Gun show loophole has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2015 Peer review Reviewed February 26, 2015 Peer review Reviewed October 24, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American / Gun politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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,^[1][2][3][4] and as long as the seller is not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms.^[5] In addition to federal requirements, laws regarding background checks on firearm sales between private citizens without the use of a FFL vary by state.^[6]

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.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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.^{[1][2]: 118}

References

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [1]

...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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

See [2] [3]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See inline tags [4] DN (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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.^{[1][2]: 118}

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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." [[5]] Springee (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1][2][3] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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.[6][7] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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" ([8]). 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

At this juncture, it appears that the page is ready for revisions. We have engaged in extensive discussions regarding the necessary modifications to the lead section, and there has been a consensus towards version D thus far. Since option E remains somewhat amorphous at this point, I believe it is prudent to address the issues concerning the tags. I am open to implementing changes to the lead once, or if, version E becomes more clearly articulated. Fenharrow (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article about a term. There isn't even very much discussion of the term in the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some RS describe the loophole as controversial, but they don't commonly seem to describe the term as controversial. Llll5032 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentA good test on whether it is a term or a topic is ask the question: If the term did not exist, is it still a distinct topic. Which requires answering the question: What exactly is that distinct topic? North8000 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  North8000, the word "controversial" was not in the stable language but was added today. It does not appear to be supported by talk page consensus, sources, or policy. Will you consider your reversion, per those considerations and WP:ROWN? Llll5032 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't realize that. I think that it's "sky is blue" that it's controversial, but from a process side the basis I gave with my revert is not correct. IMO we should still put "controversial" in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, North8000. I can support some revisions if they are clearly cited to high quality RS. Llll5032 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can drop "controversial" since, between editors, it's controversial :D. If we just say it's a "term" then we can show vs tell the controversy part (is it a loophole vs how the law is meant to work etc, is the term used as a way to sugar coat laws that might not get support if their full scope is understood etc). That said, the article was spun out of the gun show article and for about a decade the lead said it was about the various things the term is used to describe. Springee (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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."

This "Version" had the largest consensus support behind it, with "Option E" being the second most widely supported, though there was some contention around my later insertion of that "Option" into the Poll.

Now leaving off "controversial term" from the lead would require yet another new poll to determine that we should now reverse course from the just established consensus and now not include "controversial" in the lead after all @North8000 said, "I think that it's "sky is blue" that it's controversial", but then only appeared to self-revert out of a procedural comment, which I think may have been confused to be honest.. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, by head count, supporters of the first-sentence options with the word "controversial" did not exceed the number of editors who objected to "controversial" in these discussions. So your revert, to add the one word "controversial", does not appear to have followed consensus. Will you consider self-reverting? Llll5032 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenharrow: Option E -- to reword the lead so that we're not calling it the gun show loophole in Wikivoice -- is not spelled out at the beginning of the poll, but it was clearly articulated, though that's buried in the discussion above. Here it is again: 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) 14:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I will work this in instead. Fenharrow (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]