--------
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:
- Bunting, Glenn F. (November 9, 1993). "Feinstein Faces Fight for Diluted Gun Bill". Los Angeles Times.
- Eaton, William J. (May 5, 1994). "Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban". Los Angeles Times.
- Mohr, Charles (March 15, 1989). "U.S. Bans Imports of Assault Rifles in Shift by Bush". New York Times.
- Pazniokas, Mark (December 20, 1993). "One Gun's Journey Into A Crime". Courant (Hartford, Connecticut).
- "Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production". The Pittsburgh Press. Associated Press. May 23, 1990. p. A13.
- Rasky, Susan F. (July 8, 1989). "Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent". New York Times.
- Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1997). Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
- Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1999). "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban". National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (NCJ 173405).
- Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 1994). "Assault Weapons Ban Allowed To Stay in Anti-crime Measure". New York Times.
- Sugarmann, Josh (January 1994). "Reverse FIRE: The Brady Bill won't break the sick hold guns have on America. It's time for tougher measures.". Mother Jones.
--
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]
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)
