Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Comment From Vilsk

We have a real problem with this wiki article.

The American Hunters and Shooters Association is run by a group of well-known anti-firearms rights advocates purporting themselves to be "gun owners". Stating this is not a "neutrality" issue. It is a matter of the facts, which have been elaborated upon time and time again in the previous wiki article with names, external sources, etc. While we all have opinions on the issue of gun rights, the most opposition I am seeing to the presentation of this factual information about the AHSA is coming from a "Liberal Arts" college student and an anon IP address that just so happens to be located in the beltway (where the AHSA is based).

If one were to start a group called "Americans Against Racial Discontent", headed by two Skinheads and a Ku Klux Klan member, would the wiki article for this group be nothing more than the groups "mission statement", without allowing the factual details regarding its true motives to be added? Of course not.

I am perfectly willing to find a middle ground here regarding the presentation of factual information about the AHSA', unfortunately, the "mission statement" of the AHSA by itself does :not qualify as such. I believe part of the problem here is indeed one of "neutrality", however, it isn't the "neutrality" of the article, but rather the "neutrality" of certain administrators who, by virtue of their own opinions on this issue, are allowing only one side to be presented.

  1. Who is "we", as in "We have a real problem with this article"?
  2. Why not add factual information to THIS article, and see what happens. (No, I'm not a college student, and no, I have absolutely no relationship to the AHSA or anyone involved with it.)
  3. Is there really verifiable information that those who "run" the group don't even OWN guns?
  4. What's the previous wiki article you refer to?
John Broughton 00:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I don't think he was even talking to you, John. I'm pretty sure that the admin "Neutrality"- who has a long standing pattern of deleting anything that is unflattering to Democrats or Democratic causes- was the person in question. Unless, of course, you're him. "We" would probably be anyone who understands the truth about this AHSA group. I am one such person. The AHSA is much like the admin "neutrality". Their name says one thing, their actions and positions say the exact opposite.
  2. The facts are this. The group is run by people who have a long standing history of anti-gun crusading, in spite of their seemingly "pro gun" name. Furthermore, their position mirrors that of The Brady Campaign, the largest anti-gun organization group in the country. This would be like the KKK changing their name to “The Coalition For Racial Harmony”, saying they aren't racist, but rather for "responsible" management of racial issues, then hiring a bunch of black separatists to head the organization. The AHSA is a total and complete swindle, deeply linked to the democratic party who will be using this group for "endorsements" of otherwise anti-gun candidates in upcoming elections.
  3. The entire point is that they support a position that is in favor of limiting gun rights for a huge number of Americans. Owning a firearm doesn't give someone a free pass from being "anti-gun" when their entire efforts are predicated on banning firearms that happen to be different from their own. I don't care of John Rosenthal owns a .22 rifle. The fact that he has made a career trying to take my guns away needs to be told. It is the true story behind this group.
  4. The previous wiki article was deleted by "neutrality".
21:12, 27 June 2006 FactsAndHonesty


  1. No, I'm not Neutrality. Admins can lose their adminship if they set up sock puppet accounts. I'm me. I still don't understand why an article about a GROUP could be so non-NPOV as to justify deleting entirely. I've never seen that done elsewhere on wikipedia (but I've only been around for a year or so).
  2. I'd still welcome FACTUAL additions to the article - documented examples of what you call (entirely non-NPOVish, by the way) "anti-gun crusading" by leaders of the group.
  3. If you're saying that it's okay to say someone is NOT a "gun owner" because "gun owner" means (to you) someone who supports gun rights (as you define them), then I think you're wrong - no one has a right to refine a term to mean what they want. "Gun owner" means "owning a gun". Again, adding FACTS (as opposed to uniquely-defined labels) to the article would be appreciated.
  4. I was hoping to get a URL that would point to the deleted article, to better understand the problem. I suppose I could drop a dime to Neutrality, if all else fails.
John Broughton 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. The point of contention had to do with "Neutrality"
  2. AHSA leader John Rosenthal was the president of the Massachusetts based "Coalition To Stop Handgun Violence", which is about as stridently an anti-gun org as you can think of. The facts are out there. You too can find them, if you dare to look.
  3. I am saying that there are people who might own a firearm as a matter of happenstance but do not support gun rights. There are people who own firearms and do support gun rights. The AHSA represents the "fuddgun mentality" as was earlier referenced.
  4. I don't know how to access that.

FactsAndHonesty

[edit] Deleted text

I removed the following unsourced philosphical musings. I'm putting this on the talk/discussion page so others can evaluate it. John Broughton 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fuddgun Mentality

In the vernacular of firearms rights proponents, there exists a phrase called the “Fuddgun Mentality” (referring to the Cartoon Character Elmer Fudd) which addresses technical ‘gun owners’ who might hunt or shoot sporting clays, but don’t believe in firearms rights beyond that.
Technically speaking, these individuals can legitimately call themselves “gun owners” by virtue of their owning a firearm or supporting a limited scope of firearms use, while still retaining a position in favor of limiting gun rights. “Fudd-Gunners” are usually opposed to firearms use for self defense and often times don’t believe in the recreational use of firearms that exhibit certain cosmetic features. With the Gun Control issue having become a pariah in the realm of Democrat politics due to its impact in certain states during national elections, the strategic focus has shifted from a sweeping concept of firearms bans and regulations, to a more muted version, promoting the “Fuddgun” mentality. Political proponents of the Fuddgun Mentality are afforded a degree of deniability regarding their stance on the gun control issue when confronted with otherwise pro-gun rights crowds.
I removed it again. Until someone explains why this is appropriate to wikipedia, it's staying off. John Broughton 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I put it back. It is appropriate as it elloquently outlines the philosophical precepts of this org. FactsAnHonesty
You don't seem to realize that wikipedia articles are NOT allowed to contain original writing. Everything has to tie back to a verifiability|verifiable source. You may think that the parable is eloquent (even if you can't spell that word correctly), but eloquence isn't a criteria for what goes in or doesn't go in wikipedia. Please follow wikipedia policies. And please use FOUR tildes when posting a comment to a talk page - that will add a date/time stamp as well as your signature. John Broughton 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And I put it back again... Quite to the contrary, John, Wikipedia is almost entirely predicated on "original writing". Your assumption that I wrote that section is incorrect. If you were able to comprehend the rules as they're written, you would have understood that what is forbidden is "original research". And high-horsing over a typographical error is about as petty as you can get. Some things in this world are not quantifiable with numbers or on a spread-sheet. When addressing the philosophical precepts of an organization, a philosophical discussion will ensue. Anyway, back it goes, and back it will continue to go ad-infinitum as it is spot-on. FactsAnHonesty
Have it your way. What is forbidden is orginal research. And here's the definition: Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments .... You did NOT cite a source (reliable or otherwise). Until you do, the presumption is that there IS NO SOURCE, the material is original research, and it should be kept OUT.
Further, note that a source must be a reputable publication.
We can discuss the issue of whether the information is relevant IF you can get past these first two hurdles. For example, I deleted the two links because they have nothing to do with AHSA (they predate the organization by several years). If you want to post them to a article on gun control, or on Democrats, feel free. John Broughton 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

Yesterday I deleted a large blog entry that had been copied verbatim into the article (WITHOUT a link to the blog itself!) because (a) blogs are specifically listed in the wikipedia policy on reliability as generally not acceptable as sources) and (b) the posting was as long as the rest of the article combined (wikipedia isn't the place to duplicate the content of the Web) and (c) copying this much material verbatim is quite possibly a copyright violation.

Since the issue has come appeared in several places, and I don't want to get into arguments that I'm censoring critics of AHSA, I just added a (small) section to the article. It has the gist of the blog entry (with a link to the blog) plus a link to another (more mainstream - part of a magazine) blog that provides some countervailing information, plus two more links I found. Let the reader decide. John Broughton 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're way out of line on this one, John, and there is absolutely, positively no question that you are either on a campaign to suppress extremely relevant information about this fraudulent group, motivated by your own political leanings (as clearly evidenced on your own user page) or simply on a lame "wiki-crusade". It's people like you that are the reason the wiki concept is roundly derided in many legitimate academic circles. Monkeys with Keyboards, as they say... The link you cite in your is is going back, and will continue to go back. Unless you, John Broughton, can cite a reason why you are qualified to delete the opinions of Dr. John Lott, you are without footing in doing so. If we have to bring Wikipedia administrators into this, I’ll be more than happy to. FactsAnHonesty
Apologies for citing the wrong policy: it was wikipedia:Verifiability. Here's the relevant text: ... self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so. And, in this case, I don't believe any reputable news source has done so.
I note that you didn't respond to objections (b) and (c), above. Those are still quite valid, even if you still consider (a) to be irrelevant.
You don't seem to want to give me credit for having IMPROVED on what you posted, by my substituting a much shorter section called "Location" that links to Dr. Lott's blog entry and cites the gist of his argument, while providing a BALANCE by citing evidence to the contrary, all with links for verification.
I would be MOST happy to discuss my and your behavior with others - in mediation or the two less informal processes (Request for Comment or Mediation Cabal) mentioned on that page that are recommended to occur prior to mediation. You pick. I believe I have bent over backwards to be objective: I was the one who added the section on the NRA position on the AHSA, and I haven't argued for deleting Lott's conspiracy theory entirely, as bizarre as I consider it. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly ignored valid objections to your postings, and your appeal to authority ignores the fact that Lott has his [share of critics].John Broughton 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a typical “Wiki” debate, where the individual in the affirmative finds himself on the defensive while the individual in the negative is making an endless stream of charges using completely abstract an mildly bizarre interpretations of Wikipedias rules (which themselves are written like the traffic code, where the cop can always “interpret” a reason to pull you over- the Wikipedia rules are sufficiently open-ended in their verbiage that almost any act of editing can be rationalize)
As your claims and desperate, far-out hypothesis are shot own on individual merit, you simply change the premise, or cite another “rule” that you loosely interprets to apply to the posting in question. The most amusing thing here is that you have twice now, cited completely incorrect rules as being the basis for your crusade, only to later say it was a “mistake” and try again with a new angle.
If you would like me to respond to you’re A, B, an C qui-pro-quo, I’ll be glad to, although my earlier response says everything that needs to be said.
A) Blogs are “generally” not acceptable as sources, but in this case, it clearly meets the criteria for submission, given the nature of the topic and the author of the Blog in question. Does Dr. John Lott have “critics”? Of course, Galileo had “critics”. do the existence of “critics” mean that someone isn’t acceptable as a source for a Wikipedia entry? Of course not.
B) The length of the addition to the main article boy is entirely irrelevant.
C) I would suggest t you research what constitutes a “copyright violation” before making such a spectacularly ignorant an misinformed comment.
Really, John, this dialogue with you is so entirely pointless. You delete and rationalize, without having any cogent, prevailing philosophy to support your actions. Again, I will reiterate. This is precisely the problem with the Wikipedia model. A doctor is forced to engage in long-wined arguments with a Lock Smith on heart surgery. A highly partisan leftist or Right-Winger can rationalize the actions of their respective parties in an endless stream of editing, adding, deleting and rationalizing, which is precisely what you’re doing here. (apologies for any missing letter "d's" in the above post. I spilled Chardonnay on my laptop and lost the use of the letter d on my keyboard. I went back and C&P them in as best I could, but i'm sure I missed a few)FactsAndHonesty
Wikipedia has dispute resoluton procedures. If you'll reread what you said above (If we have to bring Wikipedia administrators into this, I’ll be more than happy to.), you'll see I said I was quite willing to have that happen, and offered you the choice of process (and provided a link). Either put or shut up. Or I'll get someone else involved.
Your responses to B) and C) are essentially "No, you're wrong". That you think that posting a lengthy blog entry that appropriately doubles the length of the article is "irrelevant" is absurd. As for copyright violations, I quote: In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted ... text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. [1] Again, I'd be happy to let the dispute resolution process decide if my reading or your reading of wikipedia policy is correct.
Nor did you respond at all to my final point of my last posting, that the new section I added, "Location", is better than what you posted, because it summaries the argument and provides more links.
Finally, I think you're a new user who has posted to a very small number of articles, virtually all gun-related, and so you're nowhere near being a "heart surgeon" when it comes constructively resolving wikipedia disputes. I've apologized in the past when I've been wrong; I expect to learn from my mistakes and make fewer (or at least different) mistakes in the future: and I like to work with people who feel the same way. I've yet to see any indication of anything other than your being totally smitten by your own words. Would you care to prove me wrong on that? John Broughton 18:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I’ve already suggested once that we involve someone else. You tried to pass the ball. I’ll say it again, since the one thing that’s clear as a bell here is that your reading comprehension skills are bargain basement. PLEASE, SEEK OUT AN UNBIAS 3Rd PARTY. You've been asked once already.
My responses to B and are indeed “no, you’re wrong” because you are. There needn’t be much further dialogue about it. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy regarding the length of additions. Your only support for your claim that such detailed is by stomping your feet and calling them “absurd”. Furthermore, regarding what constitutes a copyright violation, I’ll reiterate. Go seek some basic education on the topic before you embarrass yourself anymore.
Indeed, a number of my Wikipedia contributions are gun related, as that is my most favorite hobby. National level competitor at Camp Perry for the past 9 years, etc. A huge amount of your contributions pertain directly to democratic leaning politics, democrat bent issues, which, surprise surprise surprise, just so happens to consort directly with your position on this issue.
As far as my desiring to “prove you wrong” about your charge that I’m smitten with my own words, that’s a pretty classic example of the operating style of people like you. Make idiotic and baseless charges in an attempt to force the other party to “deny” them.
There is a right an wrong answer to every question, this one is no different. Often times, the truth lies somewhere between the partisans, but sometimes, it doesn’t. Often times, one is right an the other is just wrong. That’s what we have here. The information posted about the AHSA is entirely relevant, wholly pertinent and completely factual. Just because you don’t like said facts, you attempt to cloak yourself in the safety of “opinion” while running the dialogue in circles, in order to distract away from the facts. It’s classic Liberalism 101; a pathetic style that borers on being a personality disorder.
In closing, I will reiterate that any dialogue with you is pointless, as you aren’t striving to reach a mutual concession of fact. You’re simply trying to employ conversational tactics to rationalize your politically motivated actions. Pathetic though it may be, it’s the fundamental flaw with this system. What we have here isn’t two people trying to “resolve” a dispute. We have one person who is wrong and another who is right. I’ll let a neutral party decide, but I would insist that it be a neutral party. Good day. FactsAndHonesty, Chicago, IL 22:02, 2 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.27 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Neutral third party requested

I note at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation that Before requesting formal mediation, parties should have made an attempt some form of informal resolution; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected with the direction to attempt informal resolution.. The page suggests either a Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. I judge a RFC to not meet your preference for a "neutral third party", and have therefore submitted a request to the Mediation Cabal. I note that the cabal page says "Case backlog: Heavy / Est. response time: 2-14 days". John Broughton 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 American Hunters and Shooters Association -- John Broughton 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As a passing neutral party I'll jump in. Here is how I see it:
  1. The length added to the article by the inclusion of the text really has no bearing so it would be best to ignore this as an argument in itself, however:
    1. Since this is an article on the American Hunters and Shooters Association and not on Dr John Lott and the American Hunters and Shooters Association, it is inappropriate to give disproportionate space to the views of one person (see WP:NPOV)
    2. Stylistically it looks poor and does nothing to aid readability of the article
  2. Wikipedia:Verifiability does discourage the use of blogs as sources and is a policy not a guideline. As stated above: Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.. If Dr John Lott falls into this category there is no reason why his work should not be quoted, but the onus is on the editor to prove that.
  3. There is no reason to reproduce verbatim an article that is referenced within the Wikipedia article itself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That said, if Dr Lott's comments are relevant and reliable they should be covered in sufficient depth to elucidate the reader of the facts of his arguments.
  4. The summary of the argument proposed by John Broughton also shows evidence of POV editing - the heading of Location is rather disingenuous, suggesting that the section deals with the organization's address rather than controversies over fake organisations and the inclusion of other organisations that share the same building is irrelevant and original research (citing a third party that had noted this as a counter argument would be fine).
I would suggest that you work to rewrite a summary of Lott's arguments, referenced by his site, appropriately titled, and with counter arguments from other reputable sources. Hope this helps. Yomangani 14:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the title of the section to be more NPOV (I believe), and appreciate other specific editing suggestions. I believe the article already reflects a summary of Lott's arguments, but again, am open to futher changes where they improve the article. John Broughton 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation proposal

  • Since I've offered to mediate at the MC, I'll add my two cents here. It is not too dissimilar to what Yomangani said above.
    1. I think that we should not simply enter the blog post, as in this diff. It was formatted pretty badly to begin with, but the main reason for not including it verbatim is that it makes absolutely no sense to include the contents of a blog post verbatim instead of linking to it. A quote or two is fine, but the whole post is overkill.
    2. What would be much more appropriate, IMHO, is if a summary of the contents of this blog post were written up, and then sourced (presumably one can find more reliable sources in the news for these claims)
    3. As a short summary, the information contained in this blog post seems appropriate to stay in the article, but a direct cut-and-paste is probably not. -- Deville (Talk) 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding arguments or information from the Lott blog post to this article. I note that I did read the blog post, and added a new section with what I considered to be the gist of the argument. And I added a link to the blog post. If what I added was too brief, or missed points, then sure, I'd be happy to see those added. To the extent that parts of the blog post talked about gun rights in general, without reference to the AHSA, I remain of the opinion that those parts belong elsewhere in wikipedia, in in wikipedia at all. An article on a single organization is not, in my opinion, the place to have such philosophical arguments.
I am not volunteering to either write a summary of the blog post or to try to source that summary. John Broughton 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about this then? Would you be willing to agree that, in principle, the correct way to go is to leave a short summary of the contents of the blog in this article? If so, I'll volunteer to do the legwork. Please let me know what you think of this option. -- Deville (Talk) 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that all of the facts and arguments that are in the blog that PERTAIN to AHSA do belong in the article. If you go through the blog and create a summary (or list, or whatever), I'll be happy to respond to it, point-by-point or sentence by sentence (basically, (a) is in article already; (b) is in article, but briefer, I will expand; (c) is not in article, I will add; or (d) isn't relevant to AHSA; and maybe (e) trivial/other). Thanks for volunteering to help. John Broughton 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry it took me so long, but I finally went through the post on Lott's site that was posted here, and my conclusion is that there is really no content contained in the blog post which is not current in the section titled "Location...". In short, I'd suggest adding no information to that section, I think there is enough.
I'd also suggest adding a sentence or so mentioning these contoversies in the intro to the article, something along the lines of "Critics contend that AHSA is acting as an agent provocateur to give the false impression that ... etc." How does this sound to you?
It seems the other party to this dispute hasn't edited in a while, so I have no idea if this would be agreable to him. -- Deville (Talk) 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a sentence to the intro, as you suggested. As with other text in the article, if it's not perfect, I'd be happy to see someone else edit it to try to improve it.
I appreciate your work and independent review of the situation. As far as I'm concerned, this process is finished, and the article has been improved as a result. If F&H isn't agreeable to the changes, he/she can make him/herself known. John Broughton 12:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it's been so long since i've been able to respond. Given the delay, i'll apply the doctrine of laches and consider the matter settled for the time being. I may want to reexamine this at a later time, but right now, I have an immensely pressing family issue that limits my internet time to about 10 minutes a day, and as i'm sure all parties can understand, Wikipedia isn't very high on the list. I should, however, have another spate of free time sometime in the next couple months (presuming everything turns out OK) so I may return to this entry at that time. FactsAndHonesty

Can I close this case or is further mediation required? --Ideogram 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with closing it. You'll need to interpret FactsAndHonesty's saying he/she will consider the matter settled for the time being. My suggestion would be there be a new case if need be, so this one should be closed. [Perhaps ironically, the section of the article that involved the mediation has been deleted by other users, and I didn't care enough (one way or the other) to argue that it be put back. So to some extent any further discussion about the section should involve other editors who think there should be no discussion in the article about the topic that was being discussed in mediation.] John Broughton | Talk 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have closed the case. Let me know if it needs to be reopened. --Ideogram 15:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words tag

I agree with removing it; the editor who places the tag has the burden of describing in some terms what is weaselish about the article. If there's no comment on the talk page to this effect, then how would we know when we've removed the problem? --- Deville (Talk) 12:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "Criticisms" section

The "Criticisms" section was deleted. I have reverted that change, and I invite further explanation and discussion here.

The edit summary said rm section. We at Wikipedia don't *do* criticism sections. While relevant material can be integrated with the rest of the article in many cases, in this particular it isn't relevant)

First, I'd appreciate a link to a wikipedia policy about "criticism sections". Second, would it make any difference if this were labeled "Controversies", which I've seen dozens of times on other articles?

Finally, I would like to point out that the article was reviewed by a third party editors (mediators), as discussed above, neither of which had any problem whatsoever with the section that you removed. In light of that, and the fact that (as discussed above) there was a great deal of discussion about what the AHSA really is, and who might be behind it, it appears to me that a controversies section (I've changed the name) is in fact appropriate. John Broughton 01:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AHSA wrote and complained. I agree with them. Read WP:NPOV and take a look at the section on undue weight, also Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises#Opinions_of_critics.2C_opponents.2C_and_detractors. Your criticism section is at present several times longer than the remainder of the article. The NRA's views on the AHSA and the many other organizations they dislike belong on the NRA page, not here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree about undue weight - if you look at the discussion section, you'll see that I've had two extensive discussions that resulted in removal of large amounts of anti-ASHA text from the article. But I think the answer is to lengthen the article in other ways, because the policy you cite says The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the enterprise's notability and are based on reliable sources. There is no question in my mind that AHSA is notable because of NRA and similar attacks on it.
I'm going to shorten the "Controversies" section. But I can't agree that The NRA's views on the AHSA and the many other organizations they dislike belong on the NRA page, not here, because if that were doine, there would be no way that a reader coming to this page would see the controversy, and the controversy IS relevant. Further, if the information on location is removed, then essentially there is no rebuttal to attacks on the AHSA regarding this point that are made in the blogisphere.
Finally, what is the source of your statement that AHSA wrote and complained? Is their communication something that could be published here, so all of their concerns could be addressed? John Broughton 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
27 September 2006 - Uninvited Company edit summary: Besides, the section is unsourced.
Bizarre. First, it was We at Wikipedia don't *do* criticism sections. Then it was AHSA wrote and complained. Now it's lack of a source - even though there was a link IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SECTION. John Broughton | Talk 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Original research

Don't revert me again on that without providing a reliable source. The section is a copy-paste of the blog's author allegation, which in any case can't be used as a source to anything else but itself. Get that source and when you do, find a title that isn't so obviously devious. "Was the AHSA set up by the Democratic party?" is a clear sign of soapboxing. Jean-Philippe 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, take a deep breath, please. Let's walk through the first (main) paragraph that you are proposing to delete.
(0) You're welcome to change the title of the section to something that you like more. As for POV, that title was changed based on a MEDIATOR's suggestion - see above.
(1) In 2005, when the internet domain for AHSA was registered by DCS, an internet consulting firm, critics noted that the listed address was 600 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington, D.C., where the the Democratic Leadership Council is located. Note that this sentence is about what CRITICS say. The point of the entire paragraph is to discuss something that (if you look above) was the point of a large controversy. The paragraph was approved by a independent MEDIATOR as being NPOV - again, please see the talk section. The person who got into a fight because he insisted that the entire blog entry should NOT be inserted into this article was ME. So I'm quite aware of the rule against cut-and-paste of blog allegations.
Wikipedia policy DOES allow criticism if the critic is notable, as is the case here, with John Lott. Policy also says to not cite critics excessively - and I have not.
The first sentence is the ONLY one that could remotely be described as "cut-and-paste" (and it's not, exactly, I believe - I think the blog entry was fairly rambling). It's the ONLY sentence that cites the blog.
(2) DCS does work on Democratic and not Republican campaigns - this cites the organization's website (a link NOT in the blog).
(3) but other residents of the building include the College Republicans and Republicans Abroad International - this cites a (very reputable) Washington Monthly blog; neither the text nor the cite was in the John Lott article; it is essentially a rebuttal.
(4) as well as the American Shipbuilding Association ... and the American Association of Political Consultants: two more cites to organizational websites; neither text nor cites are in the John Lott blog.
You may be under the impression that I'm anti-AHSA. May I suggest reading the entire page above, as well as looking at the history of the article, if this is so. And I'd appreciate not being accused of doing original research.
Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue at end here is that links are made which aren't backed up by any reliable sources. Weither those are factually correct or notable are not relevant as the section is an argument tricking the group into guilt by association. You're welcome to introduce the location of their headquarter into the lead paragraph if you want, but when an author make a link between fact A and B to introduce guilt by association C it's original research -> "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"
Rewording the section appears silly to me, but I really don't mind and you know more about the subject that I care to learn. "John Lott posted an e-mail he received from an unnamed source on his blog under the title "Democrats set up fake organizations to support gun control policies. The e-mail argue that DHC is a front group for the Democratic Party because it was located in the same building as the Democratic Leadership Council. bla bla bla." We can't "critic the critic" with other "factually correct" information such as notable Republican organizations also sharing the building, because it also tries to make an argument "e.g.:this critic is bogus" without citing any source for the argumentation. Jean-Philippe 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I know more about this subject than I really want to - for example, having to parse John Lott's blog entry to try to figure out what he was really saying, and separate anything factual from third-hand surmises.
I have no objection to the way the section now reads. I do want to note here, just in case, what was removed:
DCS does work on Democratic and not Republican campaigns [2], but other residents of the building include the College Republicans and Republicans Abroad International, [3] as well as the American Shipbuilding Association [4] and the American Association of Political Consultants [5].
As of September 2006, AHSA is not located in that building, and its new internet registration, by a different agent, does not list that address. Nothing besides the initial domain registration links the organization to that building.
It was good working with you. Let's try to make this a bit smoother next time. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the criticism as it is remain unsourced. Basicly emails Lott received, which he doesn't comment upon, altough the title are obvious and his position on gun control is well known. Blogs aren't notorious for their editorial oversight, particularly a blog like his which apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't allow for readers comment. Specificly I ask you what do you think of my assesment of the source, not the criticism itself. Jean-Philippe 21:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The criticism by Lott is stupid, boarding on conspiracy theory, but I don't think it's good policy for wikipedia editors to evaluate the quality of the criticism. Rather, the issue, I think, is the notability of the critic. My guess (it's late, I'm lazy) is that Lott's post got a fair amount of play in the blogosphere; certainly it got enough to get someone (not me) to argue a great deal about why not only it, but the entire blog post, deserved to be in the article.
What I'm trying to do is keep to the middle course here: not agreeing to including lengthy anti-gun-control screeds and conspiracy theories, on the one hand, while also not appearing to act as a censor, removing any criticism of the AHSA (for example, by the NRA). So far it's been an interesting ride. John Broughton | Talk 01:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remind editors that while John Lott is notable and his blog potentially reliable, he never comments on the value of the emails he received. My question is, looking at the source, can we say beyond the shadow of a doubt that John Lott support the finding of the emails he received? Can we give notability to the emails solely because John Lott posted them on this blog? John Lott didn't made the criticism here, only reported on them. One would think, that's just me, that if the criticism was serious John Lott would have reported it outside of his blog. Jean-Philippe 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend reviewing WP:RS and WP:EL for what is allowed to be linked/sourced to. · XP · 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed stuff

I understand that it's important to be very careful with proper sources here. However, John Lott is a well-known commentator on this subject, and his blog is an acceptable source, in my opinion. Other thoughts? Friday (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't repeat my comments above, but I will note that the tiny amount of text left in the section leaves the reader asking "and so?". Is there a relationship? Is the organization in that building? Are there really ties to the Democratic Party? The previous (longer) version at least gave the reader some clues about this. John Broughton | Talk 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless we revise the no-blog policy (something long overdue, as a possible RS for quoted commentary but not fact), the answer would be no I think for the time being. The policy needs changing very carefully or it would open a floodgate of crap RSes. · XP · 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The no-blog "rule" does not mean what you think it means. Guidelines are just that. Oh, and (at least at one time) it mentioned blogs from prominent people seperately from blogs belonging to random net people. If we could use John Lott's book as a source, why not his blog? Friday (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I like the idea of using any blog which meets WP:WEB/notability standards and was planning on arguing for changes along those lines. But at this point, it's against policy, and there's no editorial oversight of them--hence they cannot be taken as fact, only a (limited) opinion, and therefore considered unencyclopediac at this time. · XP · 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My reading of WP:RS would allow John Lott's blog (for example) to be used. He's a published author on the topic of gun politics. He has his own point of view, certainly, and we should not present his view as truth, of course. But to me, WP:RS#Self-published_sources suggests that his blog could be a usable source. Friday (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are certainly reliable sources for opinions of their authors. If the author is somebody whose opinion on the issue is notable, there's no reason to not cite them, even if they wrote it in their blog. Just make sure the sentence says something like "According to John Lott, AHSA..." Zocky | picture popups 23:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote

"The previous (longer) version at least gave the reader some clues about this."

It's not our job (or allowed) to connect the dots for readers with anything that might be original research--Wikipedia cannot be built as a primary source. Also, criticism sections have to have appropriate weight. Given the size of the article now a sentence or two is appropriate. · XP · 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AHSA and the NRA

Maybe we should have a section detailing the situation here. The NRA's opinions on a gun-related group are relevant, certainly. On the other hand, we can't let the article turn into "here's two sentences about the group and 4 pages about criticism of it." However, we should not gloss over the fact that this group is widely considered a bogus gun-rights group by other gun rights groups. Friday (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We can mention it, with appropriate weight to the article. But it should not be an anti-AHSA article, nor pro. Based on the current weight of the article/size, a sentence or two is fine for the Criticism section. · XP · 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here. The John Lott (location of AHSA controversy) was in fact based on a blog (but from a notable source; it's quotable as criticism, not proof of anything except the criticism itself). The NRA stuff, however, is posted by the NRA lobbying arm. It is NOT a blog. It is as reliable a source as one can find of the NRA's position vis-a-vis the AHSA. John Broughton | Talk 16:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the NRA is a reputable source when talking about their own opinions. Friday (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No evidence of widespread controversy"

And editor removed some stuff, remarking that there was no evidence of widespread controversy. I'd never heard of this group before, and there are not that many google results. However, just glancing through the google results does indicate (to me) that the controversy is pretty widespread. A large proportion of the people talking about this group are calling them an anti-gun group in disguise. We need to represent this controversy accurately and neutrally, not pretend it does not exist. Friday (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, as long as it meets all RS compliance. · XP · 16:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
(See above) John Lott's blog is in a different category than J. Random Netdude's blog, because he's John Lott. Friday (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership section

The extra information in the Leadership section is getting a bit unrelated to merely listing the owners/leaders of the AHSA, and a lot of it is somewhat editorial (i.e. it seems to be included to color the individual in a certain light). Perhaps the additional information can be moved to another section?

For example: :

Ray Schoenke, founding president [2] A former football player for the Washington Redskins, Schoenke ran for Governor of Maryland as a Democrat and has given "millions" to Democrat politicians and causes according to a January 19, 1998 Washington Post article.[1] Among the groups that Schoenke has donated to are two that actively lobby to ban firearms: Handgun Control, Inc. and America Coming Together.

I propose moving the italicized information to the "Criticisms" section and just deleting the bold section. The fact that he ran as a Democrat and has donated to those causes, while interesting in a bio of Schoenke, is not relevant to this article. I understand that many Democrats may be against gun rights, but that is not the point of this article.

His other gun-law related activities, though, might be relevant in the criticisms section. If no one has a serious objection, I plan to move the editorial info for the Leadership section accordingly Izaakb 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosenthal bio

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.

John Rosenthal was recently involved with an ACLU-backed lawsuit when he posted an ad on his billboard for littlebrotheriswatching.com. He is also a local developer and is planning to build over the Mass Pike, and has been involved in negotiations with the Red Sox about that. John E. Rosenthal currently redirects to this article; it would be nice to see an actual biography, since there is more going on with him than just the AHSA. -- Beland 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO Rosenthal's bio is not appropriate for the AHSA article. Maybe a separate article on him and link to it from AHSA? Izaakb 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association_8854.html"