The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.Cúchullain t/c 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Equalizer[edit]

The Great Equalizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The NewsMax reference forming the foundation of this article, and the phrase _The Great Equalizer_, appears to fail the attribution test of WP:ATT, and fails the reliable sources test of WP:RS, and appears to be in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP, being based upon a personal blog of Miguel A. Faria. I suggest that this article be deleted. The citation of the Joel Miller commentary also fails a WP:NOT#SOAP test and the WP:ATT test. Additionally, the term _The Great Equalizer_ is severely ambiguated. SaltyBoatr 00:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google web search finds The Great Equalizer used to describe a very broad range of topics, including: cancer, home ownership, the atom bomb, education, a Rick Borsten fiction novel, a Television series, computing power, the Internet, the search engine, assistive technology for disable people, mathematics, marriage, shopbots, In-stent restenosis, Romantic Love, automation and more. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google book search returns plenty of references, the top nineteen refer to a different usage than 'firearms', with the twentieth being the first containing the 'firearm' reference. Per WP:ATT, I argue, a Wikipedia article about how firearms are The Great Equalizer fails a credible attribution test. Similar for a Google scholar search, and I argue that for an article in Wikipedia to state that _The Great Equaliser_ means firearms, that such an association should be confirmed through a check of scholarly work, and it is not confirmed. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence of this article failing the WP:NOT#SOAP test is this entry on the talk page, which frames this AfD as 'doing the bidding the the gun prohibitionists'. I argue that this article plays a part in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox in the gun politics debate. SaltyBoatr 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Dman727; Please clarify, do you mean: 'Seems to be sourced.', Or: Is sourced, per WP:ATT? SaltyBoatr 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not to sure what you mean. The article is sourced with sources. It could use more and the article is not in great shape. I did just notice that the article is only a couple days old, so I would suggest giving this more time to develop into a better written article. Nonethless the phrase has been around for awhile. Dman727 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean, what I am asking, is whether the sources meet WP:ATT. The sources appear to me to not meet WP:V and to be based on blogs, which WP:ATT disallows. I agree the phrase has been around for a while and is used with at least twenty different meanings, with the disease cancer being the first, and guns being the twentieth. Check Google books, or Google scholar to confirm this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't see how this phrase merits an article with twenty meanings, it just isn't scholarly. What it really is, is a soapbox in the gun politics debate, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SaltyBoatr 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wiki is not a soapbox and that one of the reason why the article should be cleaned up. But its clearly a noteable term and is sourced. Dman727 14:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A notable term with twenty+ definitions, I argue the term should be defined in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary SaltyBoatr 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term, "The Great Equalizer" seems to be a textbook colloquialism. It can mean various things because it has no defined meaning. As a matter of fact, the meaning that this article attempts to give it would make it a misnomer, because giving a weak person a firearm to defend himself or herself from a stronger but unarmed attacker doesn't "equalise" anything. Regardless, this article asserts that the term specifically pertains to firearms, and its only source to back this claim up shows the term being used just like a colloquialism is typically used; it doesn't demonstrate the term being defined for any purpose outside of that article. Its very foundation, then, is unsourced. If a source can't be found that actually defines this phrase as referring specifically to a weapon in the context that the article defines it, then the article should not exist as it does now. If such a source can not be found, then the only way this article could remain relatively unchanged is by acknowledging that the term's article-designated definition applies only to that author's article, and any others that it sources using that way. MVMosin 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find references to the phrase being used for anything other than firearms 100 years ago? As far as I can tell, the very first use of this term is regarding the colt revolver. This makes that the original definition, even if cherry-picking wikibooks as a justification for deletion produces the excuse that it's definition number twenty. Note that "the great equalizer" has 283,000 hits on Google itself. This, alone, would be sufficient to prove it's worth an entry, as it's a unique enough phrase, not something that just spontaneously occurs in random speech. Note, too, that adding the word "handgun" after the phrase produces over 30,000 results, "firearms" over 40,000. But, again, it's most important that this phrase, which nobody denies is in significant use, has the 19th century colt revolver as its only even claimed origin, as well as firearms as a very common modern usage, perhaps the most common.
As noted, though, the article is also brand-new. I still suspect a connection between the anti-gun stance of the editor suggesting it, and the prematurity and censorship-orientation of the suggestion. Especially since even the rationale used -- that there are other usages beside that of firearms -- would more strongly suggest adding to the article, not deleting it entirely.
A broad perusal of wikipedia shows that people are far more likely to delete information based on relatively mild criteria like "it wasn't positioned correctly in the article" or "it wasn't properly cited" when their edits just happen to show a reason to suspect bias against that kind of info. If it's embarassing to Clinton, but true, it's more likely to be deleted by a Liberal...if it's embarassing to Bush, more likely to be deleted by a neocon, when in both cases most other editors would have fixed it, instead.
Oh, and why doesn't the Johns Hopkins article referring to the 19th century Colt as having that title "count" as a reference?--Kaz 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked: Can anyone find references to the phrase being used for anything other than firearms 100 years ago? Yes, there are many, and none of which involve firearms, see this one from 1905, where the phrase means 'education'. And from 1905, meaning 'blood'. From 1871 meaning 'atmosphere'. From 1854 meaning 'education'. From 1886 meaning 'public school'. By the way, a search of public domain books (generally the older books) finds zero results if one includes 'firearms' in the search phrase, ditto for 'gun', 'colt', and 'revolver'. SaltyBoatr 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your references use those three words in the middle of longer phrases. "The great equalizer of the human condition" and "the great equalizer of the conditions of men", for example. These phrases in context imply either that the author is simply communicating, rather referring to a known phrase, and the three words are a coincidence, or that the subsequent "of the X" is him expanding the known phrase to fit new circumstances. If you say "a grand master", you mean chess. If you want to use it to mean anything else, you say "a grand master of X", like those authors did. And note that none of them predate the invention of the Colt revolver in 1836. In fact, the earliest one is a full generation later, after the phrase "The Great Equalizer" would have been well-established, making the modification of the phrase to fit educational rhetoric quite natural. --Kaz 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears based on original research. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the 'Johns Hopkins' article you cite? Your link which you provided is subscription only. The abstract of the article includes this sentence "The revolver thus earned itself the moniker "the Peacemaker," or more aptly "the Great Equalizer." , which 'aptly' suggests that the phrase was coined by the author in 2004, not 100 years ago when the phrase used was "the Peacemaker". Perhaps this encyclopedia article should be renamed 'the Peacemaker'? SaltyBoatr 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you could claim that "aptly", by which the author means that of the two famous phrases, the latter fits better, could mean it was coined in 2004, which surely everyone on here of any reasonable age would remember firsthand to have been used many years before. The Colt revolver was invented, as I said, in the 1830s, and it's this gun to which he refers. --Kaz 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your response to mean that you have not actually read the Johns Hopkins article upon which you base your argument. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked with the reference section at my local library, and found that the article being cited by Kaz is not actually properly cited as The Great Equalizer and not really about the Colt Revolver. The correct citation should be: The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed.(Book Review). Kerry M. Kartchner. SAIS Review 24.1 (Wntr-Spring 2004): p169-172. Further evidence that 'The Great Equalizer' is a massively ambiguated term, in this case, a 2004 book about Nuclear Weapons, and not notable as a distinct article. SaltyBoatr 19:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn't make any sense...that people have said this or that levelled the differences between men has no bearing on whether the actual, precise phrase "The Great Equalizer" originates with the Colt Revolver, much less whether it's wiki-worthy, which it would be regardless of its origins. Prove that people commonly used the exact phrase The Great Equalizer to refer to death in the 17th century, and you only give us more reason to expand the article.--Kaz 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that user Kaz holds a vested position and fails to disclose that he/she is the primary author of this article[1]. SaltyBoatr 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you're assuming your own bias is the kind shared by everyone else. I am making specific, detailed arguments, which are of the same value even if I were Elvis Presley reincarnate. While you have a specific agenda of censorship here, because you don't like the way "The Great Equalizer" points out a specific attribute of the handgun, my own arguments are simply for the keeping of information in wikipedia, regardless of its effect. You will find that in my debates all through my 4000+ edits. Information that has any relevance should be included and retained, regardless of what position it supports or denies.
Good editors fix problems with information, rather than just censoring it wholesale. Your bizarre premise of "this is a very widely used phrase, therefore should be deleted" is a prime example of not behaving that way. A perusal of your edits shows you're anti-gun, and that is your likely agenda here. If The Great Equalizer accidentally supported your position, instead of accidentally supporting a position you oppose, you'd be defending it, not trying to censor it. --Kaz 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your ad hominem attack on me does nothing to defend your argument. SaltyBoatr 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MVMosin said it well: The term, "The Great Equalizer" seems to be a textbook colloquialism. It can mean various things because it has no defined meaning.[2] I have researched this term, The Great Equalizer, and found more than twenty different definitions of the term. The dozens of definitions of this term belongs in Wictionary, not Wikepedia. Of the three citations provided by Kaz, two fail WP:ATT because they lack credibility being based on fringe blogs, and the third is only incidentally related to firearms, being primarily a book review about the problem of nuclear proliferation not 'firearms'. SaltyBoatr 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More