Sunday, May 4, 2014

Talk: Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting


Talk Page:  for Sandy Hook related gun legislation blog.

--------

Talk:Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

Find sources: "gun control after Sandy Hook" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
--Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Preserve for possible use:
--Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few more:
--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

About the lead

In case anyone is wondering, I have kept the lead lean for now while I develop the body of the article, in keeping with WP:BETTER advice WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
I am researching and writing just a few sentences at a time. My plan is to move this from stub- to start-level by midday on April 15.
--Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sue, please stop

Sue, you seem to be blowing me off on your talk page,[1], and with your edit summaries[2][3] so I'm moving the discussion here. Please stop! My requests to you are reasonable. What prompted this behavior? It makes me anxious.
Also, regarding the same edits. AWB 2013 can't be defunct because it never became law. It was a bill that didn't make it into law. Also, the bill wasn't only introduced by Feinstein. She was one of several legislators who introduced it. PLEASE, give me until midday tomorrow to finish what I started, and then jump in an re-write it from top to bottom if that's your wish. Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
What is it you want me to stop? Adding citable information to a Wikipedia article? If you have a specific objection to one of my edits, please bring it up here on the talk page so people can discuss it. I am human. I make the occasional mistake. But I am not going to *not* edit an article simply because it makes you "anxious". If you can't handle an editor making normal reasonable citable edits, then perhaps you need a Wikibreak. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
All I asked and am asking for is 72 hours - from midday Saturday, April 12 until midday April 15 - to finish what I started as a stub into a pretty decent, basic, cited with high-quality sources article. That is rather in keeping with our other agreement, and no other editor has felt the need to jump in and start challenging my work before I even had a chance to finish it. Please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This was a failed piece of legislation

The title of this article is troubling as it suggest that there was some type of ban on so-called assault weapons in 2013. Is a failed piece of proposed legislation now considered notable?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was notable I think, but perhaps this article should be renamed as it is covering quite a bit more than just that law Something like Gun Control after the Sandy Hook Shooting or something. Since we are covering the state laws, and Obama's executive orders as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have WP:BOLDly renamed the article, and moved the content around a bit to deal with the expanded scope of the article (that we were already covering)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Definitely notable, I think this change is for the better.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot believe you changed the focus, scope, and name of this article based on a brief exchange between yourself and one other pro-gun editor. How does one change it back. And then let's have a real discussion on its notability and name. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I concur that there should have been more discussion. So, my suggestion is to remove everything about the state-level legislation if you insist on referring to the flawed bill that failed on the federal level. These would be out of scope.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, gawd, thanks Mike. I didn't object to the questions, but the speed with which things were decided and changed kinda made my stomach turn. Lightbreather (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather Are you really asking editors to slow down, because their edits are hard to keep up with? You have set a very strong, repeated, precedent in that area. In any case it was WP:BOLD and you reverted, so lets discuss. Almost 2/3rds of the article is talking about something else other than the bill itself. You put 99% of that content into the article. All of the elements are notable and should be discussed, and all of the elements discussed have common threads and relationships between them - but a bill that failed (that everyone knew before hand would fail) is not really notable on its own. It was a symbolic gesture as part of the overall push. If you insist that this article should be about the single bill, then the other points should be deleted (and then the remainder is likely to be sent to AFD as WP:NOTNEWS & WP:10YT) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That first question and comment were a general slap and uncalled-for and I hope that you'll strike them. If you do, I'll strike this, too.
I will take you up on the last suggestion. Yes: I want this article to be about this bill. That was my goal from the start, and I believe that everything in this article was directly related to the bill, how it came about, and when and how it died. However, tell me what needs to be removed, and I'll do that. Then, go and write your "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" and feel free to use anything I used here, if it will help. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why it's notable and its name is fine

Was the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 notable? Yes. It passes all the tests under WP:GNG: Significant coverge (1) by reliable (2) secondary sources (3) independent of the subject (4). Further, it is NOT WP:ISNOT - particularly, it is NOT WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the suggestion that the topic might be considered recentism, considering that 10 years have passed since AWB 1994 expired and we're still hearing, reading, and talking about it, it's a little premature to say AWB 2013 - which we're still hearing, reading, and talking about - is 10YT. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As for its name, the Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, but we didn't title that article "The failed Equal Rights Amendment" or "Equal Rights Amendment (failed)". Prohibition was repealed, but we didn't title that article "The repealed Prohibition Amendment" or "Prohibition (repealed)". WP:UCN says that "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" is the best name for this article - about AWB 2013. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You may be right. AFD would tell us for sure. But if you are right, then all of the content not related to the bill should be removed, which I think you would not support. The 1994 bill was passed, and stayed in effect for many years. There were articles being written about it for the entire time (and still now). How many articles have been written about this bill in the last 6 months? It was a WP:ROUTINE WP:NOTNEWS spike. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you please indicate here which of the 39 sources referenced in this article are not about or related to AWB 2013? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The ERA is also not a good analogue. Its now been active in the news from 1923 until 2014 years, with attempted ratification as recent as February. (Although if any progress is made on that front I would expect a major constitutional issue, since the amendment had a deadline in its text). Saying that this bill is as important as those is WP:CRYSTAL Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I just read "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Where did I say this bill was as important as those? And how does WP:CRYSTAL fit into that argument?
All I was commenting on was how they're named... Their article titles are simply what they're commonly called or referred to. People don't say and writers don't write, "the never-passed ERA," or "repealed Prohibition." They just write/say "the ERA" or "Prohibition." There is not Wikipedia policy that says you should include an amendment, bill, or law's status in its name; you simple make its status clear in the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that I am looking at this...No. Not notable. In fact this article should be deleted. First of all it wasn't a BAN, it was a BILL, and it failed quite badly. I will not place a deletion tag on this, however, because last time I did that, Lightbreather pulled me into ANI. Someone else will have to do that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This failed piece of misguided legislation is not notable in and of itself. Now, if the article were called "Gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook" or something similar, I think you might have something. Look at NY, MD, CO and CT and the laws that passed as well as their repercussions. Colorado, for example, lost 2 senators to their legislation specifically because of their bill. Likewise, companies such as MagPul left the state and took millions in revenue plus employees with them. The firearms industry saw a surge in gun sales and NICS checks as a direct result that inflated prices on firearms, ammo and reloading components. For an unscientific test, call your local sporting goods retailer and tell them you want to purchase a 50 round box of 22lr ammunition or ask when the next shipment is coming here and brace yourself for the laughter. On its own, feinstein's bill is nothing more than a footnote in the history of failed attempts at gun control, but if Moms Against Guns or whatever other special interest group is rallying to see it incorporated into a wiki article, they will have to settle for one on the bigger picture.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Time out, please. Let's build a consensus on a few things.

Dang, guys! I take my granddaughter to a swimming lesson and lunch, and when I come home, y'all have changed the focus and scope of the article, and renamed it to boot. What about Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting "Reactions" section already links to? What about the Assault weapons ban article, which has a "State assault weapons bans" section waiting for development?
Mike's original question was whether or not the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 was notable enough for its own article. Dang, guys. Let's start with that. Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
By itself, no. WP:10YT. Legislation that failed is WP:NOTNEWS. But I didn't change the focus or scope of the article. All of those elements were in the article, and put there by you. I organized them to be coherent as the individual topics that they are, as they are not really part of the proposed ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll be back to join the discussion in a few minutes. I just want to semi-restore the article to where it was a couple of hours ago, but keeping most - maybe all - the stuff Gaijin added. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't complain to me about Sue next time... Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore that last remark. As for "I didn't change the focus or scope of the article," the focus and scope sre changed between when I went to lunch and when I came back.[4] The article is titled "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." It was outlined and developed to be about that topic, which is notable enough for its own article. I only mentioned changes to state laws that were relevant to AWB 2013, but I did not include details about those laws - a few of which, yes, created or strengthened existing state laws, but many of which had nothing to do with assault weapons. Those kinds of details might go into one or more of these existing articles or article sections:
--Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Per consensus I have restored the version by Gaijin42. I would have restored the name-change as well, but somebody else will need to do that. LB, please get a handle on your ownership issues. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please say in what way you've determined that there is a consensus. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I say its better. Mike says its better. Sue says its better. LB says its not. Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY . Consensus can change, but at this time there is consensus for my version, and not consensus for your version.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
CONSENSUS: Every editor of the article wants it to read a certain way, and only one lone editor does not. EDITWARRING: When that lone editor ignores consensus and reverts all other versions but her own. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

consensus

You are now at at least 4RR, 2 of them being major reversions, and are the only editor saying that they prefer your version. I suggest you stop unilaterally deciding what consensus is before you get blocked.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please show the 4RR. Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
2 major reverts (obvious?). page title = 3. (Consider yourself warned). 3rd major revert (self reverted, not counting) - At least one of your other edits would count (although I think prior to your return the previous edits were good faith collaboration, which is why I am not reporting you. ) Up until your return I thought collaboration on the article was going swimmingly, and the first revert of my WP:BOLD changes fine (if somewhat incongruous with your complaints about others reverting you). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Do your completely reorganizing the article and moving it to another page name count toward anything? If they're not reverts, what are they? I can't believe that's considered WP:CIVIL. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
They are WP:BOLD and as they were consecutive edits would count as 1RR. If I were to have re-reverted you, they would certainly count towards my own 3rr. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mike, Gaijin, or Sue - Please start an AfD

I encourage you to start an AfD... but please be fair and cite WP policy in presenting your reasons. Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I dont think the article should be deleted. I think it should be talking about gun control after sandy hook, which is a notable topic. (And is in fact what the article does discuss, even in your prefered version) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not a deletionist, as I have stated at least three times: I do not think that a failed bill is notable and as the article is titled it will lead to the impression that some sort of ban took affect in 2013. That may be good for the antigun counterculture to get their point of view ranked in the google searches, but that's about all that this sort of article would accomplish. I agree with Gaijin42, it could be included in a broader more informative and much more useful article on gun control post newtown, both the massive failures and the minor successes of that movement.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be a better idea to start an ANI due to the 4RR violation. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Please show the 4RR... also, assuming there were four, did I get a 3RR warning? Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There is enough drama on the topic of gun control for now. Im willing to let the extra R slip for now if LB backs away from WP:OWN (especially since the alternate version includes ALL of her content, so her objection is really confusing to me) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely, but this article needs to be renamed, because as it stands, the name is completely inappropriate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Gaijin, as a show of good-faith, would you please restore the article to where it was before I went to lunch, so that we may continue discussing this and try to reach a true consensus, and not Sue's two-or-three-of-us-outnumber-you kind. Maybe we can start an RfC? (I'm still hoping someone will help me craft two for the "assault weapon" "high-capacity magazine" question.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
As a show of good faith why don't you discuss it in the current state, since ALL of your content is included here, and all I did was rearrange it since OBama's proposals, and state level actions are not part of the specific bill. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For Pete's sake, Gaijin, I didn't have any state-level details in the article - you added them. Nor did I have Obama's executive actions in the article. I had the things he asked Congress to do in the article, which you deleted - and then inserted his executive actions.
When I tried to include the things he asked Congress to do on the Gun politics in the U.S. page, you reverted those TWICE:
Revert 1. [5] Edit summary: details of legislation that didn't pass don't pass the WP:10YT in an overview article like this.
Revert 2. [6] Edit summary: Discuss previous law and national discussions in their proper context. stupid to list failed legislation. We could fill the article with megabytes of that.
You even said to me on your talk page: If Obama's proposals need more detail, make a spinoff article.... [7]
Why don't you write an article called "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting"? This could then be the main article for AWB 2013 portion of that lengthier article.
--Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Im happy to have an RFC on both issues here (the organization, and title), and if you want, we can craft a mutually acceptable text for the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think an RFC is an excellent idea. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I started the AFD--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather You have attributed several edits to me above. I think you are quite confused. The Executive actions and legislative proposals were added by you in these two Diffs. [8][9] I did not in any way delete, edit, or replace these bullet points or prose you added, except to break them out into their own section. you added information about the state law changes in these edits [10] [11]Yes, I did expand that section, to add where gun control was relaxed, but that was clearly needed to provide WP:NPOV You can't just show one half of the story, especially when the ~twice (?) as many states relaxed laws as made them more strict. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The Executive actions comment was a mistake on my part, and I apologize. However, it is easy to understand. As I showed in Revert 1 and Revert 2 diffs above, on 7 April 2014 on the Gun politics in the U.S. (GPUS) article you removed, twice, the words "The proposed congressional actions included:" and the list of proposals the White House made to Congress that followed. Interestingly, you kept the words "The executive actions included:" and list of executive orders that President Obama signed... well at least four of them. Who decided those four items - out of all the proposals to Congress and executive orders - were the ones to include in what you call "an overview article"? Who knows.
At any rate, I came back from lunch yesterday to a renamed and reordered article [12] with a section titled "Executive actions by President Obama": "executive actions" are the same words you prefer in the GPUS article, which you insisted should only list (some) of the executive orders he signed and none of the White House proposals to Congress.
But again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The scope of the 3 articles is different. In (this) GCatSHESS article, all of Obamas actions and proposals are in scope imo. In a hypothetical AWB ban article, only the actions related to the ban would be in scope. In the sandy hook article, The executive actions are appropriate (because they were actually implemented) , and a high level mention of legislative proposals are appropriate, but going into detail about proposals that didn't go anywhere isn't. That is why I reverted out the legislative actions, but kept the executive actions. The selection of which executive actions to break out was made by someone else - I make no claims as to how those executive actions were chosen.
This is of course just my opinion, subject to the larger consensus, but I am offering it to you to explain why I may have said one thing in one place, and something else somewhere else.
In any case, as the full set of actions and proposals was included in the article you created, that was part of what led me to conclude that the scope of the article was actually greater than just the AWB, and therefore the rename was appropriate. Similarly, including state laws have nothing to do directly with Feinsteins bill. There were several signals in the article text as you wrote it indicating the wider scope.I perhaps should have been less WP:BOLD and waited for some more comment, and I apologize for my rush, but I stand by my logic and the appropriateness of the rename and reorg. If you compare the diffs before my first edit, to just before your revert, the changes are actually quite minor relative to the size of the article. All the same bits are there, in a different order to separate what is truly about the AWB, vs parts that are the broader topic. But the broader stuff was all there before I started (plus my minor expansion of the state section for more relaxed laws) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the broader items were 1. The list of proposals to Congress, which included banning assault weapons and LCMs, and 2. These two brief paragraphs:
After the vote, Feinstein said that Congress' failure to pass the law would lead a number of states passing their own assault weapons bans. She vowed to keep trying, and said "I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue."
As of April 2014 stricter firearms laws have been passed in seven states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.
...which were meant to wrap-up the article, the name of which indicated that I had no plans to develop anything further outside of AWB 2013. However, what's done is done. Let's move on. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Background section: Mr. LaPierre's speech

At present, there is a sizable paragraph at the start of the article in the "Background" section consisting of extended comments from the NRA's executive VP from a speech he gave. It's sourced to a transcript of his direct remarks, hence in effect it is using primary sourcing to put forth his gun control arguments and commentary at considerable length. If this material is going to remain in the article, it really needs to be pared down and relocated to an appropriate location in the article to avoid the undue weight and coverage it has in it's current form and location. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure Id qualify that as "extended" its 3 quotes, all of which were discussed widely in the media. It should not be an issue to find WP:SECONDARY sources for that. As for WP:DUE as this is pretty much the main representation of the gun owners response to the shooting, its balanced against all of the other gun control efforts and multiple quotes from Feinstein, Obama, etc. One paragraph seems appropriate to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The background section has two short sentences mentioning 26 people got killed in one of the deadliest shootings ever, then more than three times as much material devoted solely to a high ranking official of the NRA making politically charged one-sided remarks against gun control from a speech a week after the public's reaction to the killings. The material has been cherry picked from a primary transcript to present a specific POV. If that section instead contained a lengthy selection of quotes and arguments from Senator Feinstein's views against guns (using a primary source), it would be equally inappropriate, especially staged at the front of the article like this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely fine with moving it out of the lede/background into an NRA proposal section or something to be at the same level as the other parties involved. (will WP:BOLDly do now) Regarding "cherry picked" The entire paragraph was written by a pro-control editor [13], and All of those bits were well covered in the news at the time, so I really don't think "cherry pick" is an appropriate way of describing it. [14] [15][16][17][18][19] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a better location and its context is presented differently now (as the NRA's interpretation and position rather than the "background" of the story). Maybe those additional cites should be added too so that it's really secondary instead of primary sourcing. In any event, thanks. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

panic buying

The panic buyin is sourced well, but saying the ammo shortage is a result of the shooting and proposed legislation is a bit much imo. There are may causes for the shortage, and many more alleged causes for the shortage (eg massive buys by the govt) so we should not be putting this all on Newtown's shoulders. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
They share a good portion of the blame, but what the fuck do I know? I only work in this industry.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

grandfather inheritance

I have removed the disputed bit. It was unsourced, and my reading of s.150 doesn't agree. (p120 seems to say transfers still allowed, just have to go to a FFL first) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed, who gives a shit what they attempted to do with this failed piece of legislation.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename

"Shooting" is what I do at least twice a week. It is what thousands of Americans do on hunting trips and excursions to the range. What that twisted little fuck did in Connecticut was a "massacre". I'm thinking we should rename this: "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We should follow whatever the main article title is. Debate between Massacre and Shooting has come up many times in that article, but if you want to propose it again, feel free. IF that article flips over, certainly no objection to flipping this one to follow. Certainly there are some good examples where massacre is used in the title (Virginia Tech, Columbine etc) but also some good counter examples (Aurora shooting) so I could see it ending up either way. It may be worth a revisit now that the period of highest emotion/debate is over. There did not appear to be an overwhelming consensus either way in the discussion I remember, or could find just now. My guess is that WP:COMMONNAME would be the winning argument, so however the best sources continue to refer to the incident now would seem to be the most appropriate title. (No idea what more recent sources are using)
Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre". Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • defer/oppose We should follow the title of the main article. Propose a move there, and this article should do whatever comes out of that proposal. (For what its worth, I would likely be neutral/weak support of a move in that context, unless someone can show that "shooting" is used by WP:RS a lot more than "massacre") (see some data points below maybe pushing me into the weak oppose/neutral camp) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Data points

Quick and dirty, but these are a starting point towards evaluating WP:COMMONNAME
Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It was the deadliest primary or secondary school shooting, the second-deadliest mass shooting by a single person and one of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in America and you don't call that a massacre? I guess the Vietnam war was a limited skirmish that lasted 15 years in Indochina and Little Big Horn was an Archery Match.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Do I personally think the word "massacre" is an appropriate description? Yes. Does wiki policy care about our personal opinions? No. We have a very long standing policy and backed by a very wide consensus saying we should use the WP:COMMONNAME But if you think everyone should be using massacre, go yell at all the WP:RS that aren't using that word. I don't make their editorial decisions. I merely provided some information that may help people to determine what that common name is. Frankly some of the statistics above are close enough (gbooks, gscholar in particular) that a claim that there isn't a single common name carries some weight. That's up to each editor to !vote as they think appropriate. You need to back away from the stick a bit Mike. You have made repeated uncivil comments towards me, and I am really not sure what I have done to deserve it other than have an opinion that differs slightly from yours in a few areas. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Compliance sources

Re: this edit [20] five source for this statement is WP:OVERKILL. Can someone pick two or three of the best, or shall I? Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control after or Gun laws after

The title is "Gun control after..." but there seems to be some intention to develop material on proposals and laws that weakened gun control - or strengthened gun rights, if you will. Therefore, perhaps the name should be "Gun laws after..."? Just wondering. Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Relaxing gun control laws is still under the umbrella of gun control imo, but I am not strongly opposed to saying "Gun laws" or something else. (Although as the NRA proposals are not strictly control nor laws, it may be difficult to find a term that truly encompasses everything). Perhaps "Gun politics after..." ? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So how much time does this article cover?

"Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" has a clear start date, but what's its end date? Six months after? The end of 2013? Just wondering. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say it is ongoing, as long as the antis want to dance in the blood of dead children and draft meaningless legislation that would not have saved one life had it been in place at the time of the massacre. Just one man's opinion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think its strictly a time limit, inclusion should be based on either the proponents of a certain law, or preferably reliable sources linking the item to Newtown (in more than just a chronological way). Practically speaking that's probably something in the year range I would think, but there are some current proposals for things like having the ATF change import rules that might be linked if they gain traction. We could avoid the time based WP:OR by renaming to something like "As a result of" or "GC responses to" or something which would make the RS linkage requirement more explicit. Likely the next major round of GC pushes won't happen unless/until the next major incident, (or a major political swing), which may mark the end of the "Sandy Hook era" more firmly. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO, it's yet another indication of why it should be deleted. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

sections for each state

Lightbreather I am concerned about creating sections for each state as it may make the article very long, and relative to the topic as a whole would cause a WP:WEIGHT issue.
Each state already has an article where detailed information about that states gun laws is addressed eg Gun laws in Connecticut (Though some may need to be expanded). Having 20 odd state sections is going to be overwhelming. Frankly the top level state section is enough IMO, but if we want to go into each state, it should almost be a one or two liner list (Expanded assault weapon ban) etc. I did create the connecticut section, but I think that is an exception, as that is the location where Sandy Hook took place, so is the most directly relevant, but if they all need to be the same, I would not object to dropping it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on adding a section for each state, but the ones who acted before Connecticut and before Congress are certainly weighty enough. I thought you wanted this to be the broader article for things related to gun control that happened after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, or did I misunderstand your actions of yesterday? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

This source
"Kucinich, Jackie (January 24, 2013). "Democrats reintroduce assault weapons ban". USA Today. Retrieved April 13, 2014."
has been removed twice [21] [22] now by one editor who first called it "weak" and the reporter "biased," and with the second deletion gave no edit summary, though he changed the wording around and added his preferred sources.
"STEINHAUER, JENNIFER. "Senator Is Angry Over Bill’s Exclusion of Assault Gun Ban". New York Times."
"http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/senate-committee-ready-to-ok-assault-weapons-ban/"
"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/23/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban/1856613/"
I don't mind adding a few additional sources if they're decent quality, but there is no good reason to remove the one I used originally. I'm off to the dentist, but when I get back, I'd like to resolve this problem, civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with your original source. WP:NPOV is a requirement for the wiki, not sources. USA today passes WP:RS by any reasonable margin, and was being used to source an uncontroversial fact. (By that I mean that there is no dispute that the law said what it said, not that the law itself isn't controversial). - That the source may also include editorializing, opinion by the author, and pathos is an issue for their editorial board - as long as we don't migrate that into our article there is no issue. On the other hand, the other sources back it equally as well, so I don't see a big reason to fight over the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
My problem is that Kucinch's family fortune came from anti-gun donations to her father. I don't trust her as being objective. The NY Times is not exactly a bastion of 2nd Amendment Support, so I figured a reasonable person would not object. That last part was probably an error on my part.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why two primaries over one secondary and 1 or 2 primaries? From a WP policy pov, which is an improvement over the other?

Why do some editors insist on presenting material this way. From primary sources... one month before the bill was introduced... and the introduced bill did not include these two ideas from early discussion. If I kept pushing something pro-control in this fashion, I'd get railroaded.
Feinstein wanted the grandfathered firearms registered under the National Firearms Act, which currently registers machineguns, silencers and short barreled shotguns.[1][2]
Also, why do some editors NOT want the NRAILA source "Stop The Gun Ban"? Doesn't it support the arguments? And it's NOT a primary source?
According to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, a December draft of the bill would have required current owners of assault weapons to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and required forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.[3][1]
  1. Author unknown (December 26, 2012). "Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation". Two-page summary of bill points from four weeks before it was introduced to Senate. Unpublished.
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1iYl0coIOY
  3. "NRA-ILA:Stop The Gun Ban". nraila.org. NRA Institute for Legislative Action. January 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2014.
How is the bottom version NOT an improvement over the top one? Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Because the second one is saying effectively "The NRA claims", when it is an objective fact that she said multiple times, that she wanted the registered. We do not need to put that in the NRAs voice. It is more than adequately sourced for Wiki's voice. this discussion is why we need multiple sources. We wouldn't need to WP:OVERCITE if people didn't try to remove everything they disagree with.
This article is talking about the entire path of the push, from the polls, to the president, the the proposals, to the bill , to the votes. This is just as valid as a data point as every other point along a path that led to a failed effort to renew the ban. In the end, nothing was passed, so picking one hypothetical set of requirements over a different hypothetical set of requirements is a boondoggle. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, in WP:PRIMARY its pretty explicit that primary sources are perfectly acceptable if used correctly. In particular for this situation, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia [...] A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" which is clearly the case here. We are not making any interpretation or analysis. We are almost quoting her verbatim. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you missed:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
— goethean 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't miss it. "To a lesser extent" does not mean "don't use". We have MANY secondary sources in this article. (including the one LB wants to use on this particular data point). These few are not going to break the camel's back. My primary objection was the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV wording, not the source. This is an objective fact. No reason to say "The NRA says". Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The primary sources currently being used (one of which is a youtube video?!) should be replaced with secondary sources. If secondary sources do not exist, then that indicates an issue with the material being presented. — goethean 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The "youtube video" is an interview with a national news organization. The interview can be cited directly without involving Youtube if you insist.
Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You may add those sources, but I will not, as I don't consider them to be reliable. — goethean 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

atf director sources

Numerous more are available. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)






at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)