User talk:Felsic2/Gun use

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Now that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use has concluded as "userfy back to User:Felsic2/Gun use" (courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos), this discussion seems moot. Additionally, taking WP:USERESSAY into account, it seems that this page is best left at the title which the author chose. Anyone is free to unilaterally overturn my close and reopen this discussion within one month of the closure date if they disagree. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gun use → Wikipedia:Mention gun violence incidents in firearm articles – This essay is not about how gun use in general should be discussed in Wikipedia articles. It is very specifically about whether incidents of gun violence, particularly criminal violence, should be mentioned in articles about particular types of guns, advocating in favor of such mention. The title should reflect that. As with many essays, the proposed title is in the imperative to indicate the position for which the essay advocates. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 05:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can only assume the author of this "essay" seeks to demonize firearms so as mention of violence shall not be avoided. This is the same thing Kecoffman is at ARBCOM at, making sure we can't talk about WWII flanking attacks or encirclements without reiterating that all Germans are Nazis and therefore evil. Whoever wrote this partisan tripe seeks to ensure we can't talk about firing pins or magazine springs without reiterating that all guns are evil. I'm sad that politics influences these articles. I'd prefer to delete this "essay" and upbraid the author. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and WP:USERFY instead - Perpetually divisive and will never develop further than an essay. Even at its best, it would not be appropriate for the Project namespace as it is too specific, gives advice which could breech core policies and general guidelines for what we include in articles. Such a discussion must be made on a per-article basis, judging the weight of sources. We would never have an essay about handling of other specific sensitive topics - imagine a Wikipedia:Mentioning race in crime articles. Alternatively, turn this over to WP:WikiProject Firearms. I'll ping them. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note for the record that I am not the author of this essay, and do not fully support its views. That said, a previous attempt to delete it, and then to userfy it after restoration was unsuccessful. Netoholic says that this will never develop further than an essay. Why should it? Why would anyone want it to? An essay attempts to persuade people to do things in a particular way. It is not an embryo guideline, or should not be. It also need not have wide support. There is nothing wrong in a Wikipedia editor posting an opinion on how we should or should not edit articles. I do not see how this essay advises us to breech core policies and general guidelines. There is nothing in core policies forbidding the mention of verifiable violent incidents in articles about gun types. Nor is there anything requiring such mentions. It is purely a matter of editorial judgement, and the author of this essay hoped to influence that judgement. That hope may well be vain. But the author can still make what case s/he can for it. Disagreeing with an essay is not a valid reason to delete it. It is a valid reason to write a counter essay giving the count-arguments. If these are as persuasive as you believe, then the original essay will have no significant effect. An essay has no force unless it persuades people. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with an essay is a reason to userfy it. The WP namespace lends credibility to a minority opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and userfy - The original deletion discussion already concluded it should be userfied and the editors went out of their way to specifically mention this instead of putting it in main space. Renaming it is unnecessary as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, if not, rename.Delete, Userfy, rename in order of preference. My thoughts are largely above in the previous discussions. Delete would be my first choice but userfy or a "truth in advertising name" would be second and third. Springee (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial Support. I semi-agree with User:Chris troutman's partisan tripe comment. I don't think it's tripe, but it's certainly partisan. And that's OK. It's an essay. It's allowed to be partisan, and not subject to WP:NPOV. I encourage those who disagree with it to write a rebuttal essay, which I assume will also be partisan. And given the high caliber of people who work on this project, I also assume it will not be tripe. And, now that I've re-litigated the DRV, let's talk about the name. The current name sucks, because it doesn't give anybody a clue what the essay is about. I'm not sure I like the proposed name, because it doesn't quite reflect what the essay is saying. Maybe Include notable crimes on gun articles (from the first section head) would be a better alternative? I disagree with User:DESiegel's moving it out of userspace into project space. The DRV was closed with a consensus to restore it to user space. Unilaterally overriding that consensus was somewhere between WP:BOLD and WP:POINTy. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC

• RoySmith I must disagree with your contention that The DRV was closed with a consensus to restore it to user space. Exactly five editors in the DRV mentioned its final location. Of those, exactly ONE felt that in should be in userspace and nowhere else. One said that it should wind up in project space, and that s/he would have moved it there had the sock not done so. The other three (including you, and including myself) said or implied that it might properly end up in either location. All 5 comments are quoted above in full, on this page. I cannot construe them as a consensus that the essay was to be put, and to remain, in userspace only. Nor was my move to project space unilateral. It had the support of several other editors, as can be seen above on this page, and in my view was supported by policy as well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial Support - I would prefer "Include notable crimes in gun articles" or something similar. Userification might be the best option at this point. Remember, the function of the deletion review was to put the essay back where it was before the improper speedy deletion, not to decide where it should go. Regardless of the outcome we do need to make sure that all necessary redirects are in place, as the various related discussions contain links to multiple page names/locations. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Felsic2, the author of this mess, seems intent on saying that the criminal use of guns should be mentioned in articles, as there's no other logical reason for anyone to either write or read an article about a weapon. That said, a fitting title might be Demonize gun use, Articles about guns should mention crimes, or Guns beget violence. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no other logical reason for anyone to either write or read an article about a weapon ... Demonize gun use ... Guns beget violence None of these things are even hinted at in this essay. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That's exactly what it says. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate title, or perhaps delete the parts of the essay that insist on discussing how guns are used in crimes despite all the arguments against. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could suggest an alternate title Please see my !vote above. –dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'm not sure how I overlooked that. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTSOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda.." This essay is in breach of that policy, and advocates adding further breaches of the policy to articles in guns.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE...I 100% agree with Toddy1. Well said, Sir. --RAF910 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the above stated, it sets a bad precedent. -72bikers (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I must point out, this is a page move discussion, not a deletion discussion, nor has proper notice been given of a deletion discussion, and a previous attempted deletion was undone. Deleting an essay because one disagrees with it would be a much worse precedent, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment DES is correct, this isn't a deletion discussion. I certainly don't like this essay (see above) but I want to make sure the previous deletion and restoration history is kept in perspective. The essay was deleted because a sock editor moved it from user space to WP space. To deal with the sock an admin simply deleted the essay. The The previous deletion discussion was restore based on improper procedure. It was then sent to the user space and unconfirmed users were locked out. I believe the conclusion of that discussion was that we were basically back at square one. The previous deletion discussion neither biased for or against promotion to WP space. Essentially once another editor took the essay under their wing, the previous discussions were meaningless (at least that's how I read it). Thus, even though I think the essay is crap, I can't claim the previous discussion says we need to keep it in user space. We just have to hash it out as if it were a new essay. Springee (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the proposed title is more accurate and descriptive of the content. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Moral support but "gun violence incidents in firearm articles" is somewhat wordy. How about Wikipedia:Gun crime or Wikipedia:Mention gun crime in firearm articles? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am certainly open to alternate suggestions, but Wikipedia:Gun crime is really just as vague as Wikipedia:Gun use. This is a very specific, narrowly focused essay, and in my view needs a quite specific title. Wikipedia:Mention gun crime in firearm articles might do. There could then be a shortcut, such as WP:MGC for quick typing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of English, my approach to grammar is largely, I know what sounds right. I never studied formal grammar until I (nominally) learned Spanish, and (sort of) learned how to convey subtleties of meaning via the various conjugations. With that disclaimer, I'll dive with wild abandon into a grammatical analysis of how this should be named.

The essay is stating an opinion, and trying to persuade people to do things a certain way. Opinions are conveyed with subjunctive mood. Commands are conveyed with imperative mood. I'm not 100% sure which applies here. Is the essay expressing the author's opinion (I think gun articles should talk about crimes), or is it expressing a desire that other people also do it that way (You should talk about crimes in gun articles), or commanding them to do so (Talk about crimes in gun articles)? I don't know the answer, but it seems like we need to answer that before we can intelligently discuss a title.

Another issue is that titles need to be reasonably short. All of the suggestions I've seen fail on this score. Of the three examples in the previous paragraph, the last is certainly the shortest. And, I think the use of the imperative also matches the intent of the author. But, we can tighten it up a bit (Mention crimes in gun articles). That's short enough that it's easy to remember, and, I think, adequately describes the content. It's also got the nice property that it's easy to invert, so when somebody writes the rebuttal, the title will be obvious: Don't mention crimes in gun articles.

I'd love to have input from people with a better grasp of formal grammar. But, please, let's try to talk about the grammar, and not about whether you agree with the essay or not. The job of a title is to let the reader judge whether the content will be of interest to them. If the content of the essay makes you angry, having the title make you angry means the title has done it's job well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia essay title4s are rarely in the subjunctive, in my experience. They are not infrequently in the indicative, such as Process is Important and not uncommonly in the imperative, such as Wikipedia:Be neutral in form, Wikipedia:Deny recognition, Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!, Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, (and many others starting with "Don't") Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions, Wikipedia:Keep it concise, and Wikipedia:Use modern language among others. My intent was to propose a title in the imperative, in the tradition of these, which is why my proposed title starts with a verb. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.