Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 25 January 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Gun control) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Gun control. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is Parker authoritative??

I see a Geneva survey from Sara Parker being used in the article @ Regulation of Civilian firearms. In reading the article, I found this quote, "At the US state level, the majority of jurisdictions have adopted the so-called ‘Castle doctrine’, also known as ‘Stand your ground’ laws." It's very clear that our friends in Geneva don't understand the basics of US law if they are saying that castle doctrine and stand your ground are synonymous. Also the editors are making very broad generalities from a very limited survey. Ie, the us and Yemen are exceptional in the world......but the survey was not about the world but rather a handful of countries, and the methodology for selection of those is not clearly articulated. If they get castle doctrine wrong and their methodology is not clear, what else is wrong!? This is is not like any academic paper, I've ever read. I'm not sure this goes in the right direction-Justanonymous (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed, Cambridge University Press, mulit-authored survey that takes an international perspective on the topic of small arms and small arms regulation. Can you suggest a better, more authoritative source for an article on gun control from an international perspective? FiachraByrne (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, according to them it's, "an independent research project." So no peer review of any kind is visible -- within any field.....where are you seeing that? Cambridge University Press is just the publisher but they don't vouche for the quality of the content except by association. This hasn't gone through any kind of peer review or other kind of rigorous process outside of perhaps an editing process from what we can see (no scientific peer review or legal or otherwise) This is akin to a book at best....a limited book with visible errors to this editor.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, I just went to their website http://www.smallarmssurvey.org and I find this in their goal:

"The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people."

This isn't peer reviewed. This is pro-gun control stuff. I'd be just as guilty if I went and lifted content out of the NRA and NAG websites and used it liberally here under the auspices of "peer review" of which there has been none apparently, since it's an "independent project." Sorry guys that's gotta go. Unless you're all ok with other editors going to the NRA websites and getting their "peer reviewed" ahem ahem content. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So, sources published by Cambridge University Press are not WP:RS because of some perceived bias (i.e., "This is pro-gun control stuff") but articles written by attorneys for the National Rifle Association and published by student edited non-peer reviewed law journals are WP:RS? Even when said attorney has no credentials for the field they are writing in (e.g., history)? Have I got this right or am I missing something? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous seems to have been rather selective in his quotation from the website - how about this bit:

Contributing Partners

Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and by sustained contributions from the Governments of Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The Survey is also grateful for past and current project support received from the Governments of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States, as well as from different United Nations agencies, programmes, and institutes.

I'd say it would be utterly ridiculous to call this an unreliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

it's pro gun control and that is clearly their goal regardless of what pro gun control regimes fund them or why?? Government funding is very suspect. I don't buy the whole appeal to authority argument you make Andy. Also they have errors and we're misciting them. Beyond that artifex is missing something. Cambridge university press is simply a publisher. They don't do peer reviews or anything like that that I'm aware of and they don't require that their authors have an NPOV on a subject....they just print the books. I have a bible from cambridge! In this case cambridge university press published a book by a pro gun control "independent project"....that should be as radioactive as us citing a pro life book written by Glenn beck or a pro gun rights book funded by the nra. By contrast, Michigan law review is a high reputation legal journal that goes through the rigors of what is accepted for peer review in their field. Now, you do a disservice by your marginalizing of "student driven" portion. student driven just means that the students go and do the tedious research to verify the submitters claims and legal history.....some smaller schools who don't have enough students so have to use a weaker traditional peer review process....because they don't have the manpower! Student driven, drives quality especially bright students....that's why 90% of law journals including the top ones are student driven!! Why am I having to explain these basic things? Twice now. If you don't know how these fields work, just don't edit. Not being disrespectful here, it's just hard to get editors up to speed on these basics and I explained it already in a separate thread. -Justanonymous (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, Justanonymous, you do not need to "explain these basic things" to me. You do, however, need to support your assertions with actual sources. You have made wide variety of claims concerning peer review and law journals, , but you have yet to supply any sources to support your claims. You have been provided with information on the actual peer review status of most US law journals, and still you persist .

Whether or not you believe I "know how these fields work" is immaterial. Sources tell the tale, and on the issue of law journals and peer review the sources simply do not support you claims,

• Liptak, Adam (October 21, 2013). "The Lackluster Reviews That Lawyers Love to Hate". The New York Times.
• McCormack, Nancy (February 7, 2009). "Peer Review and Legal Publishing: What Law Librarians Need to Know about Open, Single-Blind, and Double-Blind Reviewing" (PDF). Law Library Journal. 101 (59).

However, because reliability is always based on a combination of factors, this does not mean that law journal articles can never be used as reliable sources–and to the best of my knowledge, no editor here has made that claim. Newyorkbrad, in a previous discussion concerning the use of Halbrook, summed it up nicely:

The article is a reliable source for the proposition that at least one scholar has made the arguments contained in it—although if he's the only scholar to do so, spending much time on it might be undue weight.
In terms of relying on the article for factual and legal assertions, the article is full of citations and footnotes, so to the extent there is a dispute as to whether the author's contentions are accurate or not, someone could look up the materials he has cited and see if they support what he has to say.
— User:Newyorkbrad 02:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is imperative that you understand the functions, meanings, and interrelations of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

The explanations you have given in defense of your removal sourced material are examples of tendentious editing and indicative of a battle ground mentality. This must stop. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Ps. I do my very best to avoid addressing other editors in the first person and I apologize for not avoiding it here.

also just because you won a Grant from the US at some point, does not mean the US endorses you or your findings. Same for the UK. There are a ton of grants given. And all so they can get castle doctrine and stand your ground wrong!! Money poorly spent. Maybe that's why we didn't renew. The group is marginally a thinktank. But if you want this, I can bring "the heritage foundation". They have a senator.....surely that has to be WP:RS!-Justanonymous (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Small Arms Survey is an internationally-recognised and authoritative source on the subject matter of this article - in fact I'd suggest that you would be hard put to find a better one. If you really want to argue that we shouldn't use it as a source, I suggest that you raise the matter at WP:RSN - but before you do, do a little research on the organisation, before you make a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

let's see what others think. I'm sure we can get consensus here. I hate those other forums makes us look like we can't solve any problems here. And I'll read up more on this think tank. It didn't pass the quick sniff test but I could be wrong. Appreciate the patience. But let's not make it out to be something it's not. It's not peer reviewed and it's not objective. They have an agenda. I suspect some of their content will be WP:RS. And some will blatantly be not. We also should not make generalizations beyond the cited material.....if the sample is 15 countries that they took, we can't generalize it to , the majority of the world. We can't say that the us is exceptional just because in their contrived sample only the US and Yemen acknowldge human rights. We have to be discrete. In any case, we're in no hurry let's we what others say.-Justanonymous (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No. If you won't take the 'Small Arms Survey' to WP:RSN, I will - I see no reason whatsoever why an internationally-recognised source with the finest credentials should be rejected on the flimsy grounds you have offered so far, and I see no reason to waste further time here - there has been endless stonewalling already on this article, and I see no reason to allow it to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cambridge university press is simply a publisher. They don't do peer reviews or anything like that that I'm aware of and they don't require that their authors have an NPOV on a subject....they just print the books." See "reliable sources": "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The only thing you have right is that they do not require their authors have an NPOV on a subject. But that shows your lack of understanding of academic research. TFD (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Per talk page consensus I've reinserted the deleted material. I think I'd have to suggest that there may be competencies issues at play here. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion which appears to be the argument. The material is heavily slanted. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There's been no specific argument presented against the inclusion of the article content derived from this source. The source itself is impeccable and the conclusions it presents are derived from an empirical study of the issues. There is no more appropriate source to use for the construction of an article whose subject is gun control from an international perspective. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the sources were checked and did not support the statements made. If the editors had stuck to the scope of the statement and attributed it correctly we might have been fine. They could've said, "According to the smallarmssurvey, a gun control thinktank, they find that within the scope of their study of 11 countries they found that only two believe in inalienable rights" Instead they cited it as fact and said something like, "the US and Yemen are exceptional in the world".....but the smallarmssurvey only deals with a handful of countries in their survey. It's beyond the scope of the study to make the leap from the scope of the study to the entire world based on this work....and then to present that whole thing as fact without any attribution is purely POV push editing. It's a contentious article so we can't come and just do it this way.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A simple question for Justanonymous

Which of the data cited to the Small Arms Survey in the section you have deleted are you suggesting is unreliable? And on what grounds are you suggesting that the data being cited is unreliable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

that content was not deleted, it was moved to small arms article where it belongs. It might be too slanted for there it it's definitely wrong here. This article is about gun control not gun proliferation. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of gun control is to limit the availability of firearms. The source is about as on-topic as one could get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what others thinks. We have a small arms article that is in dire need of content and I thought that content belonged there as it deals with the distribution of small arms around the world. Now, I will say that the content could be biased. It'll require some careful analysis. Some of the worst content that comes from partisan think tanks are statistics, because they look solid on the surface but they generally don't release their methodologies completely and they wind up not standing up scrutiny (both pro and against gun control partisan stats are like that). If these guys don't know the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine, the confidence level in them doing stats is very doubtful. But, we can discuss on the small arms page.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious bullshit. You have refused to raise the source at WP:RSN. Either do so, or drop it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The content got moved to the small arms article. This article is about gun control not proliferation of small arms. I'm not going to go cry to mamma. We can solve it here. It might take a week or two. Be patient. Most editors aren't on here 24/7. Give it time, we're in no hurry.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"This article is about gun control not proliferation of small arms". I have to suggest that if this comment isn't grounds for a block on the grounds of tendentiousness, it is one on the grounds of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The section would be better if it had a seealso at the top to the "small arms" article, and if it would be focussed more on how gun control affects prevalence of small arms among civilians. I am not aware that gun control in any country is directed at reducing the number of small arms possessed by law enforcement agencies and armed forces, so I'm mystified by why those stats are presented here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

'The term "gun control" means any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to define, restrict, or limit the possession, production or modification, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of firearms.' Weapons procurement, sale, disposal and use by law enforcement agencies and military forces are subject to national and international regulation. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)