Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilsk (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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 —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removed stuff

I removed information that said AHSA membership was only 150. The source cited was before the formal founding of AHSA (per registration with state of Maryland) and is 3 years out of date.

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)

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)

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)

As the NRA is a competing organization, NRA sources are not neutral point of view and should be removed or the article should make it clear they are biased. In particular, the NRA references in the intro are inappropriate (the ones in the controversy section seem fine). Verifiable, unbiased third-party sources (newspapers, etc) are needed. The editorializing needs to be removed as well.--E8 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that the NRA is a gun rights organization and AHSA is a gun control organization I would agree that they are competing. However simply having a different view is not sufficient for exclusion, especially when it comes to criticism. If articles excluded contrary viewpoints, we would have WP:NPOV problems of the opposite sort. Dman727 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read my last statement carefully, you'll note that the issue is not the NRA criticism. As I stated, it's fine to have the NRA complaints included, but they must be specifically framed as complaints by a rival and not as fact. The problem is, the page is dominated by language clearly biased against the AHSA. Statements like "it is in fact a cleverly-named anti-gun constituency," found in the header, are unsourced and clearly not NPOV. This is certainly not "fact," given that no neutral third-party sources are provided.--E8 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such statements need to be reliably sourced. Having said that, I don't think the statement is false either. As I continue to read up on this organization, its pretty eye opening just how deceptive they really are. Its important to remember that an article can certainly present primarily negative information about a subject and still be NPOV. For instance we have plenty of articles concerning serial killers and those articles have ALOT of negative information about said killers and there is no requirement to fill the article with an equal amount of positive information. No, the requirement is that the information available be presented factually, without a POV spin and backed up by a reliable source. Clearly, AHSA is a deceptive organization intended to fool people and I think that has been sourced quite well. It is also very clearly an anti-gun constituency. Where I think that POV comes into play is the portion about it being "cleverly named". Unless we have a neutral RS that backs up this statement, it should be modified. Dman727 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - I just did a quick count of the sources on this article. There are 25 sources, 3 of which are directly from the NRA. The largest number of sources is from AHSA itself, and the rest of a variety of other sources. Dman727 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not remove the POV tag from this page or I will request an edit lock. No agreeable solution has been met as of yet. Of the sources you mention, two - both competing organizations - make the same complaint about the AHSA. Their criticisms are the same, but this does not make it a fact that the AHSA is "a cleverly-named anti-gun constituency." Gun control and anti-gun are NOT the same; from their own site, the AHSA admits to being for some measures of gun control, but no third-party impartial source listed in the references has ever claimed them to be "anti-gun." This page is riddled with loaded phrases like this one. The criticisms that follow seem to be done appropriately, though the note attached to source #2 is questionable.--E8 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I only spoke two sources - AHSA and the NRA. If they both agree, I doubt we'll find another source that disputes them, but feel free to look. If you feel you need an edit lock, then please request one. Dman727 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Leadership section

John Rosenthal resigned from the AHSA board roughly a year ago. That information needs to be permanently removed.

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)

Rosenthal bio

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)

Big changes reverted

I reverted some major changes. It was full of a bunch of stuff that sounded like it'd been copied and pasted right from this group's website. It's possible some of the stuff in them can be reworked and kept, if properly attributed. Friday (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been put back repeatedly, but much of this content is problematic. In particular, the section American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association#Law_Enforcement_Training.2C_Outreach_.26_Development sounds like promotional material. We don't say things like "AHSA is an organization committed to supporting our nation’s law enforcement officers" in an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked and it was copied from the website. Reverted. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I took some basic information from their site as to their programs and such. I also cited information from media sources THAT ARE NOT DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE NRA - AN ORGANIZATION PUBLICLY AGAINST AHSA - which was nearly the only information cited previously. And still I left those articles listed in CRITICISM section as well as in the external links - very fair. I do not think it is uncommon to get a list of what a company or organization does from their website. I am consulting the Wiki team to resolve this matter (a ticket # has already been issued and being investigated) as there are efforts existing that continue to try to discredit this organization through misinformation. Sickoflies

Ok. Please provide a link to your "ticket". I would like to chime it on it. Again, your added content is directly copied from the AHSA website. Please work it up into original content. Copy and paste is not allowed. See WP:COPY. The AHSA's webiste does not explicitly release it's content to the public domain. As such, it is presumed to be copywrited. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am working to make the content accurate, rich, informative. World's better than what was previously listed but still needs improvement. Instead of being insistent that inaccurate, slanderous information be kept, I appreciate comments on how to make it better. Sickoflies

Where is the inaccurate, slanderous information? I certainly do not insist that anything of the sort be kept. Friday (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Again, I am working to have something fair listed for AHSA - nothing more.Sickoflies

Please add original content. Your content is copied from the AHSA's website. Reverted. Please improve the article, but do not copy and paste. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I respect your assistance and I removed the majority of the text that was copied from the website as I was using it as a basis to describe their programs - nothing more. But you must agree the reverted information, though may be original is highly biased and inflammatory and has no place in an encyclopedic reference. The material I will post will be original and referenced and hold both viewpoints - unlike your reverted edition. --Sickoflies 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually know if the article was biased as I didn't read it beyond the new content. Seeing that it was a direct copy, I reverted. If it actually is biased, please worked it up to be neutral. That'd be great. Also, understand that I didn't revert TO a biased version per se, I reverted FROM a plagiarized version. Original and referenced would be awesome. Thanks! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Thernlund. Just trying to get accurate, neutral info out there. Will just remove biased, inaccurate info and replace with cited info and update the members listed. --Sickoflies 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest Revisions of 9/2007

I made the following edits to this article: 1) removed inflammatory sentence in the intro that not only is not true but is not descriptive of the organization and totally biased. 2) Added a History section that has some recent history - all cited. 3)Removed John Rosenthal from list of leadership as he has not been with the organization for a while. --Sickoflies 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious bias

This article has a serious bias problem -- it seems to have been edited by person(s) with a pro-NRA perspective rather than giving an NPOV description of AHSA itself. I might add that "pro-gun control" versus "pro-gun rights" descriptions attached is highly relative and AHSA could more accurately be described as "pro gun right" as not. Arjuna (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This orginization was basically founded as an alternative choice for gun owners who feel uncomfortable with NRA policies, however most of the information on the page simply the much larger and wealthier NRA's view. It's like having the Catholics write that Protestantism is a heretical front organized with the intent of splitting the one true church. 137.22.121.95 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the dearth of reliable sources showing where AHSA supports gun ownership and gun rights is simply reflective of the reality of AHSA's actual activities. Certainly if reliable sources can be found that describe actual pro gun right activities, they should be included. Dman727 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The chart listed AHSA as an anti-gun group is incredibly biased. The controversy concerning AHSA should merit some question regarding the factual integrity of the chart. This wiki page needs to move to mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.230.209 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening

"The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is an association of hunters and shooters in the United States that was founded in 2005."

I noticed a problem with this opening. It makes the group sound like, well, a collection of hunters and shooters. Yet there exists no evidence that the group has any members, or that the people who formed it are hunters and shooters. A more accurate description would read "an association of political operatives/activists." The line as it is now reads more or less like part of a press release. Perhaps a more accurate line would be something like:

"The Americna Hutners and Shooters Association (AHSA) is a lobbying group founded in 2005 that addresses the issue of gun laws in the United States."

This would be an improvement because it more accurately represents what the group actually is without implying bias in favor of or against the group. Comments? Drstrangelove57 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This lead-in sounds more reasonable to me. I spent some time perusing the AHSA web site and it is full of "AHSA will... do this, that and the other". There is not much evidence that it is actually doing anything or has ever done anything. Unfortunately, it does seem that this is a front group.

However, we still need to treat it fairly. Another balanced lead-in might be: AHSA is an organization involved in advocacy on the issue of gun control. This is accurate and it doesn't say what side it comes down upon. kevinp2 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevinp's wording seems reasonable to me. Arjuna (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 revision

7/25/08:

I'm going to make a revision where it makes a reference to them wanting to ban "Assault Weapons" because there is some dispute over what exactly an "Assault Weapon" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.239.33 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stated programs of AHSA

There seems to be some controversy over the term "assault weapon." The page where AHSA discusses these 4 programs says nothing about "assault weapons," "cop-killer bullets," and some of the other things. These terms appear to be included as original research, and as such should be sourced or deleted. I've added a reference.

We should also be aware that "assault weapon" is a highly politicized term, and its definition in technical usage is inconsistent with its political usage. So let's assume good faith, and not be so quick to accuse others of POV edits. --tc2011 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, however there is an article on assault weapons, and if anyone had any confusion over what was meant it seemed more appropriate to direct them to that rather than to what still seems to me to be an ironic and thus POV reference. Admittedly some confusion is understandable, because although there seems to be a clear image of what one is in the collective mind, it starts to break down when it gets to specifics. Arjuna (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Buckeye source in intro

This content would be appropriate in the Criticism section, and should be integrated there, not in the intro:

...founded to more effectively promote the gun-control efforts of the Brady Campaign.

Care should be taken to mention controversy in the intro, avoiding weasel words when doing so.--E8 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Task completed; the source in the quote above is from a rival organization; when such sources are used, it should be clearly stated on the page that the source is a rival, and the nature of the rival should be stated.--E8 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The source is accurate and WP:Verifiable. The source references the AHSA's own statements. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that is hardly a valid reason to keep removing the citation. --tc2011 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with like or dislike. It's matter of making content encyclopedic, which means following set rules. The source is not reliable as it is [[6]]. Further, "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process." This source meets none of those qualifications, as it is clearly second-party, is self-published, and has no reliable publication process. This content is worth mention, but another source is needed.--E8 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tc2011's last edit comments: "Wikipedia is not a shill for AHSA, and its statements are very relevant to the article." Wikipedia is a shill for no group or organization and I'm not sure why you think this comment is relevant; I have no objection to this content, but it must be properly sourced. WP has a set of guidelines for sources including WP:Reliable sources. Again, to detail my objection to the content, the Buckeye source is a second-party, self-published source. From WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

Buckeye is clearly NOT independent of the issue, and Wikipedia guidelines clearly state "if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so."

Please discuss in detail your reasoning for making any further reverts/changes before doing so. See WP:3RR.--E8 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Notably, after re-examining the Buckeye page again, the source itself does not support the statement "founded to more effectively promote the gun-control efforts of the Brady Campaign." This statement is clearly an invalid synthesis based on a non-neutral point of view source. I am searching for a better source; do the same if you think this content should be on the page.--E8 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are permitted to synthesize material from various sources, and Wiki is certainly permitted to use those sources for contributions. The rule over synthesis states that WIKIPEDIA cannot perform the synthesis. If we eliminated all sources that perform synthesis, all news organizations would be barred from inclusion. So the question, is not whether or not Buckeye performed synthesis. The question is whether or not Buckeye is a reliable source (of which I'm not offering an opinion till I get a chance to investigate Buckeye for myself) Dman727 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've spent the last two hours trying to find an impartial third-party source for the Buckeye claim about the founding intent; I found none. This content should clearly be removed. The association between the AHSA and the gun-control is clearly stated in both the introduction and criticism sections.--E8 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've made a few edits; better citations or more sources are needed in the Criticism section.--E8 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute? Forgive if I'm dumb here but I'm looking at the tag and trying to sort through all the various discussion. I think that 3rd party input is a good idea here, but its important that the dispute be clearly identified. Is the dispute over whether or not AHSA is a gun control organization? Or is the dispute over what sources are valid for this claim or counter-claim?

Frankly I'm very suspicious over most of the changes made lately. I noticed that when the political director of AHSA began editing the article, some of the claims and counter-claims began to take on a some unusual tones, and I don't think thats much of a coincidence. Dman727 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The dispute was stated on the [third-opinion page] that is linked from the 3O tag; the intent is to find an editor from outside the regular editors here, to offer an objective opinion on the "Buckeye" source.--E8 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The quote can stay in as in the current refence, but it should be sourced to "http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/american_hunters_and_shooters_association_responds_to_its_critics/C41/L41/"--As an apparently primary source. Is there any challenge to NewWest as a source or to the authenticity of the quote? The statement in the lead, however, does not incontrovertably follow from the NewWest quote, and it should. The more interesting question is how to best describe the fact that AHSA was set up by the gun control lobby to draw members away from the NRA. Frankly, the first sentence is POV-- "in order to" needs an "allegedly" or "ostensibly" in front of it. Y'all should work together to make the lead reflect what has been acknowledged by all: the AHSA is intentionally less pro-RKBA than the NRA, and is designed to cater to a market segment of hunters and shooters who are not primarily motivated by resisting gun control efforts. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed on all counts; After consideration, the opening line needs to clearly state this is the claimed intent or goal of the organization. I've made edits to make this clear. thanks for making note of the original source. After reading it, and a few more new sources, I propose these minor changes to the introduction:

  The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) was launched in 2006 with the stated goal of supporting, promoting and protecting the rights of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes. AHSA bills itself as a moderate, common-sense advocacy organization, founded to more effectively promote the gun-control efforts of the Brady Campaign. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun organizations have criticized the AHSA for it members' close associations with other gun-control organizations and gun-control legislation.

--E8 (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• E8, the paragraph you propose looks ok. --tc2011 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good. Another editor made similar changes and the main is now completed. I'm fixing references on the page, but editing seems completed. --E8 (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brady Campaign and Handgun Control Incorporated

They're one and the same. --tc2011 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are you proposing that references to HCI should be changed to the Brady Campaign? If so, I concur. I've done some of this changed where necessary (to match sources).--E8 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see, you were referring the the last reference. I got it. Don't use the square brackets in cite web tags as they will cause unintentional linking.--E8 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisions for 11/13/2008

The introduction, as it currently stands, is completely baiting and then the last sentence is most appropiate in the criticism section and not in the introduction. The introduction I am replacing it with is unbiased and cited.

Additionally, I would like to request mediation for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LBZoeller (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• This issue has been specifically addressed and went through third-party mediation less than a week ago; the recommendations of the neutral-party "Veteran Editor" are the ones you have attempted to remove. Wikipedia is not here to serve anyone's agenda. This page is currently as impartial as editors can make it - folks on both sides of the "discussion" complain about partiality of the page; that to me indicates it's reasonably neutral.--E8 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you have a rewrite proposal, discuss it here, and after an approval process, it can be posted. Further changes to the page without prior discussion will be reverted and may lead to an edit lock. When you rewrite, remember that it is important to have third-party, neutral sources to support your facts. This is essential, not optional. Statements from the AHSA website or AHSA press releases are first-party, and therefore, not considered fact (when this type of source must be cited on Wikipedia, the writing must reflect this, using words like "claim," etc.) If the original The New Republic source of the blog you cited can be located, this would qualify as a source. If the author can be proven to be noteworthy, even the blog would count as a source. Any other media reports (not press releases) on activities of the AHSA would be greatly helpful in improving this page. The lack of reliable, verifiable evidence indicating that the AHSA is fulfilling is claimed goals is the primary reason the intro is worded as-is.--E8 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So, one thing that confuses me... why is it a bad thing to say that the AHSA is a gun control organization? The American political process is free and open, and they have every right to be "pro-gun-control" or "favor reasonable restrictions" The fact that AHSA has positioned itself as more centrist than the NRA is documented in reliable sources, and reflected in the article. I'd certainly encourage adding more sourced information to make sure that the gun-control spectrum positioning doesn't dominate the article--I'm sure that just like the NRA, political lobbying is only part of the organization's mission. In such a case, providing a more robust picture of the entire organization is the best course of action--the lead is supposed to summarize the information in the article, so if the article is 75% about non-gun-control issues, then the lead should share that ratio. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The NRA as conservative

Regarding the use of the adjective "conservative" to describe the NRA, it is my contention that this term, by definition (see #1), fits the group well as a primary function of the group is the preservation and maintenance of 2nd Amendment rights (according to their stated goals on National Rifle Association). The NRA need not declare itself as conservative in order be so, much like AHSA need not call itself a gun control group, though it clearly is, as demonstrated through its actions (and as noted on this page).--E8 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. I would personally call the NRA conservative, as well as conservationist. However, if someone else has challenged it, you need to provide a secondary source that calls them conservative. Given the amount of press coverage the NRA has gotten for decades, I don't see that as too high a hurdle, and once you get it, it essentially settles the matter. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; this appears to be the best solution. I have concerns about the consistency of application of this policy. This is a slippery slope issue, and it appears this approach is correct. Accordingly, the following quote from the introduction must be removed: "...more effectively promote the gun-control efforts of the Brady Campaign." The source cited for this statement wrote, "Ray’s wife Nancy is also connected politically. Like many wives of gun owners she is an independent thinker and does not like guns. She took a seat on the board of the Brady Campaign but soon became frustrated with the group’s lack of progress. Ray told her that progress would not be made until gun owners were allowed to bring their common sense perspective to the table. As a result, Nancy closed the family checkbook, resigned from the Brady board, and encouraged Ray to start AHSA."

Note that this source doesn't specifically state what is posted on the AHSA page (nor do the others linked here), but rather, a conclusion drawn from this quote; this is an WP:NOR/WP:SYN issue, much like matching the NRA's goals with the definition of "conservative," and from that, concluding they are a conservative group. Further note that WP:PSTS specifically states,

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

I think we all thought this was statement was reasonable, but after perusing the minutia, there can't be a double-standard on this issue, so it must be removed.--E8 (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No issues. The rules are designed to be applied evenhandedly. However, I think it might be possible to find a secondary source, possibly a POV one such as the NRA or GOA, which alleges that interpretation of the facts. Including such a POV analysis shouldn't be a problem as long as it's flagged as a POV analysis. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis (or original research); it is good editing," and is a proper use of a primary source. The current wording accurately summarizes the source, and should be retained. --tc2011 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources are perfectly permitted to perform synthesis, and wiki can report what those sources say. What is not allowed to to perform the synthesis on wiki by combining multiple sources into a new statement of position. In fact, virtually on reliable sources perform synthesis to one degree or another. There is no violation of rules by including the quoted material above. Now if we took that quote and added a secondary conclusion based on it, THAT would be banned synthesis on described in WP:SYN Dman727 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)