Talk:Gun show loophole

EXPERT from POLITIFACT deleted: Wikipedia Bias Caught Red-Handed Once Again

If the purpose of Wikipedia were actually to be informative -- rather than to be a dishonest, biased tool of left-wing activism -- an informative quote published by POLITIFACT would be a jewel of an addition to an article on public discussion about the "Gun Show Loophole"

But the biased activist censoring Wikipedia removed the expert opinion provided:

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."

When people hear about the gun show loophole they want to look it up and find out more.

It should not matter what your position is on the topic.

Wikipedia should leave the reader more informed -- not radicalized -- about the topic of the gun show loophole.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.179 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How should this term be labeled?

There appears to have been a bit of back and forth on how this term is described. While it has been labeled as "non-neutral", if there is a point to be made there please provide your sources for or against here. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Calling it "controversial" does nothing but lead the reader to take a biased position, and leaves out the political context. The ONUS is on you to seek consensus to change from the STATUSQUO, so I am reverting until a new consensus is reached, since this was already discussed at the article's inception. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to where this was already discussed in depth specifically referring to that term? If not, you risk an edit war and we can involve ANI sanction. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the archive, and I'm well aware of 3RR, so please keep things civil and don't threaten me. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW I also suggest avoiding WP:CANVAS, if you are unfamiliar with it. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed your second revert, so I have added an NPOV tag.

What was that you said about about edit warring?... DN (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that tag is needed for now while we discuss. I appreciate your doing that. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn This article was able to achieve GA status because we avoided loaded language like what you keep attempting to insert into the LEAD.

You should at least explain how this is an improvement to the LEAD and provide Neutral reliable sources that show term is "controversial" as opposed to political.

Otherwise it shall be reverted back to STATUS QUO, but leaving the tag.

You need a better reason besides "other editors did it too". DN (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, Which sources do you see in the article that justify putting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL in WP:VOICE in the LEAD SENTENCE without thorough discussion and consensus? At this point it just looks like sloppy ORIGINAL RESEARCH put there by a vandal. DN (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many such articles, but first I am doing a deep dive on the archive per your suggestion and seeing what, if any, relevant discussions may have previously occurred related to this point. Meanwhile, in response to your comment on my talk page, I would urge you to keep in mind that there is no rush as we work on Wikipedia. We are in the process of building consensus around this term which I believe is demonstrably disputed and therefore some form of new language is necessary in the lead. This isn't going to happen overnight. Thank you for your patience. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:TIND, which is an essay, not a POLICY.

So, in order for us to receive GA status the article had to be stable, which meant all active editors had to agree on the lead. There were many discussion on using the term "controversy". As I recall at one point I was fine with naming the article "Gun Show Loophole controversy". This was untenable however as it was non-neutral and went against MOS:CONTROVERSIAL.

I noticed in your edit summaries you keep referring to the "consensus of the other editors". This seems odd to me. We are not supposed to "represent" other editors without their explicit permission, especially if they are not actively participating. This is akin to WP:SOCK.

Aside from that, no amount of consensus can justify UNDUE and UNSOURCED material. DN (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Upon reading the comments above I think there is a case to be made for the term being "controversial".  The phrase "political term" or just "term" based on my research does not entirely capture the loaded nature of the term. (Pun unintended).

Some sources like Politico, and The Hill, refer to the term as "so-called" indirectly calling into question the existence of a "loophole".

Other sources such as CBS News refer to the term as something that "gun control advocates" most often use.

Whereas a Washington Post article features an instance where the take is that there is no "loophole" at all.

I think it is essential to introduce a clarifier in the lead to emphasise that "Gun show loophole" is not SOLELY a "political term".

I'm open to including "controversial" in the introduction, but there are other options to consider as well.

" ... is a political term predominantly used by gun control advocates"

"...is a polemical political term..."

Fenharrow (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow Maybe 10 years ago an argument could be made that it was considered polemic, but in 2024 public surveys have found that it has mostly become a bipartisan issue. I will also reiterate, we were only able to achieve Good Article Status by abiding by guidelines like MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. The majority of quality neutral sources do not use the term controversy to describe GSL these days. I suggest we ask NPOVN and see if it's even feasible. DN (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow Wikipedia uses news reports, but it is not a newspaper. DN (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, but I have to disagree with you on the statement that it is a bipartisan issue now (please provide sources). One of my sources points out that the term "gun show loophole" is often used by "gun control advocates," and others cast doubt on that term by using prefixes such as "so-called." Just calling it a "political term" or a "term" suggests that it is neutral when it is not, and is simply misleading. Fenharrow (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

One must also consider that calling it "controversial" or "so-called" may be considered a form of POV terminology largely preferred by pro-gun advocates such as the NRA.

The question over the existence of a "loophole" is covered in the body, but that doesn't encompass the entirety of it's definition. However, to reduce it down to a strictly "questionable or controversial existence" in the lead sentence requires one to innately presume as much from the very start.

Let's also clarify that "so-called", "controversial" and "polemic" have specific meanings and the question of their interchangeability deserves more scrutiny.

As far as I can tell, these terms still fall into the category of uninformative and unnecessary PUFFERY, which reads...

• "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it."

To clarify, of course the topic of gun control may still be considered divisive, but here are some sources that state background checks for private sales have become an increasingly bipartisan issue. Also see the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

• "Public opinion strongly favors background checks, with overwhelming support from both gun owners and non-gun owners alike. National polls consistently reflect widespread endorsement for measures aimed at closing loopholes in firearm sales regulations. Moreover, numerous states have taken proactive steps to address the private sale loophole, either by implementing universal background check laws or enacting legislation to tighten regulations on firearm transactions. The Center’s 2023 national survey found that 85% of Americans support universal background checks." Johns Hopkins University 2024
• "90% of Americans, regardless of political party, want universal background checks" - Mostly True. Politifact 2022
• "Eighty-three percent of respondents said background checks should be required if someone wants to buy a gun at a gun show or through a private sale." PBS 2019
• "Two measures, specifically, remain overwhelmingly popular: Eighty-nine percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support background checks for all gun purchases, including private and gun show sales; and 86 percent back “red flag” laws allowing the police to take guns from individuals found by a judge to be a danger." ABC 2019
• "Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Pew Research 2015

There is only 1 RS I have found from NBC, out of the majority (including much higher quality sources already in the article) that do not use that term.

I'm perfectly willing to take this to WP:NPOVN and see if they think it won't affect our GA status, or if it's worth ignoring Wikipedia guidelines over.

We can use their findings to obtain current consensus on this issue.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "gun show loophole" is also used by pro-gun advocates in a pejorative manner, and it's also why we had to decide to just stick to MOS:COMMONNAME. DN (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples I have been looking through the archives of this page and I have noticed that some other editors have had similar concerns to mine (Two examples: Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2#Got controversy? and Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#Category:Dysphemisms). Some of them did not think that the term was neutral enough, especially considering the significance "loophole" conveys.

I have observed that you have been very active on the article for some time into the past, and valid criticisms have been raised regarding the "loophole" terminology of the article. However, it seems your approach has been one of long-term persistence, but that clear consensus around this term being neutral has long been lacking. The fact that the neutrality of this article has been questioned so many times is evidence that the GA status it achieved may have not ever really been valid, and perhaps needs to be revisited soon.

I think it would be helpful to include other language. Alternatives to "controversial" might include: "disputed", "contested", or "used by proponents of gun control" (as proposed in another comment). Iljhgtn (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to take into account that I'm also the one that put the NPOV tag up to encourage discussion, instead of claiming other editors that tried to change it without consensus now form some sort of "phantom consensus".

Furthermore, you can see how I wasn't the only editor working very hard to bring this article to GA status.

You need reliable sources that use the term "controversial" in the correct context to place it the LEAD sentence, so far I'm the only one that has provided one.

It sounds like you are using this space as a forum for commenting on me, rather than the topic at hand. If you plan to take me to ANI over any of my behavior, it is not helping your case to talk about it here. Just do it or let it go. We have better things to do.

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that the neutrality of this article has been questioned so many times is evidence that the GA status it achieved may have not ever really been valid"

If you want to call into question the integrity of the GA reviewer and the validity of their work, I suggest you do that on their talk page or appropriate noticeboard. DN (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It has occurred to me these concerns are all already addressed in the last paragraph, which reads...

• Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole. Advocates for gun rights have stated that there is no loophole because current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and the United States Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.

I am less opposed to making changes here to reflect the concerns of "not enough POV by gun-rights advocates", as opposed to inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL into the lead sentence. This will still require justification by the body and RS, and my view is still that the article is already BALANCED, as evidenced by it's GA status. However updating to newer sources and context is always a good thing. DN (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and clarify what this discussion is about. I think it's about whether or not the term "gun show loophole" is controversial, and if it is, how that should be explained in the article. I think it's *not* about whether instituting universal background checks is controversial. That would be a separate discussion. Does everyone agree?— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I can agree this is article is not about UBC, but it is about background checks for private sales, as evidence by sources. The term "controversial" is subjective. That is according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Would you agree that unless an overwhelming majority of sources use that term, it doesn't belong in the lead sentence, and may be better served in the paragraph I suggested? DN (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is about how federal law requires background checks for sales by firearm dealers, but not for private sales (although some states do require background checks for private sales). This is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole. But I didn't ask what the article is about, I asked what the current discussion is about. I think that it's about whether or not the term "gun show loophole" itself is controversial, and if so, how that should be discussed in the article. If that's right, then the article text that you quoted above -- "Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks," etc. -- does not really address the topic of discussion. My point is not to complain about your post, but rather to clarify what we're currently discussing. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it is controversial is subjective. Or do you disagree with that, and by relation, my proposal of putting it into the last paragraph (upon justification by sources)? DN (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if editors argued to make the lead sentence say "The Gun show loophole is an uncontroversial term" or "The Gun show loophole is a logical term"....It's not supposed to work that way for a reason. DN (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "gun show loophole" is definitely controversial, and the article should talk about that. But that does not necessarily mean that the word "controversial" should be included in the lead sentence. My current thinking -- subject to change as the discussion progresses -- is that the lead sentence is probably better without describing the term as controversial, and also without describing the term as political. Probably the last paragraph of the lead section should briefly summarize the controversy. And even there, we might or might not want to say that the term is controversial. For example, we might say something like, "Some people object to the use of the term "gun show loophole" because..." Anyway, we should consider this further, and, yes, agree on appropriate references. (My other activities on and off Wikipedia may keep me from spending a lot of time on the current discussion, but I'll see what I can do to contribute further). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Explain why it's controversial using sources. DN (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are just a few:

1. From Forbes, "The Justice Department announced new rules that would force unlicensed gun sellers who primarily sell firearms at gun shows and online marketplaces to register with the federal government—a significant change that could close the notorious “gun show loophole” [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/04/11/biden-closes-gun-show-loophole-heres-what-to-know-and-when-rule-comes-into-effect/

2. From CNN, "In a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives cannot enforce the rule intended to close the so-called gun show loophole in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah." [2]https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/politics/gun-show-loophole-injunction-texas-kacsmaryk/index.html#:~:text=The%20new%20ATF%20rule,%20which%20took%20effect%20May%2020,%20seeks

3. From NBC, "The Biden administration announced Thursday that it is proposing a rule to eliminate the so-called gun show loophole — one of the biggest attempts to regulate the sale of firearms in years." [3]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-proposes-eliminating-gun-show-loophole-regulation-rcna102800

4. From National Interest (only potentially non-RS, but I do not see it on the RSP list, so it is not unreliable either), "In reality, there is no “gun show loophole.” If an individual wants to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms retailer, which typically makes up the majority of vendors at gun shows, the individual must fill out the requisite federal firearms paperwork and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check."[4]https://nationalinterest.org/feature/10-myths-about-guns-america-14850

If anything, calling the term "controversial" is putting it mildly, and perhaps language such as "so-called" is more in keeping with the direct sources if we were to quote from the most common descriptors directly taking from the reliable sources. Though there is no rule that we need to directly quote from them, in fact that would be plagiarism and there would be no need for editors if we never were to paraphrase. We cannot commit either WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR, but that is not at all what we are doing here. Rather as editors we are supposed to do our best to take the information from reliable sources and put it in commonly used and understood English language per MOS standard guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Unless these sources explain why it's controversial I don't see how you can claim it isn't OR and or SYNTH to try and put controversial in wiki voice as you have repeatedly attempted. Maybe adjust your proposal. DN (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn May I now assume you agree that my previous reverts were justified per WP:VOICE and MOS:CONTROVERSIAL? DN (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You were free to revert per WP:BRD, but I still think that after thinking on the matter for a period of days, it still does not support the actual way this term is disagreed upon by reliable sources, and therefore we need to better describe that disagreement (read "controversy"), in the lead, and even in the opening lines of this article. The mere insertion of the word "controversial" I still believe best summarizes the overall tone of all of the reliable sources that resound together in a cacophony of disputed validity, but I am perfectly open to other wording if someone else has a better proposed descriptor or language to insert. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What informative value does calling it "so-called" offer per these sources, that isn't already explained as "this group doesn't believe GSL exists"?

Perhaps there's some relation to other types of denialism, but since I don't have any RS for that I'm just going to let that go for now. DN (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"If anything, calling the term "controversial" is putting it mildly"

How exactly did you glean that?

• Forbes - "notorious". What encyclopedic value does this add? Where does the article go into that? "Gun rights advocates have long opposed the expansion of background checks....The National Rifle Association even claims that “there is no such thing as the gun show loophole.” I think that's basically already in the last paragraph.
• CNN - "so-called" - "what gun control advocates have long called". Do gun rights advocates call it something else? Is there a different name for it that isn't mentioned in the lead?
• NBC - "so-called". Again, is there even an explanation as to why it is "so-called", at least one that's any different from the one that gun rights groups that say ie "it doesn't exist"?
• The National Interest is an "opinion site" that makes strikingly similar arguments to organizations such as the GOA and NRA. The author's name is Chuck Grassley and I'm curious if that is Republican senator Chuck Grassley that received an A+ rating from the NRA.

"My legislation, Senate Amendment 725, was specifically designed to combat the straw purchasing of firearms as well as firearms traffickers who transfer firearms to prohibited individuals and out-of-state residents."

...yup.

I'm willing to take any of these articles to NPOVN, if that's all you believe we need to avoid violating WP:PG. I think they will get a kick out of the National Interest.

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The "encyclopedic value" that is added by any language is that we are adequately and to the best of our ability summarizing (in an encyclopedic manner) the various reliable sources in such a manner as to not insert our own voices or bias, but to adequately capture the bias and language used by said RS. Human beings are biased, we all are, and Wikipedia is not free from bias, but it is not the job of us editors to fix all of that, but merely to represent it with NPOV and reliability in mind. Again, I feel you make a fair point to say that calling this in the lead "notorious" would perhaps express WP:UNDUE weight in the direction of a single source or viewpoint. "Controversial" on the other hand does not overly portray any one side (gun rights or gun control or however we want to frame the related gun violence or gun politics meta-sphere), but rather just accurately reflects that there is an open dispute about the use of the term. It is by nature a charged political term, yes, but it is also controversial in its application depending on the varying bodies using it and under what context. As cited, the reliable sources reflect this each in their own ways. The majority appear to use "so called" language, but there are others still that use language like "notorious" as you have rightfully highlighted. Do you have a proposed alternative descriptor for the "Gun show loophole" term that adequately summarizes these reliable sources reporting of and use of the term? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Controversial" on the other hand does not overly portray any one side (gun rights or gun control or however we want to frame the related gun violence or gun politics meta-sphere), but rather just accurately reflects that there is an open dispute about the use of the term."

Using Loaded language & MOS:LABEL are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. This isn't personal, I just don't get the sense you are acknowledging these issues. DN (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this isn't personal, but not using the language that is repeatedly employed by reliable sources is itself an editorializing omission that itself constitutes an insertion of opinion into the way the term would be read about and understood. I think if I were to offer an opinion, and I do not mean to cast aspersions or anything of that kind, but I think since you created this article and did a LOT of good work on it over many years, you are understandably a bit defensive of any impactful changes that might be made to it. However, we still need to follow the sources and write about the subject matter as accurately as possible just as those same sources describe any notable encyclopedic entry. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that the problem lies in the name of the article. The "Gun Show Loop Hole is the term used to refer to the private sale exemption. The titles refer to two different things. Gun show loop hole is a politicized term and private sale exemption is the actual thing it refers to. I would propose the name of the article should be the Private Sale Exemption and have Gun Show Loop Hole redirect to it. With in the article, the controversies about both the thing and what it is called can be discussed. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Review at NPOVN

Are there any objections to sending this RS (NBC) to NPOVN as the case for inserting the term "controversial" into the lead, or do we have any better suggestions? This discussion has been going for about a week now and it needs to move forward if there is still no consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn Your previous suggestions of "contested", "disputed" etc... should all go to NPOVN for review, but you need to find citations for them, otherwise it's just original research. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's not submit this to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Not now, anyway. Let's continue the discussion here. That might take a while, but that's okay. I feel like we are making some progress. And also, we might get more editors joining the discussion here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mudwater Before we discuss it further we need sources, otherwise this is just OR. As it stands, it is POV to try and put it in VOICE and OR because the one source I found doesn't explain why it uses that term. The idea that it doesn't exist may be why, but thats only a guess that comes specifically from gun rights organizations, and groups. DN (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, since we still don't have any RS explaining why GSL requires a "label" or qualifier, the question to NPOVN looks almost exactly like it did last time. Calling a CTOP article controversial looks utterly redundant. DN (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as use of the term "SO-CALLED". See MOS:DOUBT (Words to watch: supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called) ... So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others." The title of Gun show loophole was disputed years ago in different RfCs and we have stuck with the WP:COMMONNAME since. DN (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples In one instance you said we need sources calling it "controversial", in other instances you say what the sources call the term is no good. You cannot have it both ways. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn, I've made an attempt to resolve this dispute here. Is there any consensus for it? DN (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph is mixing together two related but different topics. One is the idea of requiring, at a federal level, background checks for private sales. The other is the term "gun show loophole" itself. Both should be dealt with in the article, but separately. Indeed, a person could be in favor of universal background checks while still objecting to the term "gun show loophole". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a citation for that? DN (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible you may be misinterpreting this as a Black or White fallacy? The article isn't saying people can't hold both those opinions, we just don't have any citations to make that kind of clarification. It will go more smoothly if we tackle one thing at a time. So may we focus on whether or not this edit helps resolve the dispute at hand without tacking on a new somewhat unrelated issue? DN (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit does not help resolve the dispute at hand, because that paragraph -- before and after the edit -- mixes together two things: (1) the phrase "gun show loophole", and whether or not it is controversial, which is the dispute at hand, and (2) the idea, and opposition to the idea, of universal background checks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, since you prefer your WP:STICK to actually working towards consensus, this is going to NPOVN today. BTW, your use of the word "Some" here looks like it ignores MOS guidelines...again. DN (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples So it is ok to cite essays in support of our arguments now? When I earlier cited WP:NORUSH (which you seem to be very interested in ignoring) you said, "You are referring to WP:TIND, which is an essay, not a POLICY." @Mudwater you raise a perfectly valid and fair point. I believe we are not discussing much other than if the term is properly called controversial, disputed, contested or some preferred variant based on the fact that all reliable sources speak of the term in "so called" or other charged language. I have cited numerous of those sources above. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is all old ground that has already been covered. I won't ignore that. DN (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

At this dramatic juncture, I would like to suggest the following: (1) In the lead sentence, we do not say that the term "gun show loophole" is controversial, or political, or any other adjective. (2) We add this paragraph, or something along these lines, to the end of the lead section:

Some people, especially gun rights advocates, object to the term "gun show loophole", and say that it is misleading or confusing. These people point out that the lack of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is not specific to gun shows. They say that most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers who are required to run background checks. They also say that there is not a loophole, in the sense of an exploitable ambiguity or exception in a law, as the federal rule was intended to regulate sales by licensed gun dealers and not by private individuals.

References

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do these sources seem neutral to you? DN (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mudwater I support wording of this nature being added in the lead, but in addition to, not instead of, describing the term as the many reliable sources do. The many sources do not use clear definitional and uncontested language, but rather write and speak of "gun show loophope" (especially the "loophole" part) in the language of a term which has many differing interpretations as to its very validity. (Cited above just some). Iljhgtn (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe these are NEUTRAL sources on the topic of GSL? DN (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"To some, “gun show” is a controversial word." To some, this kind of source is just as credible as an academic source.

References

DN (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see anyone here claiming the NRA, especially an NRAblog no less, is credible as a source in any way for the purposes of this discussion or on Wikipedia more generally. And in fact, I would heavily side with you DN if we were discussing whether or not just the term "gun show" was or was not controversial, it most certainly is not. However, "Gun show loophole" on the other hand most certainly is a controversial term. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT DN (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Already have. I am aware of where the "burden of proof" lies, but multiple sources have already been provided. I am curious if there is any subject matter at all that you believe could be called "controversial" on Wikipedia? Or are you simply saying it never is appropriate in your view? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't use WP:SYNTH DN (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, when sources are very clear, or it's attributable as it is in this case. I believe Wikipedia is held to higher standards and is WP:NOT a newspaper. DN (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Mudwater, Fenharrow, Iljhgtn - See link to NPOVN Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gun show loophole endless discussion over_NPOV DN (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I added an fv tag (didn't know which to use) for fn #1. It has the policy should not be limited to transfers at gun shows (an approach known as closing the “gun show loophole”) which would imply the term does not apply to private sales other than at gun shows. But while writing this i recalled {{better source needed}} so will replace with that. fiveby(zero) 18:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific issue is, but would any of these better clarify that in your opinion? There are two links to the Law journal, one includes a PDF style editorial that is more detailed than the splash page.

Feel free to bring it up at NPOVN (link above) where discussion is underway.

References

Cheers. DN (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first: "Closing the “Gun Show Loophole”" is from an advocacy org with no author. If you were to cite the journal article, there would be the same problem, the text of the source would conflict with the article content. ...,including those done at gun shows. would need to change to ...at gun shows. It's not a NPOV problem, i just added the comment here instead of starting a new section. The problem is the citation given conflicts with the article text. fiveby(zero) 19:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are "quoting" the source verbatim here, nor are we required to, AFAIK. It is written in the typical lead summary style. That particular source might only refer to gun shows, but the body and other sources make clear that the private sale exemption ie GSL is not limited to gun shows. AFAIK, sources aren't even required to be in the lead, but we can provide more sources if that would help you.

• Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren’t purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer, Nichols said. Rather, those weapons are bought at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors, Nichols said. These are the so-called loopholes in the current federal background check system. The NRA disputes that characterization about the “gun show loophole” because federally licensed firearms dealers participate at gatherings and, of course, conduct background checks.

• In a move that officials touted as the most significant increase in American gun regulation in decades, the Justice Department has finalized rules to close a loophole that allowed people to sell firearms online, at gun shows and at other informal venues without conducting background checks on those who purchase them....The rules clarify who is required to conduct background checks and aims to close what is known as the “gun show loophole” — which refers to the reality that gun-show sellers and online vendors are subject to much looser federal regulations than vendors who sell at bricks-and-mortar stores.

• But federal gun laws contain a major loophole: Transactions between private sellers and buyers do not require a background check. That used to typically just mean sales at gun shows, or through listings found in classified ads. But that was before the internet made it as easy as a few mouse clicks to find a gun for sale from a private seller on an online marketplace or through social media...The loophole has remained in place despite polls showing high levels of public support for making all firearms sales subject to background checks. Gun-control activists see closing the loophole as the foundation for a comprehensive gun violence reduction plan, while the gun lobby, and many Republicans, have been vehemently opposed.

• Private firearm transfers that do not require background checks are colloquially called private sale exemptions or gun show loophole transfers.

References

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i'll try and explain

1. "Gun show loophole" applies only to gun shows
2. "Gun show loophole" applies primarily to gun shows, but also such as mail-order and internet sales

These are two incompatible statements. The current article content takes position #2, but the citation provided takes position #1. In fact a major part of the source is complaining that it only applies to gun shows:

As discussed in the section on criminal acquisition of firearms at gun shows, the fundamental flaw in gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party transfers, which occur at flea markets and swap meets, through classified ads in newspapers and publications for firearm enthusiasts, in homes, on the street, and increasingly over the Internet

Now i don't care which position the article takes, just that the citation provides supports the article content (since i changed the text i had to look at the references for the sentence.) Probably best just to remove the citation as you say they aren't even required to be in the lead and probably best not to have them. I left the source in place because it might be valuable for the article, and don't know which of #1 or #2 should be stated in the article. fiveby(zero) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. See [5]. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole thread but but do have an interest in terminology issues like this. IMO "gun show loophole" is just a vague epitaph (used to refer to many different things) rather than a distinct topic and so would be best covered as a termwith suitable skepticism. A good example of this and doing so is Homosexual agenda . Also often used in a misleading way or even being designed to mislead, because it is almost always referring to (and an attempt to rename) the general ability to do private transfers, the vast majority of which are unrelated to gun show. Which is another reason to cover it skeptically as a term, with Homosexual agenda being a good example on how to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We try to use as many neutral higher quality academic sources as we can to avoid WP:NEWSSTYLE and MOS:LABEL. If you have any suggestions or find any that aren't included, we would certainly appreciate them. DN (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Homosexual agenda article seems to be mentioned in the WP:WORDISSUBJECT category of WP:DICT which explains that as an encyclopedia our primary focus is to explain the subject as opposed to simply defining terms. The sources for the LEAD sentence are a state agency and private membership organization called the Wisconsin Historical Society, and a textbook on the linguistic analysis of hate speech. The lead focus is on defining terms as opposed to summarizing the explanation, which the article does in the body instead of the lead. DN (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As documented there, Wikipedia has many articles on terms. And terms are often used to distort or cast a negative light on things which have more neutrally worded terms and which are more distinct topics. In these cases, it's really more neutral and better to cover it as a term rather than being the place to cover the topic(s) which the term is seeking to vilify. For example, Homosexual agenda is not the place that Wikipedia covers the LBGT initiatives which are the target of the term. And in this case, there are the extra layers that it does not refer to a distinct topic, having wide ranging and varying usages, many unrelated to gun shows. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @North8000. Furthermore, I think it is time we initiate the page move and then can continue work on this page from there. Who wants to initiate that, or should I? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn A page move was contingent on there being evidence that PSE was a better fit. Have you done any work or found any evidence to make that determination? Google books Ngram suggests there is more literature on GSL. The article has also been stable since the change by uninvolved editors at NPOVN, and it now includes "controversial" in the last paragraph of the lead, although RSN hasn't weighed in on that. We will likely need an RfC if you want to move forward with a move since it is a possible POVFORK, and a majority of the uninvolved editors at NPOVN agreed that your sources were not clear if your sources were referencing the term or the subject. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

North8000, if you feel the Homosexual agenda article sets an example for GSL, when do you plan to nominate it for a GA review?

For that matter, once this dispute is resolved, I think a GA review for GSL is also prudent, to make sure it stays in good standing.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO there are two viable possibilities:

1. Cover it as a term as Homosexual agenda does....a term designed to to vilify something.
2. Cover the "target" of the term with a different neutrally worded topic.

Since the term has so many variable uses (including most commonly those which conflict with it's wording) IMO #2 is a less viable option because there is no distinct topic. But it might be more do-able in the current situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That is fair and makes a lot of sense. Wise words as far as a path to proceed from here. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's use the FAQ as an example. In the context of the current dipute/proposal, the use of descriptors such as "so-called" and "controversial" are presumed necessary by it's proponents to maintain NPOV. Guidelines such as MOS:DOUBT, MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, MOS:OPEN aside, considering the lack of clarity by the sources defining the "term" as opposed to the "subject", this should probably go to RSN to be sure it's not WP:OR or WP:SYN as opposed to NPOVN.

I am of the opinion that framing terms is more of a NEWS-STYLE approach rather than an encyclopedic one, though I see your reasoning. Nothing against your preferred approach, my concerns are mainly avoiding WP:POVFORK and ensuring focus on facts before attributed opinions in the lead.

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines you mention by the way are absolutely being weighed and considered, after all, the wording such as "so-called" might generally be avoided, "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject..." which in this case that exact wording is very commonly used. Thus, the "so-called Gun show loophole" would indeed be wording sanctioned by MOS:CONTROVERSIAL, in addition to the other guidelines you continue to cite as if they were somehow in disagreement with this. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am under the impression that since you agree with NORTH8000, we should essentially ignore WP:REFERS and revert DeCausa's change [6], in order to "define the term" in the lead sentence. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here.

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We have one neutral source calling it controversial by NBC. Did you find others? The use of "so-called" is much more prevalent from what I see, so it might pass the smell test for MOS:DOUBT strictly depending on how and where it is used. Then there is still the question of why is it DUE? What purpose does that serve in explaining the subject? DN (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

re POVFORK, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act, Brady Bill, Gun law in the United States, Gun politics in the United States and a quick look shows little or no "gun show" content in any. FOPA the best merge target if you are thinking merge? Would have thought all of those would have some "gun show" content. fiveby(zero) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ. When this article was moved from Gun shows in the United States to a stand-alone, there was much discussion over the neutrality of the title. WP:COMMONNAME made sense, and the topic has continued to remain notable in academic studies, legislation and news reports. I checked Google books Ngram which shows GSL is more common in literature than Private sale exemption AFAICT. I no longer think a title change or redirect to solve this dispute is without risk of violating WP policy. DN (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW Fiveby and @North8000 are welcome to join this discussion over at NPOVN...Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gun show loophole endless discussion over NPOV... Cheers. DN (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

DUE Weight see NPOVN

Iljhgtn Let's discuss this additional issue with your claim here. GSL has many aliases other than PSE and there are articles about this topic going back about thirty years. To say the number of neutral sources that use the terms you are trying to include into the lead sentence are in the majority, and are therefore DUE (in the lead sentence as opposed to in the last paragraph of the lead), requires at least some evidence. How do you intend to prove this? DN (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Review at RSN

Please list sources for "so-called" and for "controversial" to be used during the discussion at RSN. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved/procedural close. Consensus is not going to change in the span of 2 hours from when the last RM was closed to when this one was opened. Nomination is based off a claim that the proposed title WP:COMMONNAME which, as determined in the last RM, is blatantly false [7]. Clearly (edit: Looks like) a WP:GAMENAME effort. General practice is to give about 3 months or so between RMs of same or similar effect, not 2 hours. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Gun show loophole → Private gun sales (United States) – The last article move proposal had more "Support" than "Oppose" !votes, and substantial arguments behind them, but the specific title being debated did not seem to have the full weight of WP:COMMONNAME that this alternative title "Private gun sales (Unites States)" has. This title has the best Google NGRAM results out of all possible titles (including "Gun show loophole") as well as clearly delineates that the subject matter is "United States"-specific being covered. Furthermore, the "Private gun sales (United States)" title does not have the NPOV issues that "Gun show loophole" so clearly has, with extensive evidence already presented, and can be presented again, to that end. WP:COMMONNAME does allow discretion, even encourages, for us editors to use a less NPOV problematic title if another exists, and in this case the answer is for "Private gun sales (United States)" to be chosen without any doubt. This is the single best title for the subject matter of this article, even superior over the last one that was proposed that narrowly seemed to have lost out. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"This title has the best Google NGRAM results out of all possible titles (including "Gun show loophole") To put this gently, this claim is not accurate. See WP:STICK. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

To reply gently, see WP:BLUDGEON and WP:OWN. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples. @Iljhgtn has provided links regarding the NGRAM results in the prev RM discussion. Please refrain from WP:ACCUSE. Fenharrow (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear who is "accusing" who... DN (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I was responding in kind, let us get back to WP POLICY arguments please and all move on from anything even perceived to be personal. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

One week ago, there was a move request that was virtually identical to this move request, it was discussed at length, and that move request was not accepted. Please see the discussion of that move request. Note "Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page." T g7 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Not contesting that at present. This is a new page move request with a new title based on that exact discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Private sale of firearms in the United States" is not substantively different from "Private gun sales (United States)". So is it reasonable to consider it to be a new title? Or is it really, in essence, a repeat of the old request with slight rewording that doesn't change the meaning? T g7 (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"Private gun sales (United States)", seem to have just as little/much to do with the federal law on background checks as "Private sale of firearms in the United States" compared to GSL. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A new lead worded something along the lines of the following would help us to understand how precisely the term does in fact align and improves the article in nearly every way, from accuracy, to neutrality, to global improvements without regional preferences:

"Private gun sales in the United States, also called the private sale exemption and sometimes referred to as the Gun show loophole, are conducted without federal law mandating background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms by parties without a federal firearms license (FFL), including those done at gun shows. Under U.S. federal gun law, any person may sell a firearm to a federally unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have cause to believe that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms..." Iljhgtn (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn In order for this not to be considered WP:OR...What sources are you quoting that say "Private gun sales in the United States, also called the private sale exemption"? DN (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You chose to open an RM. Discussion should be limited to the article’s title and the appropriateness of opening this in the first place. A proposed rewrite of the lead is beyond the scope and getting into a back-and-forth about this will get us off track. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it your impression that the objections to your last move proposal centered on the use of firearms vs. guns and in the United States vs. (United States)? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Object to 2nd RM request by Iljhgtn as it seems premature and per lack of WP:CONSENSUS. DN (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support for the reasons above. Riposte97 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I should add, this proposal is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Riposte97 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Object to this move/rename request per WP:GAMENAME. This request is essentially identical to the request made eight days ago, we already had this discussion last week, and nothing has changed since then. It would be a poor use of editors' time to repeat the discussion that we had last week.

T g7 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support and Approve: I move for this RM to proceed and the proposed title to be subjected to the scruitny of the editors who wish to partake. While "gun show loophole" is a recognised albeit, disputed political term, it is essential that the title accurately reflects the content of the article. Those who support the status quo have not provided evidence that "gun show loophole" is a comprehensive term for the issue at hand. According to WP:DISCUSSED, the title of this article needs to be reassessed.Fenharrow (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You all do realise the "some time back" in the essay does not refer to ye olde days of eight hours ago, right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Good titles precisely identify the subject of the article, and it looks like the current one does not, since the very first sentence makes it clear that the article is about private gun sales including those at gun shows, but not limited to them. The article also states that there's disagreement over whether the phenomenon is actually a "loophole". As such, the proposed title seems more accurate and appropriate. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Furthermore, objections that merely cite the preceding RM as a reason to oppose don't really address the suitability of this title; certainly not on policy. Riposte97 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please consider a clear "Support" !vote then instead of just a comment of "I agree with you", last time I think part of the problem was that some comments that were clearly "Support" !votes were not counted as such due to not having the bold Support wording at the outset of the comment and clearly making it known for later tally and evaluation by the prior closer. That said, this new title proposed is far superior even, otherwise I would have challenged that close, but I think this one should see an even wider consensus emerge. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support There are numerous problems here. Most germane to the question of this RFC is that it is a term designed to vilify and mislead regarding the right to private transfers of firearms (sales, gifts, inheritance etc). As such it is also a misleading term because only a tiny fraction of the exercises of the right targeted by the term are related to gun shows. Which also leads to an additional problem which the current situation presents which is that it mis-informs rather that informs, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do. The deeper problem not addressed here is that it is not really about a distinct topic as the term has widely varying targets. But I think that renaming of the article would solve 95% of those problems. And then the term could be covered as a term. A good example of covering a term as a term is the Gay Agenda article. This is not the place that Wikipedia that Wikipedia covers the LGBT initiatives targeted by the term Gay Agenda.....to do so would be an implicit statement by Wikipedia that all of those initiatives are Gay agenda. Instead it covers the term, the term's meaning, uses, beginnings etc.. I think that 95% of the above noted problems would be to rename this article, with the proposed name being the best I can think of without getting too lengthy to cover the legal status of private transfers in the US, and then within the article there could be a section on the GSL term.

IMO the argument to use wp:commonname to retain the current name (for the included content) is not valid for several reasons and in reality is the reverse. First, is that is misreading of wp:common name it because it flat out says "generally accepted" and that is clearly not the case. It is designed to help provide good names for articles and not intended to override the WP:NPOV policy (which using "Gun show loophole" to cover all private transfer rights certainly violates) nor override the objective of providing informative articles vs. mis-informing via the current misleading title. Next it is not a common name for any distinct topic and folks (doubly so for those outside of the US) are not going to search for the actual content of this article by the term which mis-identifies the content and so it is NOT the common name. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I oppose the move as proposed, as the base name private gun sales doesn't exist, so having a parenthetical qualifier doesn't make sense. If there is support for a move along these lines, a better title would be private gun sales in the United States. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Object to repeat RM and Oppose move on strongest possible terms. The proposed title is an exact synonym for the one that was rejected in the closure earlier today. The current title is consistent with WP policies and is appropriate, as I and others detailed at length in the RM that just closed. I will try to summarize my objections to the proposed title itself but editors and admins should refer to the prior RM because the arguments there all hold.

1. 1. Gun show loophole is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject and is justified under WP:NPOVNAME: When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title.
      • The prominent use of gun show loophole by gun advocates and people who argue there is no such thing, as well as the frequent use of scare quotes or labels like "so-called" by news sources further demonstrate that this is the common term. It is used by people who don't like it and by sources wanting to remain neutral by acknowledging the term can be seen as political. They use it because it is common and understood.[8][9][10][11]
   2. Gun show loophole is the topic, focal point, and central organizing principle of the entire article. It is organized around a prominent issue in US law and politics. The history of federal law, differences with state laws, and opinions on federal laws surrounding private transfer of firearms are discussed throughout the article. The title must reflect the article content. The article also discusses the term itself, including disagreements about and reactions to the term. Gun show loophole is further justified by WP:WORDISSUBJECT. (See also: here and here)
      • Because the term is specifically and exclusively about US law, politics, and culture, it is appropriate to use the term that is used here, whether or not it is recognizable to people outside the US with no prior familiarity with the topic MOS:ENGVAR, specifically WP:TIES. It is recognizable to people familiar with the topic and readers are able to find the article from search engines. (See also: here.)
   3. Private gun/firearms sales in the United States is not exactly synonymous with gun show loophole. I discussed this more here. The article is not about private gun sales in the US generally and such a title would not reflect the content and scope of the article.

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is clearly WP:GAMENAME. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of OWN and BLUD again, I agree. DN (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

"Private gun/firearms sales in the United States is not exactly synonymous with gun show loophole." You’re correct about that, but the issue is that the article discusses private sales while inaccurately using the title "gun show loophole." Your sources do not strengthen your argument and have already been referenced multiple times in previous discussions.

1. NRA-ILA: "Gun control advocates have for years perpetuated the myth that criminals obtain firearms at gun shows, while offering no evidence to support their claims. The fact is, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys of prison inmates regarding the sources of guns used in their crimes consistently find that it is very rare for criminals to get their guns at gun shows." Nowhere in their article do they discuss guns acquired through any other method of private sales besides gun shows.

2. The Hill: "A federal judge in Texas blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to close the so-called gun show loophole on Wednesday, expanding a prior temporary ruling to impact Texas, Louisiana, Utah and Mississippi." This is the only significant mention of the "gun show loophole" here. Nowhere in this article does GSL refer to "private sale exemption" for all private sales of firearms.

3.The Washington Post: Senator Cruz says “You know, there actually isn't the so-called ‘gun show loophole,’” Cruz, a gun-rights advocate, said on NBC News’s “Meet The Press." That doesn't exist. Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check." He refers to the term as though it only applies to gun shows.

None of these sources (and similar others) refer to GSL as the sole term for "private sales." IF there MUST be an article titled "Gun Show Loophole," it should focus specifically on the term, its origins, the surrounding controversy, related legislation, and gun shows themselves. Any info pertaning to private sales should be a different article and must have little to do with "GSL". Ideally must be subsumed into the private sales article.

"It is recognizable to people familiar with the topic". No, if anything, people refer to it as the "loophole exercised at gun shows," and not all private sales. The title of this article is misleading, and no sources thus far corroborate the claim that GSL is the correct or accurate title. Fenharrow (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have never in my life heard anyone utter the phrase the loophole exercised at gun shows. Do you have evidence of such usage?

My point is that GSL is the term used to talk about the issue of federal laws pertaining to private gun sales. If I were trying to invent a term from scratch, I might come up with something better, but that's not our task. Let's take a closer look at the Washington Post piece in context added:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said Sunday that the “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist, pushing back against gun control advocates’ call for background checks in all guns sales.

“You know, there actually isn't the so-called ‘gun show loophole,’” Cruz, a gun-rights advocate, said on NBC News’s “Meet The Press." "That doesn't exist. Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check. It's a requirement that applies to every licensed firearm dealer. What it doesn't apply to is personal sales one on one. And that's true whether it's at a gun show or not."

President Obama unveiled a sweeping slate of gun control proposals last week, including a call for Congress to pass a law requiring universal background checks for gun sales, including those between private citizens that don't involve licensed gun dealers, which are currently not subject to checks.

Here Cruz is talking about the "gun show loophole" in reference to "a sweeping slate of gun control proposals." Cruz is the one doing the misleading here—he knows the proposals goes far beyond gun shows and he's deliberately using a literal reading of an instantly-recognizable term as a straw man.

The Hill article also uses GSL to introduce the topic and then goes on to describe various provisions of the Biden rule and the judge's ruling against it. "Private sale exemption" does not appear anywhere in the article. I notice you didn't mention the US Controlled Carry Association[12] source which defines "gun show loophole" as the legal exemption that allows private sellers, such as gun show attendees, to sell firearms without conducting background checks. They argue that "private sales exemption" would be a "better" term, but they use GSL here because it is commonly used for the topic at hand. I agree with you that the NRA source is trying to "debunk" the term but in the context of all the sources used in the article, and the overwhelmingly common usage of GSL broadly, this does not take away from the appropriateness of GSL under WP:NPOVNAME. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This would appear to be a change in scope, I feel like the loophole is individually notable on its own. The assertion that the title is "problematic NPOV" is not supported by fact, as the existence of a loophole has been noted by various objective news organizations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not conflate issues here. "Gun show loophole" is a recognised term, the existence of this loophole is not central to this discussion; but what it signifies remains open to debate. Fenharrow (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support I guess. As I noted at the noticeboard discussion and above, I don't see a problem with having an article titled "Gun Show Loophole" so long as it is clear in the opening that the literal implications of the term are disputed and that the term both implies something that isn't true (no sales at gunshows aren't subject to background checks) and was picked to provide a cover for what closing laws would actually do (force private sales via FFLs). So long as the political nature of the term is clear in the opening of the article (first few sentences) and discussed in more detail in some later section I don't see a reason to rename. But with recent changes that treat the term as a more factual statement and puts the misleading literal reading of the term and it's political nature below the fold, I feel a name change is appropriate to for POV reasons. However, if we are OK changing the lead back to something like the lead which had been stable for almost a decade I don't see a need for the change. Springee (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  This reads as neutral, weak support, or even weak oppose. I largely agree with you and your comment below. Unfortunately, this near-identical RM has been started, rather than attempt to revisit the article’s content and framing. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think much of the dispute here comes from the recent changes to the lead that no longer identify GSL as a political term. As that is a very recent change and the previous version of the lead not only was stable for almost a decade but also had previously been subject to debate, I think we should ask if there is a consensus to change to the current lead. If not I would suggest moving back to the earlier lead and then perhaps the question of a move could be moot. Springee (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post close comment: I think we should continue the discussions associated with this move request. While I understand the issue with such a quick RM just after the old one was closed, I think the new discussion has a few more editors involved. It might be better to get some additional voices then come up with a plan for addressing the issues editors have with this article. Springee (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I considered reverting the first close and asking for an admin close. IMO they merely evaluated whether or not it is a common name vs the overall issues involved. Also for a longer time period. But IMO a better fix (since the title is a misleading epitaph referring to widely varying things rather than a distinct topic) would be to cover the widely varying things under their normal names and convert this article to an article on the term, handling it like the similar situation Gay agenda. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

North, if you believed the close was incorrect, the correct place to do that is to ask for a MR. Not copy your exact same comment to an RM started less than a day later. Iljhgtn has only been here for maybe a year and a half, but you've been editing for several years now, you really should know better. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: Quit the crap with mis-characterizing a perfectly acceptable post. For better or worse, the close specifically mentioned alternate proposals, somebody made one, and I weighed in on it, with a slightly modified version of my previously described rationale. Implying that doing so is wrong is out of line. As I described elsewhere, this is not the best way to fix the problems here but would help. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for getting testy, and I'll acknowledge that the new RM was started in the future relative to the close, but I will maintain that a MR would have been a better way of representing your position, with less chance at being procedurally closed, and it is your responsibility as a much more experienced editor who believes a review of the close may be appropriate to either point that out or start the process yourself.

I may have less time in the near future so I may not be able to further respond (also, I did not get your ping and I don't know why, though I will still be watching this page). Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment, I recently commented on the closers talk page, I am posting a link to that discussion here for any and all to review and/or contribute. Thanks everyone. User_talk:Estar8806#Review_of_Gun_show_loophole_page_move Iljhgtn (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes to lead

In the interest of moving forward productively, I have taken a crack at the opening paragraph. This is a rough draft—please pick it apart. I mostly reworded the existing text and I did not add or review references.

Gun show loophole is a political term used in the United States to refer to the absence of federal law mandating background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms by parties without a federal firearms license (FFL), including those done at gun shows. The term private sale exemption is preferred by some sources as as being more neutral and more accurate, noting that most private firearm sales in the US do not take place at gun shows and that most sellers at gun shows are licensed and therefore not exempt from conducting background checks under federal law. Under U.S. federal gun law, any person may sell a firearm to a federally unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have cause to believe that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, and as long as the seller is not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. In addition to federal requirements, laws regarding background checks on firearm sales between private citizens without the use of a FFL vary by state.

My second sentence is problematic: The term private sale exemption is preferred by some sources as as being more neutral and more accurate, noting that most private firearm sales in the US do not take place at gun shows and that most sellers at gun shows are licensed and therefore not exempt from conducting background checks under federal law. This needs to be reworded and may need references. It's a start.

The lead section—not just the opening sentence or paragraph—must clearly and accurately summarize the full article, with due weight to the facts and opinions detailed within. I know there are some global concerns about the article. If those are too substantial to update the lead, we should pause the lead discussion entirely and start separate discussions on the body of the article.

References

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

For posterity, here is the current version of the article at the time of this writing. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion and revisions of proposed lead changes

Thank you for bringing up this up. The current NPOV tag that has been there for about a month (since around Oct 2nd), was essentially the precursor to the subsequent RMs, which came to be, due to a previously proposed change to put "controversial" and or "so-called" into the lead sentence describing the subject or term, replacing the original description as a "political term" which came from a previous consensus around the time of the GA review, I believe.

Shortly after I took it to NPOVN, which you are of course welcome to join or add to, though I would caution you as to it's length, and it has been fairly dormant since the RMs. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gun show loophole endless discussion over_NPOV

I have made several attempts to achieve consensus by adding these terms to the last paragraph per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as opposed to putting them in the lead sentence. Some of the uninvolved editors made some adjustments according to WP:REFERS, and suggested we avoid putting attributed opinions in the lead paragraph, from what I recall.

• Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a so-called gun show loophole. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens.

However, I'm uncertain at this point if these editors still do not see this as a reasonable compromise.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I followed the thread above the RMs and the NPVON thread for a while but both have ballooned and I stopped keeping up with them. It's helpful to have this background summarized here. I prefer not to use any sort of label in the first sentence but I think I could live with "political term" if we there is consensus. I like your paragraph and would consider moving it up a bit, perhaps as the second paragraph. Objections to the term itself are a prominent aspect of the topic. I also think there is value to notifying the reader that "gun shows" are not actually actually a prominent feature of federal gun law or private sales. I didn't start there, but I've come around to this view.

How about this:

Gun show loophole, also called private sale exemption, refers to the absence of federal law mandating background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms by parties without a federal firearms license (FFL), including those done at gun shows. Under U.S. federal gun law, any person may sell a firearm to a federally unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have cause to believe that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, and as long as the seller is not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. In addition to federal requirements, laws regarding background checks on firearm sales between private citizens without the use of a FFL vary by state.

Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a so-called gun show loophole. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens. Critics also point out that licensed sellers at gun shows are required to perform background checks and that most private firearm purchases in the United States do not take place at gun shows.

It's subtle, but I think "refers to the absence of…" rather than "is the absence of…" is more accurate and avoids stating or implying in Wikivoice that the GSL is "real" or is a completely accurate term. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

In order to pass the next GA review I recommend we abide WP:REFERS. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I see you have omitted the gun control advocate position on UBC, and replaced it with more "criticism". Is that intentional? DN (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take a que from certain articles on religion, by saying "it is the view/perception"? That would be an acceptable compromise IMO. DN (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to an all three comments here. I see your point about WP:REFERS although I wonder if this is an exception. As I have said elsewhere, there are elements of WP:WORDISSUBJECT here. I do not support rewriting the entire article in the model of Gay agenda as others have proposed, but I do see a case for both the use of the term and mention of the term GSL in this article. It's not obvious to me how to amend this to the "is the view/perception" framing—GSL is not a view, it is a label or term used as described in the article and numerous reliable sources. I appreciate that you've offered an alternative, I just don't see how to make it work but perhaps there's a way.

Regarding this: I see you have omitted the gun control advocate position on UBC, and replaced it with more "criticism". Is that intentional? I don't quite follow. I used your proposed language verbatim and then added an additional sentence. I did not "replace" anything. I was suggesting inserting this as paragraph #2, rather than sticking it at the end of the lead, and then continuing with the rest of the lead as currently written, so what is currently the second paragraph becomes the third. I can see now that I did not make that clear because I did omit the rest of the lead from my draft proposal. Also, perhaps instead of "Critics" it should say "These [or Some] advocates also point out…" (I do realize "some" is wishy washy and probably best avoided). Let me know if I have misunderstood and if you have other suggestions and feedback. Thanks for engaging. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see what happened.

• Advocates for gun rights find the subject controversial and dispute the existence of a so-called gun show loophole. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens. Critics also point out that licensed sellers at gun shows are required to perform background checks and that most private firearm purchases in the United States do not take place at gun shows. Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for universal background checks and an end to the gun show loophole.

My mistake. DN (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I think your additional sentence is accurate but it changes the function of the paragraph. My intent was simply to introduce the disputes about the term itself, not to begin summarizing both sides of the gun control debate. Perhaps this is better:

Advocates for gun rights dispute the existence of a so-called gun show loophole. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens. They also point out that licensed sellers at gun shows are required to perform background checks and that most private firearm purchases in the United States do not take place at gun shows.

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If there is consensus for making the attributed POVs the second paragraph I would not object.

There is sourcing that states "both sides of the debate" had agreed "GSL exists", for example...

• WaPo 1999 "Dingell's plan would, however, close what people on both sides of the debate agree is a loophole in current law, requiring nonlicensed dealers to begin conducting such background checks."

However, it is also established (by both sides) in many sources, that the term misleadingly oversimplifies the subject.

My concern is that if we simply go back to the lead sentence defining it as just a "political term", it will not resolve the perceived NPOV issue effectively.

Unless we establish a consensus that the proposed changes resolve the perceived NPOV issue, the endless debate over NPOV could continue. DN (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately nobody else has engaged with the proposed text so I can’t gauge consensus. I appreciate all your input! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be careful about using a single to establish that "both sides" view this as a "loophole". In that context it only meant the lawmakers in that discussion and even then it's not clear if that is simply how the reporter summarized it or if both sides actually stated it's a "loophole". That aside, this seems like a good discussion. As an alternative to renaming, I think Myceteae's suggestion is strong. I think the "since the mid-1990" would go in a separate sentence as it isn't about the term. I think this is a good direction and a good alternative to renaming/splitting the article. Springee (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but some of the earlier sources refer to Clinton, and his attempts to "close the loophole" by extending provisions of the Brady law for background checks to be conducted for private sales by FFLs. Clinton memo 1998 No sources claim he is responsible for coining the term AFAIK, but this memo resulted in a report from the ATF to the DoJ about Gun shows that identified secondary market sales by unlicensed individuals did not require background checks, AND ambiguity in defining "engaged in a business" (see FOPA) which made it harder for law enforcement to prosecute trafficking and straw purchases etc...ATF 1999 However, the recommendations made did not address private sales in general, just gun shows. This "flaw" in legislation to "close GSL" was subsequently identified in that it only focused on gun shows rather than UBC. NEJM IMO and according to skeptics, the BSCA seems to be more like a continuation of the expansions originally sought by the Clinton admin.The New Republic 2024 DN (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Alternative phrasing for the first sentence of the proposed second paragraph might be something like "Critics of of the term gun show loophole argue that it is misleading and that no such loophole exists." In addition to DN's suggestions, sources might include this WaPo article and this from the NRA-ILA. I would need to re-read these against any wording in the article to ensure they are a good fit. I don't think we need 5+ inline citations here but 2–3 from a variety of sources reflecting the scope of the objections/criticisms would be good. NB: I'm aware that "Critics say…" can be seen as a problematic framing. I think it's accurate here but mainly I'm throwing it out here to give us something to react to.

Regarding the NPOV tag, I wouldn't be comfortable removing it even if some version of my second paragraph is accepted. Removing the NPOV tag is a worthy goal but I'm not sure how to move forward when there is entrenched opposition to the article title. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, the title wasn't the reason for the tag, the title change was just a possible resolution as opposed to inserting descriptors into the lead sentence under the auspice of NPOV. It seems like the title change is not likely to pan out until the term stops being used in sources. DN (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"I would be careful about using a single to establish that "both sides" view this as a "loophole". In that context it only meant the lawmakers in that discussion"

There seem to be multiple sources that show both sides "acknowledge" the loophole.

• On May 27, 1999 Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, saying: "We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." LaPierre has since said that he is opposed to universal background checks.

References

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Replies

1) Historical context: the Gun Control Act of 1968, passed in response to the Kennedy assassination, which was committed with a gun purchased by mail order (illegal now), made it illegal to sell firearms to some people (felons, mentally ill, drug users, fugitives). But there was no requirement that sellers conduct a background check until the 1993 Brady Bill.

2) Implicit in all uses of the term "loophole", I think, is the concept that people exploit the loophole with the intention to circumvent a rule or law; a loophole gives people a legal way to avoid obeying the law without breaking the law. As such, the term "loophole" carries a negative connotation. In contrast, the term "exemption" carries little or no such connotation.

3) "Loopholes" or "exemptions" can be used as ways to circumvent laws or rules. For example, overseas tax havens are a type of loophole. Overseas tax havens allow businesses to circumvent the rules stating that if they do business in a country, they should pay a fair share of taxes to the government of that country. What is the rule or law that is being circumvented by the gun show loophole? I think that the gun show loophole is probably used by two categories of people, for two different motives: it is used by people without an FFL to evade the rule that states they need to have an FFL in order to engage in the business of selling guns (profit motive); and it is also used by gun buyers who don't want to have a background check done on them for various reasons (reasons including that they may be prohibited from buying guns or that they may be planning to shoot someone.)

4) From my perspective, the plain-language interpretation of the term "gun show loophole" is that the term refers only to sales at gun shows, not gun sales outside of gun shows. "Private sales at gun shows" is a subcategory of "private sales." It would make sense to me to have two separate articles, one for "gun show loophole" and one for "exemptions from firearm sales requirements in the United States" or "private sales of firearms". I don't think that would be a point-of-view fork because "gun show loophole" is a subcategory of "private sales exemptions" which is substantive enough to merit its own article. The "main" template could be used to link to the GSL article. T g7 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources stating or explaining how the "gun show loophole" is a subcategory of "private sales exemptions"? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT, while Wintemute's distinction (in 2013) is that "laws attempting to close 'gun show loophole' refer only to sales at gun shows"...it doesn't seem to state that GSL itself only refers to private sales at gun shows...it's easy to miss that clarification.

• Garen Wintemute (p.104) "Pitfalls to avoid" Closing the "GSL" [13]

...The majority of sources seem to point out that it is a misconception GSL only applies to private sales at gun shows. The issue was that the laws used to close GSL didn't include private sales everywhere.

Most sources seem to agree, the essence or scope of GSL is "the absence of law(s) requiring background checks for all private sales regardless of location.

Sources to the contrary may exist, but most I have found so far tend not to be considered very neutral or high quality. DN (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent points. References do not support my proposal. Thank you. T g7 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you and DN already reached an agreement on the bulk of this. I just wanted to comment on the implied meaning and plain language reading of gun show loophole and the word loophole specifically. The article must reflect widespread usage in reliable sources and not our own analysis of technical inaccuracies or what would be the best, most precise and accurate term. To the extent gun show loophole is a disputed term and even a misnomer, due weight should be given to those critiques in the article, as reflected in reliable sources. Readers with a passing familiarity with the term should walk away with a better understanding of the topic, including the type of laws and sales it is commonly used to describe and prominent disputes about the accuracy of the term. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You aren't going to find sourcing on what the technical meaning of a wide-ranging loosely used epitaph is. It's often used to include all private transfers including gifts and grandma inheriting grandpa's shotgun when he dies. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This certainly is the issue with the term. Does the reader/listener assume all sales or just some sales at gun shows are covered? Do they realize many laws that close the loophole will affect transfers outside of gun shows? As with many things in politics the objective it to create a palatable or unpalatable impression of something that is either very complex or where constituents might otherwise not support a law if they understood the full effect. This of course makes it hard for us to cite a particular article that defines the GSL because, in context, it is often what ever the specific law is trying to do. Springee (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to clarify in the lead paragraph...

• is the absence of federal law mandating background checks in the United States for private sales of firearms by parties without a federal firearms license (FFL), including those done at gun shows. Under U.S. federal gun law, any person may sell a firearm to a federally unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have cause to believe that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, and as long as the seller is not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. In addition to federal requirements, laws regarding background checks on firearm sales between private citizens without the use of a FFL vary by state.

Isn't that how the laws are described? If the laws themselves are confusing, I'm not sure how we would simplify it. DN (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ISATERMFOR: The suggestion seems to be to violate WP:ISATERMFOR. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article should be about a topic, not about a term. It should be about an actual or alleged loophole, not the term for it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere in wp:not a dictionary, sometimes an article is about a term and need to be approached as such. The example I gave Gay agenda is another example. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a topic and the term commonly used to describe it. WP:WORDISSUBJECT and examples like Gay agenda provide guidance on how to approach some of this article’s content it’s not 1:1. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's an epitaph term used to refer to many different things. North8000 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Which sources say GSL refers to "many things"? DN (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is about an alleged or actual loophole (i.e. a characteristic of a legislation framework that can be exploited in undesirable ways), not just the term used for describing the alleged loophole. The article should describe the terminology issues, but the terminology is not the subject. The gap in legislation can be described as the ability for people to use gun shows as an opportunity for buying and selling guns without conducting background checks and without obtaining federal firearms licenses (and without asking for identification, completing any forms, or keeping any sales records). The article doesn't need to be about the term. It may be true that the term was chosen in order to create a certain impression that might not be entirely accurate, but the article is about the alleged gap in legislation, not primarily about the term used to describe it. It is not uncommon for terms to be chosen for non-neutral reasons – e.g., "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "Global War on Terrorism" or "Pro-life movement" or "Pro-choice movement" or "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs", but that happens all the time. There might be multiple ways that the alleged loophole can be closed or narrowed – e.g., one of them could be to entirely eliminate the private sale exemption and another one could be to establish special rules about what is allowed to happen at a gun show (e.g., any event where multiple vendors exhibit firearms and offer them for sale). The meaning of "gun show loophole" may not always be exactly the same as "private sale exception". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a lot of what the RM discussions above were about. When this article was started it seemed to be about the term since it was spun out of the Gun Show article. I think many editors, myself include, feel that if the article is about private sales and how they may provide a way for people to bypass background checks then we should use a different name. Conversely if we use this name, a name that is disputed by many and often referred to in a way that suggests it's not accurate (the "so called" GSL) then a key topic of this article should be the term itself. This aligns with the long term (almost 10 years) stable version of this article. Springee (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I see it similarly to BarrelProof. The article is about the gun show loophole, which is largely synonymous with the private sale exemption, but there are some distinct features of its usage. The article not about private gun sales or non-commercial intra-state transfers generally, it is about the law and politics surrounding the issue. Because the term itself is the subject to much discussion, the article also covers it as a term to some extent. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

More accurately, there are some important similarities and differences in how we understand the issue. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"largely synonymous with the private sale exemption"? Numerous sources, both new and existing ones in the article, show no indication that the terms in question are even remotely similar. There is not a single WP:RS that uses these two terms interchangeably. Throughout all the discussions here regarding neutrality and the various related discussions, I have consistently disproven this notion.

This article is about the "private sale exemption," which refers to gun sales conducted by private individuals. There is no justification for claiming that these titles are identical in any way. As I mentioned before, saying

The gun show loophole, also called the private sale exemption,

is akin to saying

the cats, also called the dogs.

They are simply not the same. The gun show loophole is merely a subset of what the private sale exemption can cover.

What is happening with this page right now is akin to talking about citrus fruits while naming the article lemons simply because that is hypothetically the most common citrus fruit, when the appropriate title should be citrus fruits. Fenharrow (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. You have asserted this but have not "shown" this to be true. Multiple editors have refuted this, repeatedly, and I don't think it's productive to rehash this particular argument. Absurd hypotheticals about cats and mangoes are unhelpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I also did not claim they are identical. I said they are largely synonymous… but there are some distinct features of how each term is used. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. To make it clear, I'm responding to your "largely synonymous" claim and the current lead. Apologies. Fenharrow (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have "shown" it to be true. I have cited an ATF booklet and a DOJ link wherein they use terms as "private sales", "private party sales of firearms" among other alternatives to refer to what this article incorrectly calls GSL.

1.https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/facilitating-private-sales-federal-firearms-licensee-guide

2. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/selling-your-firearm-safely-guide-private-sellers ("private firearm transactions")

It's your prerogative to say what you wish about my analogies, but they very clearly depict the erroneous relation this article draws between GSL and private sales. Fenharrow (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And I, and others, have shown that GSL is commonly used to refer to private sale exemptions and efforts to close them. This has been affirmed by two RMs and numerous prior discussions in the archive. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Please humour me @Myceteae, you think my cats and mangoes analogies are "unhelpful" but haven't commented on what your thoughts are on my citrus fruit and lemon analogy.

Is it acceptable to name an article about citrus fruits, "lemons"?

Even IF people (as per) WP:COMMONNAME refer to ALL Citrus fruits as lemons (much like what the current lead says about GSL) shouldn't the correct course of action be redirecting them to an article titled citrus fruits even if they search for "lemons"? And perhaps conveying facts about lemons UNDER "citrus fruits"?

GSl may be a widely known term but it does not refer to private party sales or PSE. At least not according to any WP:RS

Fenharrow (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fenharrow These hypotheticals are not helpful because they are not true and do not apply. Reliable sources do not call all citrus fruits lemons. The content and title of each article is informed by factors particular to each topic. Of course we apply WP policies and we often look to how similar conflicts were resolved at other articles for guidance. But when we weigh the particulars in a given article, the set of policies or guidelines or considerations that wins out might be different from one article to the next even if the conflict initially appears similar. For example, there are detailed guidelines for naming articles about plants. That might resolve your lemon/citrus hypothetical but it doesn't help us with GSL.

P.S. In the interest of good humor, lime (fruit) might have been a better example for you to use since there is actual discrepancy in how it's used. 😉 --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Heh thanks! Lime perhaps. RS-es don't call GSl private sale exemption either.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, just because GSL is widely known, it doesn't mean that it should refer to private sales. Fenharrow (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point. How should this be reflected in the article? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources do use GSL to refer to the private sales exemption. Many examples have been provided in these discussions and more are cited in the article. I agree that usage and meaning are at times inconsistent, unclear, and even misleading. The article should explain and reflect that. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myceteae none of us would be having this discussion or the prev ones if they did. Fenharrow (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is prone to their own interpretations. The main thing that we all should agree on is policy. DN (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

While saying that sourcing is needed for a talk page discussion / points is not valid and sealioning, the article itself has (unsourced) claims about the definition of of the term. I italicized "the" (i.e. singular) because it's a claim that it has a particular definition vs. the reality which is that it is an epithet with widely varying uses. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What specific wording changes might you make to the article to reflect that reality? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Government studies and positions" section of the article lists about 15 proposed ways of addressing the "gun show loophole" (GSL). The vast majority of those do not eliminate the private sale exemption (PSE), so the GSL is obviously not always considered the same thing as the PSE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We should pare this down to being an article about the term and word it as such. The varying targets of the term should be covered in articles about those those items and probably already are. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about a loophole, not just about the term used to describe it. I have edited the lead section to clarify the relationship between the GSL and the PSE, which are not the same thing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You are taking the approach of saying that GSL actually refers to gun shows. And your disagreement with me is based on that. I respect that more precise approach regarding the term and wish that everyone was like you. The term is often used in a misleading way to refer to other rights unrelated to gun shows. But maybe your approach is also a good alternative to mine, although I still recommend mine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Actual usage is broader. Writing the article to say GSL is only used literally to refer to sales at gun shows is inaccurate. I would support elements of North’s approach, incorporating more explicit discussion of the term as a term. Perhaps “Provenance” could be turned into a “Definition” section or something along those lines. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree that the GSL term should be discussed in the article as a term as well. As a term, it clearly does refer to gun shows, although it is a term that can be used vaguely and can be used as an excuse for more widely reaching legislative changes. And all these issues should be discussed in the article, and probably in the lead section. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources do speak to this. The nomenclature comes from a period of time when gun shows were in the spotlight (after Ruby Ridge and Waco etc...) The Brady law, which is where BGCs started, were focused on background checks for all commercial sales including those at gun shows. DN (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• The Cancel culture article provides another interesting example. We might consider adapting elements of its approach here. The CC lead provides a definition, discusses CC as a term, and summarizes prominent opinions about the term and the topic. The article body provides more detail about opinions on both the term and the concept. It discusses "call-out culture" can be synonymous but isn't always interchangeable. The CC article is far from perfect and the issues there aren't identical to the issues here; I'm not suggesting it as an ideal template. I read it last night after someone asked me to define "cancel culture" and was quickly reminded of GSL and our discussions here.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  The GSL article seems to already do much of the same. The changes that have been proposed and made to the lead will likely not pass the next GA review. DN (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion process

See [14] [15]

Removing citation tags and reinserting disputed context that ignores MOS guidelines, without discussion, is not constructive. DN (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD. B is the first part. You did R. Now we D. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There was major consensus that this term is not a clearly defined and understood term, even if the RM determined to keep the title the same (or at least not move it for now), the term is a controversial political term, and should be defined as such right in the opening lead. That much is absolutely clear as day. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, @BarrelProof seems to have been the most uninvolved editor to have stepped up to the plate and actually made substantive and helpful edits, though I do not think that he or she went nearly far enough. The current lead is abhorrent, pure propaganda, and needs to be changed majorly. Though I do not need to be the one to implement the changes if that would be preferred I am ok with just partaking in the discussion for right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop removing tags. It doesn't help the discussion. I have brought up the new concerns below. DN (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, just a minute, what tag did I remove? I changed wording, but I do not think that I removed a tag, or I did not intend to at least. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

See inline tags [16] DN (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

BRD requires that you engage in the discussion, not reintroduce hotly debated phrasing in the midst of an active discussion. Do you have other suggestions besides "controversial political term… for alleged…"? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

All due respect for good faith edits here, but we now have new concerns with the lead...Let's just start with the ones I had originally tagged, then we can move on to the rest of the newly added changes.

• "The gun show loophole is an alleged gap"

The simply replaced previously disputed MOS:CONTROVERSIAL with MOS:ALLEGED. This was already added the second paragraph in the proper WP:ATTRIBUTE context, but now that has been replaced with new language to some degree, as well.

• "The gun show loophole is a consequence of the private sale exemption"

Is there a citation for "GSL is a 'consequence' of private sale exemption"? Most sources seem to state it is "AKA", or that GSL is also referred to as PSE, rather than "a consequence of".

• "Such a change, although sometimes described as a way to "close the gun show loophole", would affect sales in a more broad context, not just those at gun shows."

This seems to ignore MOS:OFCOURSE. It also mentions laws to close GSL affecting "gun sales". In addition to needing a citation, why is the affect on gun sales DUE, let alone in the LEAD in WIKIVOICE? Cheers. DN (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Broadly speaking, I see threefour basic approaches that have been discussed:

1. Use a label like "controversial" or "so-called" or "political" before "gun show loophole." This rubs up against various guidelines, as DN has pointed out. There may be situations where these are justified but these deserve careful consideration. A prior version of this article, that achieved GA status, described GSL as "a political term." Currently there is no consensus on whether or not to use such a label, much less which one.
2. Use "refers to" or "is a term for" (or similar) without the controversial/political/etc. label as something of a hedge. This runs into other guidelines, including WP:REFERS and WP:ISATERMFOR, but if as with #1, if there is broad consensus we might determine that such usage is warranted here. This "refers to" type formulation introduces the controversy, if subtly.
3. Simply state that the GSL is more or less synonymous with private sales exemption. This is what was in place before the recent flurry of discussions. There is vocal opposition to this framing. It has been the subject of two RMs and an NPOVN discussion and the uninvolved editors who have weighed in have not found that this framing was inaccurate or violated any WP policies and guidelines. Several editors support this approach and have vocally supported it.
4. Approach the article solely as being about the term GSL, not the topic. Gay agenda has been proposed as a model. This may have the advantage of avoiding the controversies with 1–3. However, it would require a complete rewrite of the article, a process that would likely also be contentious. Suggestions have been made to create separate articles for private gun sales in the United States and/or private sale exemption. This has raised concerns about WP:POVFORKing and redundancy. Some editors have suggested incorporating aspects of the "GSL as a term" approach into 1–3 without reframing the entire article.

Whatever we do, the article title and opening sentence can't do all the work. There has also been much discussion about, and numerous edits to, the rest of the lead and article body. We have to approach this holistically. The lead should reflect the body of the article. Decisions about the opening sentence of course impact what comes next.

How do we move forward?--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

edited to add #4 --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with "political term", but obviously I'm not the one objecting to using that. I agree that so far the focus has been on changes solely to the lead, which doesn't reconcile well with the WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY approach, which was essential to the original GA review. DN (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I hoped when I started this we could have a productive discussion about the lead, making some key adjustments that reflect the article body. Maybe we should just end the discussion. I do think a "Origin and definition" section might be useful. Similar to "Provenance" but with a different approach. I'm sure that will be hotly debated here, but perhaps it's a better place to start, and then rework the lead after that. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I would even consider "The GSL is a political term for the private sale exemption", as it is still neutral and somewhat accurate, but sourcing could be an issue. DN (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sourcing is tough without violating WP:SYNTH. It's accurate to call it a political term, although I'm not sure there is ample sourcing confirming this label, and it's accurate to define it as (largely) the private sale exemption, while acknowledging this usage is disputed and not entirely consistent. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The GSL term might often (or even most of the time) be used synonymously with the private sale exemption, but the terms do not always mean the same thing to everyone. "Private sale exemption" has a single well-defined meaning, but GSL does not. Some suggested changes of law to address the "GSL" are specific to organized gun show sales and do not remove the private sale exemption that would continue to apply in other contexts. And the article is primarily about a real exception that exists in the law, not just about the meaning of a term and its etymology, so the opening sentence should not say the topic is a term. To me, the current opening sentence seems good. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is an important fourth approach that has been discussed. I've updated my summary. As I've said previously, I can see a benefit to adding more of a discussion about GSL as a topic and as a term, but I don't support a full rewrite to only discuss this as a term. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the issues seem to be with the lead and not the body, perhaps an RfC for version A versus version B?

Seems like a shorter less arduous path to a resolution than changing things in the body that were not at issue to begin with. Then the new GA review can point out any remaining concerns. DN (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Which versions do you see as A and B? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "gun show loophole" refers to a purported gap in the law regarding firearm sales. It is not an independent concept with a definition like a traditional word; rather, it is a specific term. Articles that discuss similar concepts, such as "cancel culture," describe it as a cultural phenomenon, while the term "gay agenda" or "homosexual agenda" is labeled as pejorative. The existence of a loophole is not a universally accepted fact; it is heavily debated and controversial. As I mentioned earlier, the disagreement over this issue tends to fall along partisan lines. Neutral sources within the U.S. government do not refer to these exemptions as "loopholes"; instead, they describe them as "private sales." Therefore it is important that the lead reflects the controversy and adds a descriptor which is not foreign to Wikipedia. Ideally, the article title should be "private sales of firearms" or "private sale exemption", especially since some editors even think they are largely synonymous, and WP:COMMONNAME does allow for less controversial counterparts to take the place of a title. Fenharrow (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For starters, "purported" is problematic MOS:WEASEL language... DN (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That was not a suggestion I was making. Fenharrow (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Secondly, the lead does not say "the existence of a loophole is a universally accepted fact"...As far as I can tell it never did...In fact, it quite clearly and neutrally lays out the dispute between gun control and gun rights advocates. Thirdly, even Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA, acknowledged the GSL decades ago. See below...

• On May 27, 1999 Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, saying: "We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." LaPierre has since said that he is opposed to universal background checks.

"Neutral sources within the U.S. government do not refer to these exemptions as "loopholes"; instead, they describe them as "private sales."

"Neutral source within the US government"? There are so many government reports, documents, legislative bills, etc...etc...Even every US president from Clinton to Trump has acknowledged the "loophole".

"Ideally, the article title should be "private sales of firearms" or "private sale exemption", especially since some editors even think they are largely synonymous"

It is also a WP:DEADHORSE. Please stop bringing it up.

References

Cheers DN (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

One version that abides MOS guidelines and follows the body, versus the version that does not. Going around in circles like this just doesn't seem to be productive. DN (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Covering something under that heading/subject is a statement in the voice of Wikipedia that it is what that heading is. That is the current structural / NPOV violation problem is. The best solution is to make the entire article about the TERM worded accordingly. IMHO this is a better way to solve it than renaming the article. Again, the Gay agenda article gives a good example on how to do this. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

George W. Bush "supported expanding background checks at gun shows" (emphasis added), and his spokesman said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." Bush appears to have accepted the term "gun show loophole" as a description of the lack of background checks for sales at gun shows. His proposed action was tailored to the context of gun shows – he was not supporting the establishment of universal background checks for all sales that happen in all contexts – only those at gun shows. He did not conflate the gun show loophole with the private sale exemption. Although "loophole" is a non-neutral term, it is not unusual for the word "loophole" to be used to describe a phenomenon created by an exception in a law or a phrasing of law that does not cover a particular set of circumstances that someone thinks should be covered. Multiple clearly reliable sources describe the "loophole" as a fact and use the term gun show loophole to describe it. The existence of a phenomenon of a significant number of purchases and sales happening at gun shows without background checks is a fact, not a term. If I want to buy a gun and do not want to buy it from an FFL-licensed dealer, I would probably go to a gun show to buy it. I wouldn't just buy it over the internet, since at a gun show I would be able to talk to the seller and pick up the guns and consider which gun I want to buy. I would not go to the home of a stranger to make the purchase, because I would not feel safe doing that and the selection I would find at the home would be more limited than what I would encounter at a gun show. So I would go to a gun show. Apparently, a significant number of people do that. The fact that I can find a market that is open to the public where I can buy a gun without passing the type of background check that I would need to pass if I bought it at an ordinary gun store is a fact that can be reasonably described as a loophole associated with that market that is called a gun show. There are several independent reliable sources that are cited in the article that describe this fact as a real phenomenon and accept the term "gun show loophole" to describe it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree with this analysis on its face. This doesn't refute the fact that gun show loophole also often used to describe the private sale exemption, and efforts to close it, more broadly. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

And I agree with that second sentence. In fact, I can see why some people on both sides of the gun control debate might sometimes want to conflate the two concepts to suit their agendas. When someone (like George W. Bush, apparently) wants to narrowly curtail a phenomenon of large-volume sales at gun shows by people who claim to be hobbyists but might really just be profit-making dealers who are trying to claim they are exempt from rules, a gun rights advocate might resist by accusing the proposer of trying to take away the private sale exemption that allows ordinary people who own a few guns to sell them to each other without involving a federal bureaucracy. Alternatively, when someone actually wants to make a broad change in the law that reaches far beyond the context of gun shows, they might misleadingly characterize what they are doing as just "plugging the gun show loophole". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To paraphrase sources used in the GSL article, the "loophole" is essentially an exploit. It is not a "loophole" when a non-prohibited person buys a firearm without a background check. The "loophole" only seems to apply when a "prohibited" person that cannot pass a background check, buys from a private seller as a means to elude the BGC process. If you want I can grab the specific citations that I think apply later, but rn I am busy IRL. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment. I believe it could be argued that it is a loophole whenever someone whose purchase would be checked and recorded if they had bought a gun at regular retail store is able to make an unchecked and untracked purchase because they did it at a multi-vendor market called a show, although it is definitely a much more important issue if the purchaser is a "prohibited person". Even when the purchasers are not "prohibited persons", the "loophole" makes gun purchasing more convenient than it would otherwise be and thus make guns more prevalent in society than they might otherwise be (which is considered a problem by some people), and also encourages the prevalence of gun shows and the use of gun shows rather than the more organized ordinary retail store environment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose my comment is more or less from the sources referring to a legislative perspective. In terms of how the government attempts to regulate purchases by prohibited persons, while at the same time, trying not to encroach on 2nd amendment rights. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Both sides have used the term to further their own agenda at times. Ironically, many of the sources people have shared to argue that the GSL doesn't exist or is a misnomer have actually demonstrated its widespread usage. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Lots of good posts/ points here. These reinforce my point that GSL is a term with variable meanings/uses, not an otherwise distinct topic that is named by the term. The only thing in common with all of widely varying things covered by the above is they are usages of the term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Somehow any time anyone makes this EXACT statement is ALWAYS ignored. Not refuted, ignored. Fenharrow (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Only by two editors: @Myceteae and @Darknipples. No one else ignores it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We have not ignored these statements. I can't speak for DN, but I chose not to respond because I feel this has been thoroughly addressed. As I have said repeatedly, gun show loophole is a term that is typically used to describe the private sale exemption and in discussion of efforts to close or modify the exemption. I have acknowledged that its usage is, at times, unclear or inconsistent or used for political gains. I have made multiple suggestions for how to address issues surrounding the use of GSL as a term while continuing to address it as a topic, consistent with reliable sources. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

These (most recent by Fenharrow and Iljhgtn) statements are not about improving the article. There is a definite lack of WP:AGF here. DN (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, BarrelProof Here is some clarifications on the edits prior to the current version (Is there a reason this was referring to the 1993 law instead of the 1938 law?)... The Brady law introduced the background check mandate and National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The FFA on it's own did not require background checks until the Brady law. So I'm a bit unclear as to why this was changed. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Perhaps the way it was written wasn't clear enough to understand, but FFL dealers were required to perform backgound checks under Brady, not the FFA (FFA currently appears out of place and UNDUE). Cheers. DN (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC) DN (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

From the way that sentence was phrased before my edit, I saw no reason for the mention of the 1993 Brady Bill in the opening sentence. It talked about an FFL being required for commercial sales, and my understanding is that this requirement was established under the 1938 law, not the 1993 law, so I corrected it (and flagged the issue with an embedded comment that said "Is there a reason this was referring to the 1993 law instead of the 1938 law?"). I don't see anything undue about saying an FFL has been required for commercial firearms sales since 1938; that seems like a useful statement of historical context. I think it would also be fine to say the background check requirement and private sale exemption were introduced by the Brady Bill, but that was not the evident meaning of the sentence in the version of the article before my edit (and would probably be difficult to squeeze into the opening sentence with adequate clarity). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The FFL is fairly relative with regard to background checks, but the FFA, which is still in the first sentence, seems to have less to do with background checks and GSL than the 1993 Brady law. I think the FFA is missing from the body, but may be worthy of mention in the history section. Currently, it seems out of place per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. How should we say the FFA is relative to background checks per the sources? Come to think of it, which sources in the article mention the FFA's relevance to GSL? This is why I am concerned with the FFA being UNDUE in the lead sentence. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A mention of the 1938 FFA was added to the History section in the article body about six hours ago (by me). In my view, the FFA is highly relevant background information because it established the notion of an FFL and the requirement for commercial sellers to obtain an FFL. I thus think it is useful context for understanding what an FFL is. This seems necessary for understanding the GSL as being an exception from the requirement for transactions to involve an FFL seller. (Were private non-FFL sales allowed between 1938 and 1993?) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

My issue is not with the FFA being added to the history section, it still doesn't explain why it belongs in the lead sentence over the Brady law, which is specifically about how the background check mandate is applied. The amount of sources and context speaking to the relation between Brady and GSL seem to give it more WEIGHT. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to take it out of that sentence. Like I said, I only put it there because I didn't understand what the sentence was trying to say about the Brady Bill. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's try to create a version we both agree on. For now, I just wanted to establish what the concerns are and where to go from here. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For me it would be OK to just remove everything after the comma in the first sentence (although I think I would personally prefer to keep it). The Brady Bill relationship is already explained in the fourth sentence. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi BarrelProof,

I do appreciate your improvements to the article, and while the info you are adding is very informative, I'm concerned edits such as this may be considered a bit unnecessary or unrelated to GSL, and will likely end up getting trimmed as UNDUE during the upcoming GA review.

Perhaps we can focus on the things that are specifically related to GSL via citations that make at least some type of explicit connection? I'm only trying to save you any time I can that may be better spent on other things. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

When is this "...upcoming GA review"? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It depends. Maybe after the next RfC. DN (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding that edit, my concern is that a reader would read the article's qualification about "as long as the sale ... does not fall under purview of the National Firearms Act", without having any idea what the National Firearms Act is about, and therefore no way to know whether a sale might fall under its purview or not. Such a reader cannot possibly interpret the sentence. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

From a certain standpoint, we should inform the reader on details and aspects specifically related to the GSL and try to leave out unnecessary details. I don't have any major objections to it, like I said, I think it is factual and informative. I'm just trying to save you some time. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What you are running into is that the wide ranging and variable uses of the term cover everything regarding the sale, transfers and interitances of firearms in the United states. And which inherently incorporate by reference the National Firearms Act (and thousands of other laws) as you have run into. All the more reason to reduce this article to being one about the term instead of trying the summarize the zillion things that it has been used to refer to. And cover those zillion things in their own articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a "Good Article", given the large amount of sources on the subject, and the limited amount of sources on the term. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As I described, unless we make it article about the term there is no "THE subject", because it has been used to refer to hundreds of different subjects. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's still unclear how GSL refers to anything other than "the absence of laws for background checks on private firearms sales"...Which sources explicitly say GSL refers to "everything regarding the sale" etc...? DN (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's like you tried to write the 19th amendment loophole article and tried to describe when women have the right to vote (i.e. describing all of the rules that it is subject to such as residency, imprisonment, convicted felons age, registration etc) i.e. trying summarize thousands of voting laws. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the GA review speaks for itself. It's fine if you don't agree with it, but it also isn't very helpful to ignore it. DN (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The previous GA review included the lead stating that GSL is a political term. I think N8000's concerns are legitimate. I've been torn on renaming the article to something that is a more general term about the article's content or if we should go in the other direction, make the article more about GSL as a term. I think we can balance the two under the current title but it needs to be clear in the opening that GSL is a vague (deliberately vague) term and often the proposed solutions to the GSL would cover far more than just private party sales that occur at gun shows. If we are going to focus on the gun show aspect then more information on gun show specific sales should be included. Springee (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a reason to LABEL it as "vague" since there are no sources that make that claim. As I asked N8000 earlier, Which sources explicitly say GSL refers to "everything regarding the sale" etc...?

Cheers. DN (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"The private seller exemption is often referred to as the “gun-show loophole,” which is an overly vague term that fails to capture the complexity of the law." [[17]] Springee (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about labeling it as vague in the article. I was talking about a wikipedia discussion that there is no distinct topic for an article unless it is article about the TERM. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that source and direct quote @Springee. This clearly shows the issues with the so-called "Gun show loophole" term, that though seemingly determined to be WP:COMMONNAME, is still a deeply contested and ill-defined TERM which should also be referred to (as @North8000 has said already) as a term, in the lead. Who wants to take the lead (pun intended) on boldly re-writing the lead to match these revelations and apparent consensus? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the current first two sentences in that regard? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think things seem to be progressing well, so, thanks to BarrelProof for trying to help address these concerns.

• "The term gun show loophole is used in political contexts without a single well-accepted definition, and is sometimes conflated with the private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law, which allows non-commercial gun sales by private parties without a background check."

We should try to avoid the use of WEASEL terms such as "sometimes" or "often" etc... in the lead it will save us the headache of trying to reconfigure it later.

In your edit summary you said "GSL is often not synonymous with PSE. Many of the enacted and proposed legislative efforts (e.g. as proposed by George W. Bush) have addressed the GSL without removing the PSE" Wording in legislation is relevant but I don't see where any of it mentions "conflating" GSL with PSE.

"Sometimes conflated with" likely requires an attributed citation since "conflated" implies that it is not properly differentiated in spite of citations that have said these terms are interchangeable.

• "Private firearm transfers that do not require background checks are colloquially called private sale exemptions or gun show loophole transfers." May 2024 CRS report

So there's a possible WP:SYNTH concern there. Overall it's going well though.

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that you made improvements but it still needs evolution. This is awkward but more accurate, IMO something like" "Gun Show Loophole is a term which ostensibly refers to absence of certain restrictions for firearm transfers at gun shows but is often used to encompass the absence of certain restrictions on other types of private firearm sales and transfers." North8000 (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Although the term is often used in a biased way, the term refers to a real phenomenon of exemption and ambiguity in regulations and a real phenomenon of people taking advantage of that legal framework. The article is not just about the term and what it means, and WP:ISATERMFOR says the opening sentence should not define the topic as merely a term when the topic is not just the term itself. As currently phrased, the first sentence is a very brief description of the phenomenon, and the second sentence explicitly acknowledges the political use and varying interpretation of the term. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A part of WP:ISATERMFOR implicitly says that this guidance is for topics that are a distinct topic rather than a term and acknowledges that some articles are about a term. While I am concerned about the neutrality issues, my larger structural concern is that unless we acknowledge that it is an article about a term, there is no distinct topic. To give you one example of the zillions of targets, when Illinois did require background checks (via the foid system) the GSL term was used to refer to situations where the background check was required but the transfer did not require an FFL. So the topic is about an "absence", but an absence of what? And do we make the article to cover every possibility of what it is an absence of? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again North8000 makes a great point there. The article should be about the term first and foremost, and should cover that in the lead. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What about changing the lead from, "The gun show loophole is the political term referring to the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain sales of firearms in the United States."

to

"The gun show loophole is a disparaging political term referring to the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain sales of firearms in the United States."

alternatively,

"The gun show loophole is a pejorative political term referring to the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain sales of firearms in the United States." Iljhgtn (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. DN (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

FOPA question

The article says "Specifically, FOPA made it legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an FFL holder, no background check or Form 4473 is required by federal law." Can someone please explain what these sentences mean? I am afraid I do not understand this at all. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You can simply follow the link. "A Firearms Transaction Record, or ATF Form 4473, is a seven-page form prescribed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) required to be completed when a person proposes to purchase a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder, such as a gun dealer."...Private sales do not require these, depending on the state. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In other words, dealers can make private sales in addition to commercial sales. DN (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's probably worth investigating under what circumstances a dealer can engage in a private, "off the record" gun sale. I suspect the ATF is going to be very strict about things that even appear to be mixing of private and professional inventories and would likely err on the side of assuming any such sales are a dealer attempting to illegally circumvent the law. Springee (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but it raises a new concern in the lead. In relation to GSL, this actually makes the current mention of FFL dealers in the lead sentence somewhat questionable. Since FFL sellers are allowed to also make private sales, it may be misleading to say "GSL specifically refers to sales by non-FFLs". Rather, "engaged in a business (transaction)" would seem more accurate. Cheers. DN (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What sources do we have for this concern? Springee (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe there's more than just this one in the article but it's the first one I found. Just search for clarification on private sales by FFLs after FOPA.."Under certain circumstances, a licensed dealer is exempt from the requirements to complete an ATF Form 4473 and to initiate a background check under the Brady law when selling a firearm from his or her personal firearms collection. Transfers of personal firearms are exempt from these requirements provided:..." (p. 7) atf.gov/firearms/docs/newsletter

Cheers. DN (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The allowance for an FFL to sell a person firearm shouldn't be anywhere in the lead. It would be like an article about car dealerships noting that owners can still sell their own cars as private party transactions or that people who work for pharma companies can still give Aspirin to a neighbor. Springee (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is that FFL holders are also private citizens. I believe some clarification in the body already exists, but it may need to be improved. We don't necessarily have to make that specific reference in the lead and BP has already removed that bit, which seems like an improvement for now. The comparison to private car sales and pharmacists handing out aspirin are not comparable, unless, you are implying there is a "pharmacist loophole" and a "car dealer loophole" with notable sources on the topic going back 30 years. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, FOPA basically redefined gun laws and made gun shows "legal". It's a bit of an oversimplification and I could be missing some details, but as I understand it, before FOPA most commercial gun sales had to take place at a specific brick and mortar address that corresponded to the FFL license. Some sources credit FOPA as "codifying the GSL". DN (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag

Per this edit summary, if there are no further objections or need for increased visibility on NPOV issues, I will remove the tag sometime around the start of next week. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm confused. Your post seems to suggest that there is consensus on the lead sentence saying, "The gun show loophole is a political term referring to..." and that therefore the NPOV tag can be removed from the article, but then a short time later you removed the wording about it being a political term, here. So, which is it? In any event, in light of the ongoing discussion, and the marked lack of consensus so far, I would very much say that the neutrality of the article continues to be disputed, and the tag should remain. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the edit summary I linked... DN (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your linked edit summary, it was never met with consensus at all that the Use–mention distinction applied here and that therefore "political term" could be removed. The "cheese" example when you click that link also does not seem to carry over to this GSL term at all. So there would not appear to be any red herring, the example just doesn't apply. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Extremely "disputed" as Mudwater has stated, "the neutrality of the article continues to be disputed, and the tag should remain. This will not likely be resolved any time soon either as the majority of editors continue to have their edits reverted by a single editor (or two at most). I have labeled that activity in the past, but that seems to hurt feelings, which is not my intention.

If we could insert "controversial political term" in the lead (or some very similar variant that makes it clear that it is a term of propaganda and not a term of neutral value describing a phenomenon impartially), then I would be willing to say that the NPOV tag could be removed.

Until that time, any such removal would be blatantly disregarding the countless reliable sources that color the term in various language such as "so-called" etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't typically override policy and guidelines. Since NPOVN didn't make it clear then it's time for an RfC to see if "controversial political term" is needed. DN (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fenharrow, I noticed you removed the cn tag in the lead by citing this article from The Trace (website). Now, I'm not sure if this source in the lead is a good idea since it is primarily a gun control organization, so it will likely see some objections. The main issue, is that I read through it in it's entirety, but did not see where it says something to the effect of "without a single well-accepted definition"...There are different terms used for GSL, such as "private sale loophole", but the majority of sources, including this one, refers to... the absence of laws mandating background checks for private sales of firearms in the United States. In the meantime I'm adding a verification tag. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Legislation section

I noticed there are 6 5 citations in the second to last sentence of this section "The Department of Justice issued a final rule in April 2024 that established a clarified definition of when a person is "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms, and is thus required to obtain a federal firearms license."...I don't have a preference, but if anyone cares to pick out the best three of those for that context and try to WP:PRESERVE the others somewhere else it would be very helpful. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of overkill. I think I was who put those there. I added them because they seemed relevant and worth reading more carefully for further information. I didn't feel able to immediately take the time to read them thoroughly to see if there was more they said that was worth including and to pick just the best ones. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Pre-RfC discussion for inserting controversial into the lead sentence

We can figure out the details here. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I propose...

Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Or

Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that, as an alternative to either of those, we reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice. So, the article would start something like this: In the United States, federal law requires that, for commercial sales of firearms – sales conducted by someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns – the seller conduct a background check of the buyer. For firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require a background check, although the laws of some states and localities do require one. The absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption.... As currently, the article would be about the legal situation, not the term, but would include discussion about the term. ... Advocates for gun rights often object to the term "gun show loophole", because... — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I find that @Mudwater's suggestion is both accurate and articulated in a neutral manner. However, I believe that DN's "Version A" offers considerable merit and could serve as a viable alternative. Fenharrow (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This is good. I need to give it some thought before giving it my full endorsement. This does a much better job accomplishing what I have imagined than the versions I came up with. I strongly favor an approach that reorganizes the entire lead section. The opening sentence (and article title) are important but they can't do all the work. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

Mudwater's suggestion isn't why this discussion was started. This month and a half long debate began with trying to insert "controversial" into the lead sentence with no exceptions or compromises, including adding it in the second paragraph in the lead and using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Mudwater's changes seem to introduce a whole new host of possible WP:MOS issues.

The RfC needs to be simple and deal with one proposal at a time, otherwise the RfC will be too confusing and become a waste of time. See WP:RFCBRIEF

After a month and a half (for some of us) of going back and forth on this one request, including via NPOVN and 2 RMs, I think we need we need a break and some uninvolved opinions.

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this. I understand the desire to resolve the controversial question and need to frame the RfC simply and reign in the scope of the discussion. Our continued focus on "prime real estate" like the opening sentence and article title hasn't resolved big picture disputes about the rest of the article. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't meant to resolve any other debate other than the one stated. Why would we purposefully conflate this with any other issues? What purpose does that serve? DN (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I Support a lead rework along the lines of the comment by @Mudwater. I think he hits the nail on the head by addressing the problem thusly, "we reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice..." Others, including (apologies if I missed anyone): @Springee, @Fenharrow and @Myceteae have also all added helpful perspective. @Darknipples I think we should be in the home stretch now. Thank you for your patience, I think we can probably put this discussion to rest soon if we implement something as close to @Mudwater's comment as possible, separately, I Support Version A if procedurally we need to address only one point at a time. I know you (DN) are a stickler for procedure, and I respect you for it, despite any apparent difference of opinion we may have on interpreting the consensus or reliable sources thus far. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Secondary RS of high quality have discussed the subject, so the wording can simply reflect the best available secondary sources' wording about the subject. A few citations with refquotes could be included at the end of the first sentence to settle the argument, as per WP:LEADCITE: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations." Llll5032 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This suggestion is reasonable, however there are 30 years worth of secondary sources to sort through. DN (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

References

I don't think that is a good binary. I don't agree with using "controversial" to describe what is clearly a political term. In general I think calling it a political term is neutral as it factually describes how the term is used etc. "Controversial" is harder as it could mean the term is controversial or the laws it implies are controversial etc. However, option B treats the term as a literal thing and ignores the issues with literal vs understood meanings. To be clear I think many people who are not OK with mandatory background checks would be completely fine with a law that all sales at a gun show must include a background check. Over the years much of the debate and objections from the firearms community has been related to laws that do more than just close the "GSL". I think Mudwater's suggestion is a good direction and would support using it. Springee (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to amending to...

Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Version C: The gun show loophole is a political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Cheers DN (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding Mudwater's suggestion as an option. Springee (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not following WP:RFCBEFORE...They can start their own RfC for their requested changes and go through the same processes that were required for us to get to this point. DN (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Their suggestions are not why we are at this point. DN (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss and add their suggestion before opening a RfC without it. Given the support thus far it would be a bad RfC if that option was excluded. Springee (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Their suggestion requires a new discussion over different MOS issues that are separate from the debate regarding inserting MOS:CONTROVERSIAL into the lead sentence that has been over a month and a half long process.

If their suggestion was simply for an alternative lead sentence, that would be reasonable, but they are suggesting changing the whole paragraph, which is not a reasonable request at this point.

It certainly does not seem to meet the standards for WP:RFCBRIEF.

An RfC is not a means to "Trojan Horse" in multiple changes that haven't gone through any dispute resolution process, or even been thoroughly discussed here yet.

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss it now. Given the support it has, any RfC that excludes it would be, by default, a bad RfC unless we agree before hand it should be excluded. Currently it looks like the best option to me. I know you felt there would be issues with it, what are the potential issues? Springee (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

DN, you have mentioned the "month and a half" that this discussion has taken a couple of times now. I would just like to remind you of WP:THEREISNORUSH when it comes to resolving and establishing clear consensus, especially around controversial subject matter like GSL. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Read There is no deadline#View three: Don't postpone dispute resolution

... DN (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Poll

This is only a pre RFC discussion. No official WP:RFC link is in place. This may simply serve as a poll to gauge current local consensus on inserting "controversial" and or "political term" into the lead sentence. DN (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Version A: The gun show loophole is a controversial political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Version B: The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Version C: The gun show loophole is a political term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Version D: The gun show loophole is a controversial term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Option E: Reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice.

• Strong oppose Version A. The double label (controversial political term) is of little value to readers and no clear basis has been established to include controversial in the opening sentence, against the guidance at MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. We have had similar issues with alleged.[18][19] Adding buzzwords to the opening sentence does not resolve overarching questions about how best to define gun show loophole and address issues surrounding its usage. Moderate support labeling it a political term (without controversial) as a modification of Version A. While not an ideal solution, this is less weasely than controversial and aligns with a previously stable version that achieved GA status. Moderate support Version B. This is a straightforward statement with no buzzy labels. Neither version I support resolves the issues of defining gun show loophole and describing its usage but they don't introduce new problems in the way that controversial does. Prefer rewording entire lead but in the interest of moving forward, I shall constrain my comments to the RfC at hand. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For simplicity and per updated versions: Strong support E. Moderate support C & B.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The addition of Version E may be a WP:TPO violation. This poll was simply intended to resolve the "controversial" dispute which Iljhgtn started. They have now inserted an off-topic choice into an otherwise focused dispute resolution process. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Version B or C. DN (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Version A or D. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have since added Version D (removing the combination of controversial & political) DN (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Given the suggestion from Mudwater I think any RfC is going to be an issue since it implies the only acceptable opening sentences are those in this pole. Springee (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  You have already made your opinion clear, no need to keep repeating yourself. DN (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it would be helpful if you explained why you oppose it. Otherwise I suggest it is added as an alternative. Springee (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have already done so (see above)....Editors are welcome to discuss Mudwater's suggestion elsewhere. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Are you talking about your 22:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC) or 23:35, 16 November 2024 edit or someplace else? Perhaps I missed it but I don't see a clear problem with Mudwater's suggestion. Springee (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support version B: It is the only version that discusses the situation as a situation, rather than as a term. It also does that plainly, adding no editorializing. I think that a second or later sentence can handle the discussion of the term adequately without it being the focus of the first sentence. I also don't think it's necessary or desirable to add controversial. I don't think calling it controversial really accomplishes anything. I also haven't noticed many reliable sources calling it a controversial term, although I haven't looked very hard for that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• A loophole can be defined as a means of circumventing established regulations. It is a tool for exercise within a given system. It should not merely be interpreted as a notion, as suggested by version B.

In light of this,

• I strongly oppose version B due to its lack of clarity.
• I offer strong support for versions A and D, as they present a more precise understanding of the concept.
• I find version C to be inadequate, as it insufficiently articulates the notion, leading me to oppose it as well. Fenharrow (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Alternatively:

  Strong support for working on @Mudwater's suggestion as well. I do not see why it should be excluded. Fenharrow (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the definition comment, Collins defines a loophole as "an ambiguity, omission, etc, as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility" ([20]). This topic fits that characterization. Regarding the concept of a means, the gap in the firearms law is something that can certainly be used as a means to avoid a background check requirement. Penguin Random House has "a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc", providing the example "There are a number of loopholes in the tax laws whereby corporations can save money." This topic is about that. Someone may not like characterizing the gun show market as an opportunity to take advantage of a loophole whereby buyers can find sellers while avoiding background check requirements, but the term is arguably applicable. The ambiguity aspect mentioned by Collins can also apply, as there has been ambiguity in terms of who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms (which has been the focus of recent federal action to narrow the definition). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Version E – Reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice, as I suggested here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Strongest of Strong support for Version E. Though Versions A or D are both reasonable. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No specific "version E" has been provided as a candidate for consideration, other than one from Mudwater that seems to fail MOS:LEADSENTENCE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the "version E" we're talking about. And if it's strict adherence to MOS:LEADSENTENCE that's desired, here's an alternate version: In the United States, the absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption. Federal law requires that, for commercial sales of firearms – sales conducted by someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns – the seller conduct a background check of the buyer. For firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require a background check, although the laws of some states and localities do require one.... — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not bad, although it ignores the more narrow definition of gun show loophole. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no "narrow definition of gun show loophole", that is why we have such a problem as we have. If there was, there would be no issue and every conversation over the past 1-2 months would have been entirely unnecessary. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So, why do you still disagree that private gun sales/transfers that do not require a background check constitute the narrow definition of GSL? DN (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The narrow definition of gun show loophole is the one given by the DoJ as "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks". A definition narrower than the entire "private sale exemption" has clearly been used by those who have proposed legislative changes that would be specific to gun shows or who have focused their attention specifically on gun shows rather than all "private sales", such as George W. Bush. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This phrasing... "is sometimes referred"...in the lead sentence, brings in a new MOS:WHATPLACE issue, as well as bringing back the old WP:REFERS issue, which was previously identified and removed while at NPOVN. This is on top of the original dispute over MOS:CONTROVERSIAL which this discussion was supposed to be about, and has since been lost in the soup over the new "Option E" that was inserted into my poll without permission.

Editors are welcome to discuss "Option E", but per WP:RFCBEFORE it will need to go through the discussion/resolution process before it goes into an RfC, let alone this one.

In order for us to move forward, this RfC should cover all of the following issues, as they relate to previous discussions/disputes here and at NPOVN over the WP:LEAD.

• WP:REFERS
• MOS:LABEL
• MOS:WEASEL
• MOS:ALLEGED

DN (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this RfC shouldn't go forward without something like option E. Springee (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Explain why that doesn't completely ignore everything I just said. DN (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing option E. I'm not sure E has all the issues you have outlined nor that any issues it does have can't be addressed. Your comment, "discussion/resolution process before it goes into an RfC, let alone this one." suggests you would launch a RfC without including something like E. I think that would result in a bad RfC. Springee (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:RFCBEFORE is also bad. Option E introduces new MOS issues, and ignores resolving current disputes that have been going on for almost two months. DN (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Option E was inappropriately inserted into the poll I created and it now seems to be interfering with the ongoing dispute resolution process involving the list of issues I stated above. While it may be relative to the subject of the LEAD, it should be treated as a separate topic that has nothing to do with resolving these existing issues. DN (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any reason to have a narrow RfC given that a number of editors see E as a good was to side step the issues with the other options. This gets to a general issue with RfCs. A hypothetical RfC gives options A and B. Editors might not like either but they pick and the RfC is closed deciding on one of the 2. If a better options comes up shortly after the RfC is closed then ideally we would ignore the RfC closing and consider the new option since, in fact, the RfC only decided between A and B, it never excluded other options. However, this can get mucked up if an editor takes the A/B choice as a clear consensus the winner (A) now has a consensus over any other option. In this case we have 4 similar choices in that they all follow a similar structure but we are changing out labels within the sentences. Option E is an alternative structure. Sometimes we have to have a long discussion about changes that are similar to the starting point before someone steps in and points out we don't have to use that starting point. That is what we have here. That said, another concern, one that has been raised and one that this RfC wouldn't decide (and might even imply an answer that isn't reflective of group consensus) is what this topic really should be. Is it the term? Is it the way the current laws are structured? Is it about the laws that have been proposed to close the GSL (and typically extend beyond gun shows)? If we can't decide that why worry about this RfC? Springee (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems much simpler than all of that. Simply put, the pre-existing disputes seem to be over whether the LEAD of this article should ignore WP:REFERS or WP:MOS. DN (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest a new poll format asking this question, perhaps with a few examples "such as 'so-called', 'controversial', and 'sometimes referred to'..." DN (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus in support of "Option E" is frankly pretty apparent, regardless of "how it was inserted", isn't just forming consensus what matters? Also "Version D" looks like it has the second strongest "consensus" in the interim of a full fledged "Option E". I think we may be getting to a point of WP:WIKILAWYERING and are losing sight of actually taking the emerging or clear consensus and now implementing it in the lead. The "rules" of Wikipedia are designed to serve the encyclopedia and not the other way around. We are not here to serve the rules. After all, it is core policy that WP:IAR is to be respected "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.", perhaps in instances such as this, though frankly I have never invoked it before. Regardless, we cannot continue to get bogged down by persistent minority views over nothing but procedure if it is keeping an article in a state of poor quality and a complete misread of the reliable sources (by speaking of GSL as a genuine phenomenon and not as it really is, a derogatory term or pejorative term meant by gun control advocates to entice a "closing" of a presumed or supposed "loophole"). Iljhgtn (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't normally over-ride policy (or guidelines like MOS), which is why an RfC is being prepared.

" I think we may be getting to a point of WP:WIKILAWYERING and are losing sight of actually taking the emerging or clear consensus and now implementing it in the lead."

• "The word wikilawyering typically has negative connotations, sometimes mild, sometimes more severe. Those utilizing the term should take care that they are not violating behavioral guidelines such as WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Most important is to use it to discuss specific actions and not editors."

Either (take) it to WP:ANI or don't, either way, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS here on the article talk page. DN (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Narrow definition" as defined by one source is completely meaningless @BarrelProof and absolutely not enough to define how this deeply controversial term is written about in the lead. It has no such "narrow definition" no matter how many times you repeat the claim, that does not make it true. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you implying or accusing us of WP:OR as well?...There are countless sources going back decades that describe the subject as being an absence of regulation requiring background checks on private firearms sales. DN (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Most often with qualifiers. Never in such clear language as to make it a "narrow definition". That is a stretch to put it mildly. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Most often" is a debateable as well, and doesn't adhere to MOS guidelines anyway. DN (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• A, C, D and E are all fine. B has many big problems....strongly oppose B. Of the OK ones, Best is A, followed by C, the D then E. Reasoning:Most important is that it is covered as a term. "B" fails this miserably and "E" is weak on that. I'm also more concerned about including the informative adjective "political" than the characterization one "controversial" although "controversial" is also informative. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Version D or E. A is not good according to WP:LEADCRUFT and it uses too much redundant language, neither are B or C good options. D or E. 170.170.200.175 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: A lot of people who have commented in this section seem to be treating this as mere voting – expressing support or opposition to some choice or choices without saying why, or without saying anything clear about why. That doesn't seem to be aligned with the way Wikipedia's supposed to work. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The current lead "The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States. The term gun show loophole, in some cases, refers to "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks" does not impart any useful information. Certain private sales? a (random) situation? Version D seems to achieved adequate support amongst the participating editors. "Controversial" at this juncture will serve as an exception that will not refer to the GSL notion in Wikivoice, as aptly suggested by one of the other editors. Fenharrow (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As a rough idea, if you subtract opposes from supports, I think it comes out: A:1 B:0 C:1 D:5 E:4. Maybe we should draft something along the lines of D / E. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a sound suggestion @North8000. We can always continue to revise as needed, but we need to make progress from here. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sticking with the structure of options A-D for a moment, what about just calling it "a term". Later it can be described as political, controversial etc but initially we make it clear that this is a term rather than a thing in fact. That makes it easier to explain why some object to the term or feel it's used in a misleading way to justify/persuade in favor of laws that impact far more than just gun shows. Springee (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. Fenharrow (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree. That is the point I've been most emphasizing. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• The article isn't about a term; it's about the way background check laws don't cover private sales. There are several names for this exception, the most common of which is "gun show loophole". Oppose all "term" first sentences, though objections to the term should certainly be in the lead. I still like something like "The gun show loophole is a legal exception in the United States that allows the private sale of firearms without requiring a background check for the buyer." The problem with The gun show loophole is the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States. is that it leaves out the context -- that background checks are required for other kinds of sales. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is probably apparent from my prior remark of 11 days ago, but I am opposed to a "term" first sentence as well, since the topic is a real gap of coverage and a real clarity issue in the law, not just a term used to describe it and the evolution of the terminology. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Other than it as a term, there is no distinct topic because of the widely varying uses of the term. One use is the emblematic one...private-to-private transfers at gun shows that don't have the same requirements as retail sale transfers. But it's widely variable uses include inclusion of all private transfers, gifts, sales, inheritances etc.. And it is certainly not the common name for those. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not "widely varying". It's about private sales, and the far-and-away most frequently cited example is a gun show for how it accomplishes exactly the same thing as a "public" sale, but doesn't require a background check. Our readers are capable of understanding that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority of those are not gun shows. So you are saying that "gun show loophole" is largely not about gun shows. And that most readers will know that what's mostly covered in the "Gun Show Loophole" article is nothing about gun shows? North8000 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Point is, I find the "it's so complicated -- gun shows being the most commonly cited example, but regarding a legal situation that's broader than gun shows -- that it's just impossible for us to explain it to readers under this name" to be without merit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"The gun show loophole is a legal exception in the United States that allows the private sale of firearms without requiring a background check for the buyer."

I think "legal exception" is accurate and acceptable, especially if "absence of laws" seems to ambiguous to everyone...

Originally, I think the lead paragraph made it much clearer that background checks are required for other kinds of sales ie "commercial FFL". While some states require a BGC on private sales, other states also allow FFLs to sell their private collections without a background check.

IMO, we were closer to a GA status article before things like WP:MOS, WP:REFERS, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:LEAD started getting tossed out the window.

Cheers. DN (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"legal exception" and "absence of laws" seem nearly synonymous to me, so in the interest of moving the discussion even marginally forward I went ahead and inserted "legal exception" over "absence of laws"...

There remain other issues with the lead related to how this term is used and applied, but it is slowly improving. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The new second sentence is currently...

• "In some cases, it refers to "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks", while in others it refers more generally to the broader private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law, which allows non-commercial gun sales by private parties without a background check (regardless of whether these sales are at gun shows or not)"

...which seems like a run-on sentence to me. It also introduces more MOS issues, and is focused primarily on quoting sources from one particular WaPo citation instead of summarizing the body.

Prior to that, it was changed to...

• "The term gun show loophole is used in political contexts without a single well-accepted definition[failed verification] and is also described as the private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law, which allows non-commercial gun sales by private parties without a background check."

Which introduced... "without a single well-accepted definition"... without any explicit citations for WP:V, raising WP:OR concerns.

Before that, the second sentence read...

• "Along with federal requirements for firearms purchases, there are also state laws regulating the purchase of firearms. The term gun show loophole is often used to refer to legal measures that do not apply exclusively to gun shows and is sometimes used synonymously with the private sale exemption in U.S. federal gun law."

This seems to more succinctly describe the subject and summarize the body, though it also could use some tweaks to meet MOS guidelines.

It seems certain context is missing at the start, explaining that the Gun show loophole arose from legislation to increase firearms sales restrictions at gun shows. AFAICT, only later on did it become synonymous with secondary market / private sales, that do not require background checks.

This is somewhat covered at the end of the lead paragraph instead of at the beginning.

• "The background check system and the private sale exemption were established by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly known as the Brady Bill. Under the Brady Bill anyone not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is not required to obtain a background check on buyers seeking to purchase firearms from a seller's private collection. Along with federal laws for firearms purchases, there are also local and state laws regulating background check requirements for the purchase of firearms."

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)