Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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)