Talk:Gun shows in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unbalanced tag

I've just added the Unbalanced article tag based upon the sources used. The References list reads like an attack piece on gun shows. I've already stated that above that the article is lacking key information and unless its cleaned up (yes, I'm willing to help), it will be nominated for deletion in its current form. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"The References list reads like an attack piece on gun shows. I've already stated that above that the article is lacking key information and unless its cleaned up (yes, I'm willing to help), it will be nominated for deletion in its current form." - Which references? Darknipples (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scal, I second DN's question, and I would also comment that if a lot of the sources are about the gun show loophole, which some might categorize as an attack on guns shows, then if we remove that topic to a separate article, as DN has suggested, what remains can be improved as you've suggested. However, of course, there would still need to be a paragraph that says there is a controversy about the regulation of sales at such shows called the gun show loophole - with a link to the article by that name. Lightbreather (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How is deleting the entire article going to improve anything? Won't someone else just make a brand new one? - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Moot discussion now that the articles have been split. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Separate Gun Show and Gun Show Loophole Into Two Different WP Pages

Darknipples (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing this because a majority of the content on this page is in regard to the term "Gun Show Loophole". I think the term "Gun Show", should be considered a separate term because it is more commonly associated with an event, while "Gun Show Loophole" seems to be considered a "controversial" or "political" term that has more to do with the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Furthermore, other sites seem to be referencing Gun Shows in the United States for "gun show loophole" related information -

- The Topeka Capital-Journal - CJONLINE.COM - Closing the Gun Show Loophole

"Closing the gun show loophole isn't an extension of anything; it's just enforcing the existing background checks to include all gun sales. This is a very minor and common-sense change to gun laws. Nobody is trying to take anybody's gun away; it's about trying to make it harder for guns to get in the wrong hands. There's not really going to be a way to enforce this all the time, say if you want to buy a gun from your cousin or whatever, but for those 'official' outlets, like "Gun Shows", for example, enforcement would be possible. And it would help. Closing the gun show loophole makes sense, unless of course, you're a terrorist; in that case the gun show loophole is awesome. You don't even have to show ID. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States)" - http://cjonline.com/blog-post/matsofatso/2013-04-18/closing-gun-show-loophole

I would like all editors of this page to share their thoughts, as I believe this could solve many of the current issues. Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There's nothing wrong with the article as it currently exists. That other sites link to this page for information is a good thing, not a bad thing. Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

ANASTROPHE, Please elaborate what you mean by "There's nothing wrong with the article as it currently exists."

Aside from that, The Topeka Capital-Journal was referring specifically to the "Gun Show loophole", to which you've said "The argument is not that gun-rights advocates "dislike" it, it is that the contention that it is a "loophole" is false." All due respect, but your argument seems flawed. By WP's definition "A loophole is a weakness that allows a system to be circumvented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole_%28disambiguation%29 " According to most sources I've seen, the term "Gun Show Loophole" refers to Firearm Owners Protection Act. The main lobbying group of this law seems to be the National Rifle Association. The NRA's goal in enacting FOPA seemed to be specifically to weaken existing gun laws at that time, namely, the 1968 Gun Control Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Shift_to_politics . Finally, in regard to your previous claim that "The term "gun show loophole" is a propaganda term, and it's been as successful as the term "assault weapons" in its acceptance. The term Assault weapon also has it's own page. No offense, but I thought that would be common knowledge, no? Darknipples (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE - DN, the situation you are referring to is called WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK in Wikipedia terms. Its when articles are used to promote or specifically highlight certain viewpoints. The phrase "gun show loophole", like "assault weapon", is a politically motivated and created term. A separate article would give WP:UNDUE weight to a topic that as you describe is simply footnote of one or more other articles. The loophole content probably needs to be trimmed and the rest of the article improved as I've mentioned above. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - It meets every one of the WP:NOTE guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

"Its when articles are used to promote or specifically highlight certain viewpoints. The phrase "gun show loophole", like "assault weapon", is a politically motivated and created term" Scalhotrod - Doesn't Assault Weapon have it's own page? - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. It's a commonly used term, and it meets all notability guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter that Assault Weapon has an article because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. This WP:NOPAGE is the policy we should be following. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DN has been an active editor less than a week. I think the point that she's trying to make is that the gun show loophole is notable, and it merits its own article. Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod I wasn't the one that brought it up. That was your reference, not mine. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scal, what I'm talking about is being welcoming to WP:NEWCOMERs: empower them, teach them to be bold, do not slam the newcomer, address the newcomer in a constructive and respectful manner, WP:AGF, and so on. So far, DN has shown potential to be a good editor and a team player, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy should be followed by everyone, newbies or otherwise, but there are so many its hard especially for new editors to follow them or even know about them. It's best to learn about policy and procedure early on than struggle through and error over and over and over again and end up just abusing the process. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should follow policy, but 1. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a policy - it's part of an essay. In fact, 2. WP:NOPAGE isn't a policy - it's a guideline. We need to be careful with newbies so that they understand the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays, lest we mislead them as having some sort of extra authority that we do not have. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How long has this article been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale? Darknipples (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@DN: Scalhotrod's comment above - "DN, the situation you are referring to is called WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK in Wikipedia terms" - is, of course, his interpretation of the proposal. ANY article can be a soapbox or coatrack. Why, even this article might be a soapbox or coatrack. How an article is edited is what makes it NPOV, or not. As I indicated in my vote, the topic of the gun show loophole meets all the guidelines for WP:NOTE. My first thought a few days ago was that there ought to be a "Gun show loophole" article, since it is notable and there is not an article. Then, I discovered that we (that is Wikipedia) is redirecting searched for "gun show loophole" to this (Gun shows) article. So, like you, I figured it just needed a little editing to give it its WP:DUE weight within the article. Since this editors of this article think its inclusion here, beyond mentioning it in a couple of paragraphs, is undue here, then it ought to have its own article... since it absolutely meets all the notability guidelines, as I've already said. Another option would be to move it as a section into the FOPA article, as you've suggested, or perhaps into the NICS article. I could go for either of those options, too. Lightbreather (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

LB, does use of the Enron loophole, as an example, also fall under the category of UNDUE:WP? Darknipples (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE do not apply to whether or not an article should be created or deleted. They are about what to include (or not) in an article, where (prominence of placement, juxtaposition) and how (depth of detail, quantity of text). Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You are so completely full of crap and you know it. The creation of articles can easily be WP:UNDUE, you've made a habit out of it and even admitted your mistakes. For example in the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article deletion discussion. YOU, the creator of the article, asked to have it deleted and stated your reasons. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, for the record WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK are bad things on Wikipedia and are contrary to its purpose and policy. Are there people here who are trying to push a certain Point Of View (POV) and change article content to suit these purposes, yes, of course. This is in addition to the articles that are lopsided simply because no one has taken the time to do the research. My point is, there is ample policy to guide our efforts and in an instance like this it starts with whether or not its WP:UNDUE for the article to exist. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, when put in square brackets, WP:SOAPBOX is a shortcut to a section of the Wikipedia policy page What Wikipedia is not. The section it points to is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. It is a policy, so it's most important. (On the scale of importance there's 1. Policy, 2. Guideline, 3. Essay - if I understand it right.) And there's nothing in it to support what Scal says - unless one were to say, create an article called "Gun show loophole" and then fill it only with information about why some think the gun show loophole should be closed. (That would give that POV undue weight.) One would need to also include information, from good (the "gooder" the better) quality verifiable sources about other POVs: that some think that there is no gun show loophole, or think it should not be closed. Including all sides - following the WP:BALASPS (balancing aspects) policy - results in a properly balanced, WP:NPOV article that is not a soapbox or any other bad thing - it's just encyclopedic information. Lightbreather (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that this page is actually named (or redirected as) "THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Gun+show+loophole&fulltext=Search - (In light of this info) Would someone please explain in detail why this is not in the title, let alone a section title, how this could possibly be in keeping with a balance of both sides, and why it is not considered confusing to an average user that has no knowledge of this debate? Thank you. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's done (split)

I have split the gun show loophole section of this article off into its own article. I suggest we let Darknipples work on it for a bit, with our supervision, while we consider Scal's suggestions for improving the balance of this article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gun show loophole section

I recently asked at WP:RSN about whether the gun show loophole is best described as the gun show loophole or the gun show loophole controversy. Based on the result of that discussion,[1] the lead sentence of the Gun show loophole article is now free of the undue POV (for the lead sentence) word "controversy."

Based on that, I also changed the section of this article that was headed "Controversies" with "Gun show loophole" which is the topic of the section. This has been reversed. Comments? Questions?

Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns relative to Controversies section

There are clearly multiple controversies related to gun shows. It is not a single controversy. We should not put in a main section link with but a single controversy listed (gun show loophole) as being the only controversy. This is extremely POV. Rather, we should not mention gun show loophole under controversies at all, unless we put in the Second Amendment issues, too. Most agree that there is no gun show loophole at all. Instead, we should, at most, put a "See also" link with a gun show loophole link, at the end of the article. That would fix the POV problem with the Controversies section. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You say Most agree that there is no gun show loophole at all. How about 3 or 4 of your highest-quality sources that say there is no gun show loophole? I will provide some from those who say there is. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you disagree with RS from both sides of the aisle. According to Garen J. Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, "There is no such loophole in federal law, in the limited sense that the law does not exempt private-party sales at gun shows from regulation that is required elsewhere." See page 104. There are also Second Amendment concerns. This article needs balance, not a biased presentation. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) </refs>

Key words there, "in the limited sense." Wintemute goes on to say that we actually should pass stronger laws that regulate ALL private party transfers, whether they happen at a gun show, the Internet, wherever. Lightbreather (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

True. But, that is a different point. Wintemute clearly states that there is no loophole at present, under current law. If you buy a gun at a gun show from a private buyer, in 33 of the 50 states, no documentation is required by existing law. Your guns are undocumented. No illegalities, whatsoever. If you buy a gun from a private buyer in your living room, in 33 of the 50 states, no documentation is required by existing law. Your guns are still undocumented. No illegalities, whatsoever. There is no "gun show loophole", permitting you to buy at a gun show what you cannot already buy in your living room. But, you now advocate that the law should change. That is a different argument. Wikipedia is supposed to be presented in a neutral, non-advocacy, manner. Your are now advocating, which is clearly not allowed by Wikipedia policies. Hence, the POV concerns in this section. You are advocating for a change in the law, rather than simply writing about what the law is. That is a major editing problem. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how one spins what Wintemute wrote, the preponderance of WP:RS refer to the topic as the gun show loophole. Within the body of these sources, there is discussion about what that means, and the fact that some people want to close the loophole and others say there is no loophole. The article is called Gun show loophole. The lead of the article does not say that it's a controversy. The head of this subsection should not be more POV than the main article. It should give a brief summary of the topic and direct the reader to the main article. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article title included the word controversy until you removed it. It also discussed the controversial aspects, until you single-handedly removed that, too. You are clearly pushing a gun control POV through the preponderance of your edits, instead of writing in a balanced way. That is fundamentally against Wikipedia Policies. The controversies are not solely about a gun show loophole. You have removed all controversies save the so-called "gun show loophole", which doesn't even exist under current law, according to RS. You are not editing in a balanced way. This will need to be taken to admins, unless you start writing in a balanced way. Tag teaming editors in association with sock puppets (or proxy accounts) is also another issue that probably needs to be addressed, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was originally "Gun show loophole" until a now indefinitely topic-banned from gun-control[2] editor renamed[3] it by tacking "controversy" onto the end. Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No equivocating about whether or not there is one

• Janofsky, Michael (November 15, 2000). "Both Sides See Momentum in Congress for Gun Control". New York Times. - 2000 report in The New York Times.
• Editorial board (April 23, 2007). "Close the gun control loophole". Los Angeles Times. - op-ed by the Los Angeles Times after Virginia Tech.
• Dinan, Stephen (December 17, 2012). "Gun bills face tough sailing on Capitol Hill". Washington Times. - a Washington Times report after Sandy Hook.
• Kesling, Ben (December 24, 2012). "Fear of New Restrictions Drives Crowds to Gun Shows". Wall Street Journal. Contributions to article by Jess Bravin. Dow Jones & Company.

From the Gun show loophole article:

• "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" (PDF). atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). January 1999. Retrieved June 27, 2014. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  
• "Gun Show Undercover" (PDF). October 2009. p. 11. Retrieved June 26, 2014.
  
• Clinton, William J. (November 6, 1998). "Memorandum on Preventing Firearms Sales to Prohibited Purchasers" (PDF). gpo.gov.
  
• "History of Federal Firearms Laws in the United States Appendix C". justice.gov. Retrieved July 4, 2014.
  
• "Gun show loophole bill is back in Congress". United Press International (UPI). July 19, 2009.
  
• "H.R.141 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013". Congress.gov. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  
• Rucker, Philip (August 5, 2013). "Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks". Washington Post. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
  
• DeLuca, Matthew (April 10, 2013). "Background checks for guns: What you need to know". NBC News. u.s. news. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Those are all advocacy pieces, arguing what the law should be changed to be. They are not about the existing law. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are supposed to write about what is, not what some would like to see become the law. You are advocating a political position. That is not permitted for Wikipedia editors by Wikipedia policies. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are government and major newspaper sources. (I left out the Brady Campaign and such.) As I suggested above, please give 3 or 4 of the best there-is-no-loophole sources you have. Wintemute isn't the best source for that because, as I said above, his position is that private sales loopholes are about much more than gun shows only. His position isn't that we should close the gun show loophole only, but virtually all private-sale loopholes that bypass background checks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I am not advocating a political position; many high-quality RS are advocating it, or reporting that others (advocacy groups and citizens) advocate for it. The fact is, at least in my research, there is not nearly as many high-quality RS advocating against it. (Mostly very conservative or libertarian blogs, plus gun-rights advocacy groups like the NRA and GOA.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but advocacy, opinion pieces, are not RS. They are opinions. This article is not about opinions relative to what should be done relative to gun shows. It is about what is. It is about gun shows in the US. Cherry-picking "RS" that are opinion pieces advocating what should be done about gun shows is not a proper way to write or edit this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk)

Apparently, we're at an impasse. Shall we call for a WP:3O? Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, only 1 of the 12 sources that I gave above is an opinion piece. And are you going to give sources to support your editorial opinion on this? Lightbreather (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we change the intro to say that gun shows are "controversial"? Some folks like to make sure that's front and center. Or wait, would that bias the article?[4] Felsic (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)