinions. Mudwater's opinions on the title, and subject, are nothing new. I find it a bit strange that someone decided to tag the article as soon as the GA review started, but, it will work itself out soon enough.Darknipples (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: The POV tag issue seems resolved. If not, I'm not sure where it could possibly go. I will continue sorting things until I know for sure, so I'm going to work probably until tonight. I've never gone through a GA review, and I'd appreciate any guidance that disambiguates the process and what you need from us. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC) OK, I can't see anything else I'd like to tweak, barring some unforeseen important news regarding GSL I'm done for a while. What now? Darknipples (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be able to go through it again hopefully today or tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Heads up @Zwerg Nase:, this has gone to Administration [17] -- Darknipples (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Will this affect the review in any way? Any details you can provide are appreciated, even if some of us are more concerned with the title than the actual article status. Darknipples (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: As long as there is a consensus reached and no edit-warring, it will not affect the review. I am very sorry that I wasn't able to give you a review yet, the past week has been more stressful than I thought and I never found the time to work in Wikipedia longer than a couple of minutes. I hope to be able to do it this weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Zwerg, take your time, I just know that constant changes can fail the article, but not specifically what kind of changes counts against receiving GA status. Darknipples (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Finally on it. These are the things I believe should be adressed:

  • Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME.
  • However, I think the article itself should be more careful with the term in the prose. The worst example is in the Overview section, where it reads The loophole generally refers. You cannot write that. Better say The term refers to a perceived....
  • Having said that, I feel that the Overview section should be removed alltogether. The lead is the place to give an overview over the topic. If information is vital enough to go into an overview, put it in the lead. If not, leave it in the rest of the prose. Several pieces of information from Overview should be moved into Background.
  • Many abbreviations are used, some of them without introducing what they stand for. One example of this is FFL, where only later I find out what it is.
  • Background: You should give the full name of the "Brady Law" and give the shorter version in paratheses.
  • Early efforts: The title of the study should be in italics.
  • Early efforts: Before, names of bills and law where not in quotation marks, but Firearms Owners' Protection Act is. Any particular reason?
  • Early efforts: There is no source for the US Attorney proposals.
  • Notable events: I find that did not survive the House is a little colloquial.
  • Response: Maybe Responses would be a better title? The singular implies that there is one reaction to one action, which is not the case.
  • Response: but eventually killed by legislators - far too colloquial!
  • Response: Give a short explanation of what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes.
  • Recent developments: Any news on the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015"? Also, since the act is already referred to in the next section, where it belongs, you should move this information there.
  • Ref #28 ("About the VPC") is dead.

Optional: Any chance to get more images into the article? Maybe a photo of one of the prominent persons mentioned?

I am putting this on hold for the moment. The nominators have seven days to adress the issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Review Work

  • Reviewing the title controversy, it is my understanding that the issue is still not fully resolved. However, as long as there is no edit-warring, I feel that debates don't stand in the way of this becoming a GA. The case would be different if the title would be a clear NPOV violation, which it is not IMO, referring to WP:POVNAME.
  • However, I think the article itself should be more careful with the term in the prose. The worst example is in the Overview section, where it reads The loophole generally refers. You cannot write that. Better say The term refers to a perceived....  Done
  • Having said that, I feel that the Overview section should be removed alltogether.  Done The lead is the place to give an overview over the topic. If information is vital enough to go into an overview, put it in the lead. If not, leave it in the rest of the prose. Several pieces of information from Overview should be moved into Background.
  • Many abbreviations are used, some of them without introducing what they stand for. One example of this is FFL, where only later I find out what it is. Done
  • Background: You should give the full name of the "Brady Law" and give the shorter version in parathenses.  Done
  • Early efforts: The title of the study should be in italics. Done
  • Early efforts: Before, names of bills and law where not in quotation marks, but Firearms Owners' Protection Act is. Any particular reason? (not as far as I'm aware, removed)  Done
  • Early efforts: There is no source for the US Attorney proposals. Done
  • Notable events: I find that did not survive the House is a little colloquial. Done
  • Response: Maybe Responses would be a better title? The singular implies that there is one reaction to one action, which is not the case. Done
  • Response: but eventually killed by legislators - far too colloquial! Done
  • Response: Give a short explanation of what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 includes.  Done
  • Recent developments: Any news on the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015"? Also, since the act is already referred to in the next section, where it belongs, you should move this information there. Done
  • Ref #28 ("About the VPC") is dead. Done

Optional: Any chance to get more images into the article? Maybe a photo of one of the prominent persons mentioned?  DoneDarknipples (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: There is only one point outstanding. Will you adress this as well? I also believe that it is better with less President portraits. I would rather recommend using a photo of Dave Kopel. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)  Done

@Zwerg Nase, Mudwater, Capitalismojo, Faceless Enemy, QuilaBird, Dennis Brown, Godsy, Callanecc, Winner 42, NE ENT, Cullen328, and DESiegel: (Anyone that can help) The recent ANI discussion over the Gun show loophole article title has been "archived with no resolution". Shall we continue with the GA review, or no? [18] Does there need to be a POV tag placed over title concerns per Mudwater's request's and "Opposing editor's" concern's? Also, the outstanding issue of whether "Background checks on firearms sales in the United States" is the proper title, or not? -- Darknipples (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Since this is the first time I am faced with a situation like that, I will ask the GA project about how this situation should be handled. I have made my opinion clear, but I will not act against consensus. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, Godsy has tagged the last paragraph for tone. We can omit it all together or make changes to it. Your call. Darknipples (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Darknipples: Hmm, I wouldn't say that the tone is a big issue. The prose could be better, sure, maybe using words that sounds a bit less generalizing. But all in all, in my opinion, the tone is OK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg, I'm all for improving the article in nearly any way, especially in terms of prose. Let us know what you think will improve the article, no holds barred, we've waited months for this type of feedback, at least I know some of us have. Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no reply to my question on how to go ahead with the unresolved matter. I will therefore not hold it against you, if anyone has a problem with it, they can feel free to reasses the article at any time. A problem I have left now are two ref-errors that occur, the errors I get are:

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "DOJ1999January" defined multiple times with different content
Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "History-C" defined multiple times with different content

Can you take care of that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Mudwater. Darknipples (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the stability will improve; at the least perhaps a hold is due for the time being. I did some work regarding the WP:MoS issues, though the article could still use work, especially the lead. I also pointed out some other things that need to be fixed.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We've addressed the issues Zwerg brought up, and they've been very clear regarding the article's neutrality. Godsy has tagged the article yet again [19]. Who is conducting the GA review, here, Godsy or Zwerg? Darknipples (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the {{Lead extra info}} tag, because I've fixed the issues related to it. Several still remain: 5, 3 in the last paragraph of the lead, and 2 in the legislation section. The latter of the tags should be relatively easy to fix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples, no need to get angry, everyone can feel free to chip in. As for the tags left:

  • The ones in the lead: The neutrality one is debatable, since one should be able to see that the article states the opinion of a third party. Nevertheless, I agree that a better tone for those sentences could be found. For instance: Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation and have urged the government to extend background check requirements to private sellers. On the other hand, gun rights advocates take a contrary standpoint, claiming that no loophole exists. To them, required background checks for the sales of firearms from one private citizen to another endanger Second Amendment rights and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of whether such sales are made at gun show. I'm not sure if this is entirely better, what do you think, Godsy?
  • As for the too many citations bit, I have to agree with Godsy, those could be cut down, especially the first instance in which only two sources are used.

Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the neutrality tag simply because that information used to be attributed to guns rights advocates, but after a copyedit that attempted to address the sentence length issue [20], it's stated like a fact. The first part of the sentence is reasonable to an extent, that it would "exceed the government’s authority" is debatable; who holds this opinion needs to be clarified. I think your suggested alternative is good, though I'd maybe tweak it slightly: Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated the laws function as intended, and no loophole exists. They have contended that required background checks for private sales of firearms endanger Second Amendment rights, and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of the venue. A second sentence after the first might be due as well, summarizing reasons gun control advocates argue for expanded background checks, as this has been done for the latter group.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Good points! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
[21] The last paragraph in the lead section was removed by a random IP editor. As I've stated before, I'm actually fine with this, as it only seemed to reflect POVs on the subject, and was added purely by demand of other editors. Darknipples (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Then it's just the tags in the last section left standing in the way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Zwerg Nase, it seems Godsy has now decided to do a major overhaul of the entire article. I feel it is fairly unnecessary and possibly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Since they are entitled to improve the article, I will refer to your guidance and community consensus before reverting. I'm not trying to be the "bad-guy", but the GA review takes precedence. Darknipples (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Right now, the GA review would need to fail because the stability of the article is not guaranteed. This is a shame really. @Godsy: While many of the edits you made were constructive, it would have been preferable to discuss the matters here first, ensuring that no edit-warring starts over the article. You're making my life very hard here. I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead. I will give both of you three more days to sort these things out. If the article is stable then and meets the criteria already mentioned here in length, I will pass, otherwise, I'll be forced to fail. Please communicate with each other, that's what talk pages are for! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zwerg Nase, I've reached out to Godsy on their talk page to try and resolve this issue. I cannot speak for them, but my only concern is passing the GA review. As for today, I am refraining from any more article edits. It seems a pity that this review hinges on whether or not Godsy responds. Please clarify if we will need to revert back to any specific previous edit in order to pass, along with any other requests you may have. I realize we are under a deadline. Thanks for all your help. Darknipples (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the revert I'm suggesting [22] would put us back in shape to pass with only a minor adjustment needed, as Zwerg Nase and I previously discussed [23]. Darknipples (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the article is in a much better state overall, and Zwerg Nase has pointed out that "many of the edits [I] made were constructive". I'm concerned with improving the article for our readership, not obtaining a particular status for the article. "My only concern is passing the GA review": Reverting to a previous version of the article purely to get a better quality rating would be the pinnacle of bureaucracy and detrimental to the encyclopedia. A version on the order of this would be much better regardless of whether it met a certain quality rating. I refrained from making changes of that nature because I knew it would be met with considerable resistance, and reverted (even the little bit of content I did remove was challenged). Articles about controversial subjects, ought to be simply described (stealing some words there from a Wikipedian I respect); instead they're often filled with unneeded content which leads to more unneeded content being added for balance and so on and so forth.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is concerned, here are a few quotes from it..."Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." & "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures..." Darknipples (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Godsy, despite your attempts, it's quite clear through your words and actions that you simply do not care about seeking consensus, let alone the GA review. I do not take issue with most of your changes (other than ones I've already mentioned), so much as the disregard you have shown Zwerg Nase, for their time and effort thus far. Contrary to your beliefs, I know the GA process is an important part of Wikipedia and it's content. However, you are treating this review more so as if it were for WP:FARC, rather than a simple WP:GA. Darknipples (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

It should be noted that I take specific issue with regard to these edits [24], and [25]. Replacing reports by the ATF with, albeit neutrally worded POVs, seems counter-intuitive in my view. Darknipples (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So far, Godsy has not deleted my revert on this issue. Hopefully, moving forward, they will discuss it first, before reverting. Darknipples (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits made to the lead. I condensed it back down to 3 paragraphs and removed some minor details already mentioned in the body. [26] -- Darknipples (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a better wording for the ATF sentence within the lead (not going into too much detail covered later), and it fixes the issue about reasons backing up the positions of the first group being absent which I've pointed out. Nice work. I think dropping the last sentence of the third paragraph would make it flow a bit better, and not again go into too much detail, but I'm alright with it as is.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Contributing events Section

Godsy, did you quote this from the article [27]? If so, please share the exact quote, and or, location within the cite. If not, it may considered WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE. Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to make a sentence that lacked context and sense, into a proper one that actually stated something, by expanding it from the source. Weeks after the Columbine shooting, Frank Lautenberg introduced a proposal to close the gun show loophole in federal law. It was passed in the Senate, but did not pass in the House. Gun control advocates wanted to extend the background check requirement to nonlicensed firearms sellers at gun shows, too. Frank Lautenberg's proposal would have done this according to the wording, so what does that sentence add without my addition (simply stating they supported it, if that's even necessary, it could be done in a better manner)? What part of the source is that sentence corresponding to before my expansion?—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Your definition of "proper" appears to be WP:SYNTH, in this case. Here's the actual paragraph you referred to [28] in your edit summary "(expand sentence from source: last sentence in first paragraph)"...
  • "The House last night approved a plan to weaken some of the existing rules for background checks at gun shows, in a vote that revealed the enduring power of pro-gun forces in Congress."
Your added "reference" from this site...
  • "which passed because of bipartisanship in one half of congress, but failed as well in the other."
You asked..."so what does that sentence add without my addition"....The sentence is reliably sourced, and WP:DUE regarding FACTS in context to the subject of the section. Your decision to overhaul the entire article seems to have a lot to do with your excluding and including materials without consensus. Darknipples (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"last sentence in first paragraph" of the section I was editing in the article.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That still does not explain your addition of what seems like WP:UNDUE WP:Synth. Darknipples (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, but I'll restore it to the previous wording. [29] —Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"excluding and including materials without consensus": Naturally when something is reorganized, bits and pieces my be altered, added, or removed. Most of what I "excluded" was put back in. You haven't had consensus when adding things to the article in the past (e.g. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]), and you (quite hypocritically) removed something today in the same manner I did. You seem to want to hold me to a higher standard.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Darknipples (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, instead of turning this [36] into an edit war, let's discuss it's WP:Weight. As far as prose, i.e. WP:MOS, I don't see where it applies to the extent of exclusion. Darknipples (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, that sentence doesn't fit in the sequence of that section, and there isn't another good place in the article for it to reside that I can find. The first three paragraphs are about an individual event, the last one references three in regard to protesting (whether or not the latter is appropriate).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You're reasoning is fairly vague and simply doesn't give an explanation other than what seems to be your own personal preference. Again, due almost entirely to the way you've reformatted the article...Without consensus.
I'm conceding this issue for reasons previously stated here [38]. Darknipples (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Provenence Section

Godsy, please address the "contradiction tag" that you have placed as a result of your overhaul. Please explain what you think needs to happen here. The issue of "too many citations" seems easily addressed, as most of them seem to be some duplication. Darknipples (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The contradiction existed before the rearrangement of the information in the article, it simply wasn't in the same section.
As of September 2015, 18 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., require background checks at gun shows. ≠ According to a 2013 report, seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina. The remaining 33 states do not place additional restrictions on the private sales of firearms.
I already "addressed" the contradiction tag on the articles talk page [39], though I've expanded on the issue above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Godsy, despite all of this, the overlying issue here is whether or not Zwerg Nase is willing to accept your "overhaul". If they ask us to simply revert your changes to the format, you should respect their decision, since they've already put in the necessary work for the review. Zwerg has already stated issues regarding your "overhaul" [40] - "I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead."
On a more relative note, if a revert is not suggested by Zwerg, I suggest removing the old references (According to a 2013 report... The remaining 33 states...) and simply using the information under "Summary of State Law" from the (most current) cite [41], which reads...
  • Eighteen states and D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales. Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms, including purchases from unlicensed sellers; Maryland and Pennsylvania laws do the same, but are limited to handguns. Four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey) require any firearm purchaser, including a purchaser from an unlicensed seller, to obtain a permit issued after a background check, and four more states (Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina) do the same only for handguns. Illinois also requires a background check whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show. Nevada law allows but does not require unlicensed sellers to request a background check on a firearm purchaser. Most of these jurisdictions also require unlicensed sellers to keep records of firearm sales or report such sales to law enforcement.
We can use state abbreviations to help shorten it up, or whatever way you'd like to "wikify" it, as not to plagiarize...I will begin editing again tomorrow. Darknipples (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
"I don't quite see why a distinction between Provenance and Background is necessary. The first of these reads more like an overview, which should be in the lead.": I attempted to address this by changing the "Background" section to the "History" section. The "Provenance" section explains the topic and legislation, while the history section explains what led up to it. Perhaps better heading titles are due, but I think the information is broke up in a reasonable manner, better than how it was before.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You've failed to speak to my suggested resolution, unsurprisingly, but I will go ahead and update the section with it and remove the tag, on the off chance you'll allow it. Darknipples (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a copyright violation in its current form, simply changing the state names to abbreviations (disallowed per MOS:POSTABBR), doesn't do it. I don't spend all my time on this article, and unlike yourself, at least 70% of my total edits are not on or in regard to this specific Wikipedia article. I apologize if my response wasn't good enough or in a time frame, that suited you. I think I've responded amply well, all things considered.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your response included a reference to policy, making it much easier to see your point. I will address this issue and remove the tags when I am done. If you still find it unacceptable, please make the changes you feel are required so that we can finish by the deadline. Darknipples (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable opinions

This reference seems WP:UNDUE in terms of being "notable".

  • "In 2012, the head of a Minnesota gun owners group said a state legislator's effort to close the gun show loophole that doing so would only "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost" on the state's "legitimate gun owners."

I've removed it, pending any objections Darknipples (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove some other information that suffers from the same problem:
  • On September 17, 2013, the day after the Washington Navy Yard Shooting, gun control activists and relatives of victims of mass shootings that occurred at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the Oak Creek, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, came to Washington to protest for stricter gun control. The activists said they hoped that the Navy Yard attack's proximity to Capitol Hill would motivate lawmakers to close the gun show loophole. Specifically about Colorado gun activists looking at the source.
  • Gun control advocates wanted to extend the background check requirement to non-licensed firearms sellers at gun shows, too. A generalization, which have mostly been attributed within the article, along with other concerns I've expressed about it on this talk page.
If any one is restored, all three should be.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
How does this improve the article? If you feel my deletion of the previous reference is unwarranted, why not just restore it with a short explanation in the edit summary, and or here, as to why you feel it merits inclusion (SEE "pending any objections")? Why (for lack of a better term) "ransom" what are arguably mutually exclusive and reliably sourced references? Wikipedia is not a WP:GAME, but in the interest of consensus, I will not object to these edits moving forward, as they are only of minor importance, and so that the GA review may continue. Darknipples (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional overhaul suggestion

In order to speed things up and hopefully save some of Zwerg's time, I'd like to address [42] Godsy's currently suggested version [43]. They have stated, it..."would be much better regardless of whether it met a certain quality rating." And that..."Articles about controversial subjects, ought to be simply described (stealing some words there from a Wikipedian I respect); instead they're often filled with unneeded content which leads to more unneeded content being added for balance and so on and so forth." While I might agree this is a profound insight, I am compelled by WP:POLICY, and the importance of discussion and consensus, to state my objection to these edits on the basis of previously mentioned policies, here. I will link this discussion to the article TP, for any other involved editors. Darknipples (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in response to the statement regarding "Articles about controversial subjects", I would point out that Wikipedia is not censored, and that "it is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy" as per WP:CONTROVERSY...This may seem overly bureaucratic to some, but it's been the only constant guide most editors, like myself, have been able to rely on in order to navigate Wikipedia in many ways. Darknipples (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize my views as being dis-aligned with policy.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear...

...what have I gotten into here? To make it short: I went over the most current version and found several things I feel need fixing:

  • Provenance: I do see a certain sense in this section now, even though it might have been included otherwise, but certainly not a reason to fail. What definitely would be a reason to fail though is the fact that almost the entire last section is a direct copy violation from this source. You will need to put this section into your own words asap!
  • Government studies and positions: The first paragraph reads weird, especially with the colon in the middle.
  • Same section: You use the term "FFL" here for persons regularly. That is very confusing considering the abbreviation actually describes the licence. You should change those instances to "FFL holders" or something similar.

In my opinion, the article could pass pending these changes, but only if all edit conflicts are resolved! If I don't see this article being stable over the next 24 hours, I will fail this review. You would then be welcome to resolve your issues and nominate it again when the article has reached a safisfactory level of stability. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisions

  • Provenance: I do see a certain sense in this section now, even though it might have been included otherwise, but certainly not a reason to fail. What definitely would be a reason to fail though is the fact that almost the entire last section is a direct copy violation from this source.  Done Darknipples (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Same section: You use the term "FFL" here for persons regularly. That is very confusing considering the abbreviation actually describes the licence. You should change those instances to "FFL holders" or something similar.  Done Darknipples (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I am going to pass this now, since it meets GA criteria in my opinion, seeing that edits the past few days have been constructive. I will however keep an eye on this. Thank you for all your work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

H.R.2380 Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015

Any reason why we shouldn't add this to the list in the legislation section? [44] [45] [46] (more...) [47] Darknipples (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Recentism tag

@Godsy:, please discuss your reasons for adding this tag instead of discussing it on the talk page first. Seeing as though this term is almost twenty years old and still sees quite a bit of publication, I feel this is unwarranted in this case according to the ten-year test [48]. It's notability [49] has continually been proven by reports and publications over decades leading up to current events, including legislation, of which, you are quite obviously aware [50]. Please share your solution as to how we should balance the article chronologically, and why you feel this tag is necessary. Perhaps we should use this... {{expert-subject}} Darknipples (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Scott McClellan quote

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post)

@Godsy: I respectfully ask you to reconsider your deletion of material from my previous edit [51]. Do note that this author is not the only reliable source regarding this particular view by Bush (4th paragraph from the bottom) [52] (quote) But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole. "Federal legislation created it," McClellan said. "Federal legislation should close it." If you like you can take it to RSN, but at least respond here. Furthermore, the "manner" in which it is attributed (to Scott McClellan) is not WP:OR, so what is the issue here exactly? Darknipples (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The passage from the source:[1]

Bush justifies those positions as narrow disagreements over jurisdiction. Background checks are a good idea, he says, but because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it. That's why he didn't back Danburg's bill, says his spokesman Scott McClellan.

  1. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bush-guns-20000706
Baum is summarizing his characterization of what Bush said in the first part, then he summarizes what Scott McClellan says. It's Dan Baum's characterization of what Scott McClellan said. To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question [53] (i.e.: but according to his spokesman, Scott McClellan, "he felt because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it") isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous. The next paragraph in the source shows a direct quote, which is preferable, though it deviates from the topic at hand in this article unfortunately. Same sort of issue with the second source.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 10:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This diff is also relevant, as it is when the quotation marks were added. Adding them to my comment above as well, as they are a large part of the issue.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@Godsy: In that case, instead removing the text, you should have just removed the quotes, or at least tried to compromise in some way. Darknipples (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I wholly disagree, but I'm trying to pick my battles and avoid edit wars. Let's see what RSN says. Darknipples (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Link to RSN [54] Darknipples (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Here's a suggested compromise from RSN..."In a 2000 Rolling Stone / Washington Post Article, Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation." Is that acceptable enough for you? Darknipples (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What Ca2james put forth at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gun show loophole (Rolling Stone & Washington Post) [55] (the only suggestion there so far) isn't what you posted here [56]: "In a 2000 Rolling Stone / Washington Post Article, Bush's spokesman, Scott McClelan, said Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation" (again the same issue I've pointed out) is quite different from "Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation" (much better and perhaps acceptable, though a direct quote is preferable on a subject that could be considered contentious). [Basically the same thing I stated at RS/N [57], just preserving it here as well.]—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Godsy What you've done here [58], is to remove the more relative aspect of this reference (about GSL), and leave the text in regard to background checks. While BGC's are relevant to GSL, they are not the same thing. The part about Bush's views on GSL are even more important in regard to WEIGHT & NOTABILITY. I'll put this on RSN, just to make sure everyone's aware of my position. If you want to just use this "Bush's position was that the loophole could only be closed by federal legislation since the loophole was a byproduct of previous federal legislation" I'm fine with that. It just needs to be included.Darknipples (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I simply removed part of a sentence from one of your recent additions that was improperly attributed. I would have removed the content regardless of what information it conveyed, if it suffered from the aforementioned issue. It is commonplace to remove recently added content which isn't correct; MOS:QUOTE describes part of the issue.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 13:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent developments

I have a cite that would seem to put the NRA's current view into perspective. I'm asking if anyone has any suggestions on how to include this as a courtesy. Please AGF. [59] "The National Rifle Association has strongly objected to universal background checks — among other things, the group argues that only 10 percent of guns are purchased on the secondary market. (The NRA also disputes the idea that the current law amounts to a "gun-show loophole," pointing out that many of the people selling at gun shows are federally licensed dealers.)" -- (edit - adding entire context of NRA position) Darknipples (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Response section

What is the relevance of this to GSL? [60] (reference used from article in Bold text)

  • "In a 6-3 opinion written in 2005, the court said that someone growing marijuana for her own use could have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce" and therefore was able to be regulated by the federal government. (In an impassioned dissent Justice Clarence Thomas said that: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.")"

For one thing, GSL isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. It does talk about background checks but it's only in reference state laws which may or may not have passed. Can anyone explain it's weight or notability with regard to the GSL article? If anyone objects to it's exclusion please state your case or take it to RSN. Darknipples (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically, someone took a quote from Justice Thomas and used it out of context to support their own argument. The issue relates back to states' rights, and may be applicable to the GSL, and it is even possible he would have the same opinion, but the quote doesn't belong in this article because it's not about this subject. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Removing until further discussion determines outcome. [61] Darknipples (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section Citations

[62] I have pulled 3 of the 5 cites that were added recently [63]. I was able to substitute this one [64] with [65], as they are nearly identical in context. Please also note that I was able to keep all original statements and references in the paragraph, with original and additional cites already in the body. (Here are the issues I have with them.)

1. [66] The Washington Times "The gun show loophole myth" Retrieved September 13, 2015. Op-Ed piece. Also, I was able to find a similar news article from the same source released within 24 hrs of the original.)

2. "What's the Deal with Gun Show Loopholes?" Gun Talk TV. Retrieved September 13, 2015. (I've never heard of this source, and there aren't any WP articles regarding "Gun Talk TV" that I could see upon doing a quick search.)

3. [67] MRCTV's Dan Joseph Demolishes the Left's 'Gun Show Loophole' Myth", TheBlaze. "We Already Do That!". Retrieved September 13, 2015. (This story was actually produced by Media Research Center (MRCTV). MRC's mission is to "prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values and to neutralize what they perceive as liberal bias in mainstream media." It has also received criticism [68] with regard to selective use of evidence.

In the meantime I have taken the liberty of sending these to RSN for some impartial opinions. (LINK) [69] - Darknipples (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(RecDev ) Recent Washington DC gun law ruling

Current status seems to have "changed" recently. Can anyone tell if they upheld background checks for private firearm sales? It seems to have enough weight to mention in RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, since it's already linked in the lead "17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks..." I don't think it needs mentioning in LEGISLATIVE.

1. (TheHill)Court strikes down DC gun regs in mixed ruling [70] "In a 2-1 decision Friday, a three-member panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the city’s requirements that force gun owners to register long guns, get fingerprinted, photographed and appear in person when registering a gun, pay a registration fee and complete a firearms safety and training course."

2. (WaPo)[71]"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today ruled that several parts of the District’s gun registration law violate the Second Amendment. The court held the following provisions unconstitutional:"

  • registered guns be re-registered every three years.
  • a gun must be physically brought to the D.C. police headquarters in order to registered.
  • persons seeking to register a gun must pass a test about firearms laws.
  • prohibition on registering more than one handgun per month.

At the same time, the court upheld other requirements, including that gun owners be fingerprinted and photographed.

3. (AP & ABC)"In a mixed decision... The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city cannot ban gun owners from registering more than one pistol per month or require owners to re-register a gun every three years. The court also invalidated requirements that owners make a personal appearance to register a gun and pass a test about firearms laws. But the court upheld other parts of the law, such as requiring that so-called long guns — including rifles and shotguns — be registered along with handguns. The ruling also allows gun owners to be fingerprinted and photographed, pay certain fees and complete a firearms safety training course."[72] Darknipples (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Title not consistent with Wikipedia, NPOV

I researched back and saw that this popped up, but didn't receive much discussion. The title refers to a loophole, which according to Wikipedia itself is "used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy of the government of the US. Attempts have been made to enact universal background checks ("close the loophole"), but they have been rejected, continuing the intended policy of no private-sale background checks.

Simply: It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended. Some people objecting to the state of the law does not make it a loophole. Wikipedia is left with contradictory content.

The term "loophole" is also generally considered pejorative, implying that the action is bad, and that something in the law needs to be fixed to close the loophole. This is the point of view of the gun control side of the debate in the US, while the gun rights side does no believe anything needs to be changed. Thus, the title violates NPOV by supporting one point of view over the other.

I suggest the title change as previously discussed. It should be mentioned that the gun control side of the debate calls the intended lack of private sale background checks the "gun show loophole," but a non-descriptive, NPOV-violating term shouldn't be the title. QuilaBird (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though the guideline we seem to be following is WP:NPOVNAME. I don't think point #1 applies (as this has been the common name for a while), but #2 might. If you can come up with a superior encyclopedic name that isn't POV, then by all means feel free to propose it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
How about "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States"? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME Lets just use the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
The view has been expressed above that the title may have problems. If a more neutral title can be shown to have common use, it should be used instead.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Godsy: Per WP:COMMONNAME:"Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section." (SEE "Neutrality in article titles" [73]) "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." Darknipples (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu... We've debated all of this before (see the TP archives), and even though I didn't like the answer I got then, there did seem to be a consensus not to consolidate / rename the pages involved. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
...This "issue" has been taken up so many times I've lost count. You think there isn't a WP article on the N-word for example? This is like beating a dead horse, and as FE said, check the archives if you don't believe me. There are plenty of WP articles with titles that offend and or confuse SOME people, but that alone isn't grounds for changing it. Darknipples (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say being objectively incorrect and contrary to the term's definition page is plenty of grounds even if nobody is offended. As above, NPOV was only my secondary concern. QuilaBird (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@QuilaBird: (FROM THE SOURCE [74]) "A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." Nothing contrary as far as I can see...The word "pejorative" is also not mentioned here. Note that GSL is also a part of List of legal loopholes....You are simply taking a view that is already presented in the article, from the NRA, to change the title to be in accordance with the NRA's views. It's simply not acceptable...Darknipples (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@QuilaBird: Feel free to take it to dispute resolution, because the arguments you're using here have all been tried before (see archives), and have all failed to stand up to WP scrutiny with regard to this article. Right now, out of respect, I won't waste our time trying to argue that "the sky is or isn't blue" etc... Please post a link here if you decide to take such action. Darknipples (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
re: "It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended." and "No background checks on private sales is the current intended policy". -- absence of policy is not a policy. The intent of the policy was to prevent firearms from reaching bad hands, and not making life of firearms businesses harder. Therefore it is called "loophole": something that is not covered by a policy of background checking. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the Brady Bill, Congress has entertained proposals to establish background checks for private sales, and it has rejected all such proposals. The lack of such background checks is thus the conscious policy and intent of the government, and as such it cannot by Wikipedia's own definition be a loophole. If we leave this, we leave an inconsistency between Wikipedia pages, unless you want to change the loophole entry to say "any policy I don't like." QuilaBird (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@QuilaBird:"The lack of such background checks is thus the conscious policy and intent of the government" -- Your statement here is purely WP:OR...I suggest you find some citations for this. Darknipples (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Manchin Toomey did not pass the Senate. This is an explicit refusal by the government to enact universal background checks. "Closing the loophole" has been considered and rejected. QuilaBird (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@QuilaBird: As @Altenmann: said, absence of policy is not a policy. The failure of a proposed bill for a form of universal background checks is not in any way explicit evidence of "policy". Not only that, you are ignoring the evidence to the contrary, A.K.A the bill itself. You still haven't presented any new citations, and you are still using Original Research. I suggest we all decide which form of dispute resolution/mediation to use in this matter right away, as it's already been over a week and the GA review has been started. Tags such as the NPOV are not meant as a permanent solution for editors that take issue. This article needs to move past this....AGAIN. (Pinging other editors as a reminder.) @Capitalismojo: @Godsy: @Faceless Enemy: @Mudwater: Darknipples (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "loophole" as defined in Wikipedia centers on the fact that the result is unintended by those who create the system. If the status quo was not the intent of the government, meaning this is a loophole, then the bill would have been passed. But it was rejected, defining the status quo as the intent of the government, thus the status quo cannot be a loophole by Wikipedia's own definition. It's as simple as that. QuilaBird (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the question of the name of this article keeps coming up. That's because the article title is inherently biased and violates the Neutral Point Of View policy. The phrase "gun show loophole" is used exclusively by those advocating a pro-gun-control agenda. Gun rights advocates don't use the term at all, and in fact sometimes argue against the use of the term, as in this Washington Times article from 2013: "The Gun Show Loophole is a Myth". — Mudwater (Talk) 02:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gun rights advocates don't make the rules here, and neither do gun control advocates. This topic may as well go into dispute resolution instead of wasting everyone's time, AGAIN... Darknipples (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: as you've previously pointed out to me on this talk page, private sales were explicitly addressed and exempted from the normal FFL licensing and recordkeeping requirements in FOPA '86 ("...but such term [firearms dealer] shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, of purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.") Background checks for gun sales didn't exist in 1986, of course, but none of the various background check laws passed since then have changed that provision of the law. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FE, without referring me to the specific text in the archives, I'm afraid I can't confirm or deny what I said or meant. I can tell you that the citations speak for themselves, and that we should all be focusing on sorting and prioritizing them, instead of trying to interpret them to mean anything outside of the context they are already presented in. More to the point, what does this have to do with the NPOV tag that has again been placed after the multitude of discussions that have previously resolved this topic? Perhaps it would be more appropriate on my talk page? Darknipples (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Altenmann: @Capitalismojo: @Godsy: @QuilaBird: @Faceless Enemy: @Mudwater: Which type of mediation would you prefer in order to resolve this topic [75]? I can start it and post the link here, but we need to get this resolved, once and for all. Darknipples (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I think if you add more people to an existing post without changing the signature timestamp, like this, the new people won't receive a notification. As it says at Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events, "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent." — Mudwater (Talk) 23:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
To add to what Mudwater said: You can simply use one template as opposed to multiple, {{re|user1|user2|user3|user4}} in this manner, with a limit of 7 users. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
My bad, and thanks for the heads up. So, any thoughts on the type of mediation yet? Darknipples (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It's been a week and still no suggestions from anyone, including those responsible for the tag, on resolving this issue. Here's something for everyone involved to examine in the meantime [76]. Darknipples (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It's been about 2 weeks now, since the NPOV tag was placed, and since no one seems to have any suggestions I've taken it to NPOVN. Here's the link...I suggest we pay attention to what impartial editors have to say. [77] Darknipples (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to paraphrase and reiterate the previous post in this section, to further bring it to the attention of interested editors. Darknipples has posted about this disagreement at the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. Here's the link, spelled out: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV Title Gun show loophole. What's likely to happen now is that there will be a further discussion there, about whether or not the title of the article, "Gun show loophole", violates WP:POVNAMING or WP:POVTITLE. Feel free to participate in the discussion there. P.S. to D.N.: I think posting there was the right choice. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. I saw the mention on the NPOV noticeboard, and felt compelled to take a look at what you all are talking about. After reviewing the title, the rest of the article, and independently reviewing the subject, I feel that the title of the article does NOT violate NPOV policies and guidelines. Specifically, WP:POVNAME states (in relevant part) When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. In view of this, I found that not only were gun-control advocates calling this the "gun show loophole" but so were their opponents. For example, I Googled the term "gun show loophole -Wikipedia" and received over half a million hits -- strongly suggesting that it is a common term. A random review of hits from the first two pages showed that both those proposing, and those opposing, change to certain laws were using the term "loophole" to refer to the subject of this article. Regarding the above claim (earlier) that using "loophole" is essentially a weasel word, I don't think it is. A "loophole" in a law is an exception to that particular law, or portion of it. While it sometimes has a negative connotation (and in this case, certain moral entrepreneurss would love to exploit any such connotation when it comes to firearms), it also often means "exception" or something similar. Now, as is noted elsewhere, there is not an actual "exception" or "loophole" in that the same laws apply at gun shows as apply elsewhere, but the appearance of such a loophole comes about because, to the layperson (or lay reporter), private sales at a gun show look different than other private sales of firearms, and it "feels" like they should be regulated the same as sales by a licensed dealer. Compound this with the fact that licensed dealers also sell at gun shows, and must still follow all the same laws they have to follow in their stores, and you end up with a muddled mess. For those who might wonder about my own biases in this issue, I oppose federal laws regarding gun ownership or sales, believing that states should be free to decide what works best in their state. What's needed in California isn't necessarily what's needed in Alaska, and what's needed in Texas isn't necessarily what's needed in New York. The "loophole" doesn't need to be closed at the federal level, and Wikipedia is not taking sides in the issue by referring to the issue as the Gun show loophole. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Etamni, we appreciate your input, we welcome everyone to comment here in addition to NPOVN, and hope for a fair amount of input and perspectives. Looking at WP:NPOV is key in this regard. Darknipples (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, the article title is inherently biased and violates the Neutral Point Of View policy. The phrase "gun show loophole" is a pejorative term (i.e. a term with negative connotations) used by gun control advocates to promote their position. Gun rights advocates don't use the term at all, and often argue against the use of the term. Etamni said, I Googled the term "gun show loophole -Wikipedia" and received over half a million hits -- strongly suggesting that it is a common term. A random review of hits from the first two pages showed that both those proposing, and those opposing, change to certain laws were using the term "loophole" to refer to the subject of this article. I'm not seeing that at all. Here are the first two pages of hits that I'm getting when doing a Google search of "gun show loophole" (without the "Wikipedia"), excluding ads, and excluding the first hit which is the Wikipedia article itself. (Yes, the term is widely used, and sometimes used by news organizations and others without an obvious dog in the fight, but that doesn't change the fact that it violates NPOV by being inherently biased towards a pro-gun control position.)

  • Gun control advocates saying that the gun show loophole exists and is a problem: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]
  • Gun rights advocates saying that there is no gun show loophole and/or criticizing the use of the term: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] [89], [90], [91], [92]
  • Other. This includes relatively neutral sources using the term, and also sources talking about the term itself, or talking about the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act: [93], [94], [95], [96]

— Mudwater (Talk) 15:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My two cents:
1) The term "loophole" is inherently loaded language. As Altenmann pointed out, "loophole" deals with the intent of the law. And, as Mudwater pointed out, the real world use of the term is very loaded, with one side calling it a loophole every chance they get, and the other side rejecting the term "loophole" completely.
2) The term "loophole" is a misnomer. As Darknipples has pointed out, and as multiple reliable sources attest, private sales were very explicitly addressed in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, and were exempted from the recordkeeping and licensing requirements for commercial sales. It's my understanding that that section of FOPA was a response to ATF policies that Congress felt were overly broad (as in they defined many people as gun dealers who needed to be licensed).
3) However, as I understand the article title policy, "Common name" takes precedence over "neutral" or "accurate". If gun control advocates have managed to define this particular part of the gun debate in their terms, then coverage in reliable sources (and therefore, Wikipedia) is going to reflect that. A more accurate and neutral title for this particular concept would be "private sale exemption", but that seems to be in much less common use (~71k hits on Google for "gun show loophole" versus ~10k hits for "private sale exemption" + gun). I don't know what the balance has to be before they're both considered common names, but by gut feeling is that a 7–1 ratio is enough to override the neutrality concerns. (Maybe I'm wrong? Anyone else care to chime in with how Wikipedia has dealt with other contentious titles?) Therefore, as long as this article remains focused only on this single concept, "gun show loophole" appears to be the title that is least inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.
Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1
I could support a new title such as Private sale exemption or something similar. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Private sale exemption is not the WP:Commonname - "Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." Faceless Enemy, I don't see it very often, but if GSL is considered a "misnomer" by an RS we can definitely see how it fits in terms of WEIGHT and NOTE, preferably in chronological order. (The term "misnomer" suggests a meaning that is "known to be wrong". Misnomers often arise because the thing named received its name long before its true nature was known. A misnomer may also be simply a word that is used incorrectly or misleadingly.[1] "Misnomer" does not mean "misunderstanding" or "popular misconception".) That's pretty one-sided, but I wouldn't be surprised if you find something. Darknipples (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Many references describe this as a loophole, so it satisfies both Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 10:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Scourge of Trumpton: that's not how NPOV works. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Scourge of Trumpton thank you for sharing your opinion even though some of us may disagree. Like I said earlier, we welcome people to comment here, as well as NPOVN. BTW, I think that is a valid basic understanding of how things are supposed to work. Darknipples (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Etamni: the problem is that I can't find many reliable sources calling it that - almost nothing in comparison to the number of sources calling it the "gun show loophole". It seems as though the gun control side has successfully defined the terms in this part of the debate. That doesn't make it neutral, but it does make it the common name. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As I had noted above, I found a significant number of sources referring to the exemption by the name gun show loophole. This doesn't mean that those opposed to changing the background check rules like the name, but they never came up with a consistent alternative name. Best practice at Wikipedia is to use the most-proper (neutral) name for something. When such doesn't exist, the next best practice is to use the most common name for something (that is supported by RS). If that common name violates NPOV or other policies, we can attempt to fix it, but the fix should not be synthesis: the fix must also come from RS, and not violate other rules. As others have noted above, there may be a way to add a section to the article explaining how the title is a misnomer, but of course, that will also require RS. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  18:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni, Mudwater, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Capitalismojo, and Altenmann: [97]. So far, the impartial consensus has been to keep the title as is. Beyond that, this same issue had the same result the last time the WP:POVTITLE issue was raised months ago [98]. The topic is now redundant [99] after being repeatedly discussed, again and again, with arguably all the same outcomes. Despite all of these discussions, QuilaBird has stated that title-related issues "didn't receive much discussion" in their view. Really...? Continuously raising the same issue again isn't helpful and doesn't change the past, or present consensus' to keep the title as is. The POV tag has been up for almost a month now, and no new arguments to change it have been introduced for 10 months, let alone a 10 days ago. Unless someone has something truly new to bring to the discussion, with citations, I am asking ALL opposing editors here to drop the WP:STICK, and allow the GA review to proceed (remove POV tag) upon the current impartial consensus. Please see "POV template use-section" (2) below in reference to my request. I also suggest adding {{Round in circles}} coupled with a FAQ subpage shown through ({{FAQ}}) to the top of the talk page, gathering together and linking all the previous discussions, results and appropriate summaries. Darknipples (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping this. I think a better summary of the discussion is that there is no consensus on a specific better name, even where it may be apparent that the current name is not perfect. I would suggest that, as we occasionally see on other articles, the talk page needs an advisory message box at the top with links to the discussion(s) in the archives. This may help prevent such a drawn-out discussion from being restarted, again, in the future. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Etamni Are you any good at summaries? I've never done one. I looked through the templates but I don't think it's there, or obvious anyway...Darknipples (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to give it a shot, but I'm out of time for today. It will possibly be 12 hours or so before I can go over the material. If someone else summarizes it and closes the discussion before I get back, I won't be offended; otherwise I'll take a look then. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
arbitrary break 2

As noted above, I've been asked to summarize the discussion. In reviewing what has been said here and all relevant policies, and prior discussions that have been linked here, as well as the brief discussion at NPOV Noticeboard, I do not believe that any summary and close, at this time, will resolve this issue, given that it has been raised numerous times, in numerous forums, just over the past year, and I believe that this pattern will continue. The issue needs to be resolved in a manner that meets Wikipedia policies and, hopefully, will allow editors to be more productive with their time on Wikipedia.

In order to reach that end, I reviewed a policy that appears to have been overlooked in the above discussion: WP:Article titles has a specific provision that may be applicable here, which is Non-judgmental descriptive titles and can be found at shortcut WP:NDESC. The opening sentence of this policy section states, "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions." (Emphasis mine, internal links omitted). So I am going to again suggest Private sale exemption as a neutral title for the article. This title does not use any non-neutral words; it does not use peacock or weasel words; it does not disparage any point of view; it does not suggest an official stance by Wikipedia regarding the subject of the article -- in short, it appears to be a neutral term. I recognize that the article is written around the title gun show loophole and that changing the title will necessarily affect some of the article content. I do not believe that the challenges this introduces will be insurmountable. I also recognize that there is a competing policy at WP:TITLECHANGES which directs editors not to invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a way of compromising between viewpoints. This contradiction between these two policies means that editors need to apply the rules of common sense to the situation.

If the proposed title is rejected, and I were to close the discussion, then my closing summary would be as follows: Editors conducted a policy-based discussion of the term Gun show loophole. While there was recognition that the title may not be neutral, editors were unable to form a consensus regarding an alternative title. Keeping the discussion open is disruptive. Therefore, the discussion is closed with no consensus. Interpreting WP:NOCONSENSUS in this situation, the result of a no consensus close is that the article title should not be changed. Furthermore, I am going to recommend that the involved editors agree to not raise this issue again for at least one year. I am also going to recommend that someone place a notice at the top of the talk page with links to this discussion and prior discussions of this issue, with a caution about raising this issue again, especially within the next year.

Finally, I would be comfortable formally closing this discussion as a non-admin, but am concerned that some parties may feel I was too involved in the earlier discussion. Given that both the suggested title change, and leaving the title as is, were suggested by me previously, I am not confident that all involved will accept such a closure from me in this case, so I will defer the actual closing to someone less involved than I was. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NDESC applies here. And I agree that, most likely, this subject will keep coming up if the article title is left unchanged. I'm under the impression that it's not "the same old editors" (such as myself) who keep reopening the discussion, rather it tends to be "new" editors who come along and notice the article title (and are less aware of the previous discussions). So, I don't think an agreement not to talk about it for a year would be appropriate. Instead I'd favor renaming the article. But, I do think that "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" would be a more neutral and more descriptive title than "Private sale exemption". P.S. Whether or not there's an "exemption" for private sales is a matter of perspective. It's equally or perhaps more valid to say that there's a background check requirement that's imposed on sales by Federal Firearms License holders. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
So, in spite of the impartial consensus, opposing editor(s) have decided not to drop the WP:STICK. In that case we shall seek administrative guidance. I may have been premature and mistaken in asking an involved editor to close. I obviously misread their opinion on the matter, although it seems quite clear they have changed their mind. I will reach out to an administrator for assistance on this matter, today. Darknipples (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
LINK to Administrative notice board [100] Darknipples (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said in my previous post, it's not the same old editors (like me) who keep bringing it up, it's different editors, and that's because there's a legitimate NPOV concern here. Nor has anything approaching a consensus been reached. P.S. I'd be okay with "Gun show loophole" being a redirect to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". — Mudwater (Talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said.... "ALL opposing editors"...Darknipples (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC) You are doing it again. You are plea bargaining / suggesting [101] with me to propose an improper title. Just as you have done with everyone on the talk page since the article's creation. Am I wrong? Darknipples (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, there have been some interesting recent discussions about the title of the article, here, and also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Opposing editors refuse to WP:dropthestick over Gun show loophole title NPOV tag. But I have to say, my views have not changed. I still think that the article name "Gun show loophole" violates the WP:NPOV policy, and that the article should be renamed per WP:NDESC, to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States". But, at this point I'm not sure how to proceed. Someone could resubmit the article as a requested move -- there was one of those already, which can be reviewed at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Requested move 29 January 2015. Or someone could put the {{POV}} tag back on the article -- but that was just taken off, after no one continued the discussion about why it should be left on. So, yeah. What next? Speaking for myself, I'm going to ponder this further. For the moment, I don't have anything further to add, either to this discussion or to the article itself. If and when I have something further to say, I'll post again. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. It was not meant rhetorically. Have you or have you not been pushing to rename to "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" to other editors, since the very beginning [102]? Darknipples (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for POV Title tag

IMO, looking at this giant wall of text makes it very hard to decipher what rules and objections are being referenced or argued. So, I've decided to use bullet-points to help refocus and clarify the issues being raised in regard to the POV title tag. Once we have finished the list, and determined which rules are allegedly being violated, and why, I will add it to NPOVN. The list is in no particular order. Feel free to make suggestions and requests in this section, but do not use it for debate, keep that in the above "Title not consistent with Wikipedia, NPOV" section...Darknipples (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  • 1. It can't be a loophole if that's the system operating as intended.
  • 2. Some people objecting to the state of the law does not make it a loophole.
  • 3. Wikipedia is left with contradictory content.
  • 4. The term "loophole" is pejorative
  • 5. title violates NPOV by supporting one point of view over the other
  • 6. non-descriptive
  • 7. the status quo cannot be a loophole by Wikipedia's own definition
  • 8. used by gun control advocates to promote their position
  • 9. inherently biased
  • 10. The term "loophole" is inherently loaded language

POV template use

Here is the link to Template:POV.

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. This template may be removed whenever any one of the following is true:

  • 1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
  • 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
  • 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Darknipples (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_show_loophole/Archive_7&oldid=1077400278"