User:J8079s/dispute resolution/RFC: Difference between revisions
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*None of that matters. If you want to analyze evidence and know the identities of anonymous sources, you can become a journalist, join the FBI, or start a blog. We write what is verifiable in our sources.- MrX 🖋 20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
*None of that matters. If you want to analyze evidence and know the identities of anonymous sources, you can become a journalist, join the FBI, or start a blog. We write what is verifiable in our sources.- MrX 🖋 20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
*So the Washington Post is a political opponent of the NRA? Can you substantiate with RS that the NRA are prominent for their defenses of black gun owners? So far, there are 17 sources that contain critiques of the NRA for failing to do precisely that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
*So the Washington Post is a political opponent of the NRA? Can you substantiate with RS that the NRA are prominent for their defenses of black gun owners? So far, there are 17 sources that contain critiques of the NRA for failing to do precisely that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
===Articulated here=== |
|||
I commented on the sources: they do not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS, and I indicated why: WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY. These sources relay opinions by shooting groups, fans, and manufacturers. These are reliable for their own opinions, but that's not the expert, independent sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2018 |
|||
==proxy== |
==proxy== |
||
Latest revision as of 23:14, 12 April 2018
Widespread disruption in the area of Firearms, Guns Politics, and Gun Control. What Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and what Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia WP:Verify WP:NPOV WP:MOS
| Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the community of people who build it: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are. —Wikipedia:Five pillars |
non pillars
[edit]- How in the world do eleven reliable source not establish due weight? The age of the subject is irrelevant to this discussion, since we are not writing a "History of the NRA" essay. If the standard for this article is that eleven sources is an inadequate threshold for inclusion, then there is large amount of material that needs to be culled from the article. Please let's please use consistent content standards.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- None of that matters. If you want to analyze evidence and know the identities of anonymous sources, you can become a journalist, join the FBI, or start a blog. We write what is verifiable in our sources.- MrX 🖋 20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- So the Washington Post is a political opponent of the NRA? Can you substantiate with RS that the NRA are prominent for their defenses of black gun owners? So far, there are 17 sources that contain critiques of the NRA for failing to do precisely that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Articulated here
[edit]I commented on the sources: they do not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS, and I indicated why: WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY. These sources relay opinions by shooting groups, fans, and manufacturers. These are reliable for their own opinions, but that's not the expert, independent sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2018
proxy
[edit]@Niteshift36: here you go: NRA Rewrites Fairy Tales With More Firearms, Less Bloodshed, NPR. Quote: "Adding guns to the world of the Brothers Grimm drastically reduces death rates, according to a study — well, OK, according to a couple of stories published by the NRA. (...) ...the trendline is clear: In the NRA's reimagined fairy tales, putting rifles in the hands of children creates a safer world." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Proxy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=832648088&oldid=832630333
Sources
[edit]Sources must verify the text. Deleting a good faith edit because you don't like the source is wrong. If you have a better source you should add it. Primary does't mean bad[1] Secondary doesn't mean good[2]
mos
[edit]Rewrite the source in your own words see Help:How to mine a source From the school; This article (and the entire topic of of Gun Control) is subject to discretionary sanctions.(WP:BRD means
- WP:NPOV says that ALL reliably sourced viewpoints must be represented. Taking one viewpoint and declaring it to be WP:The Truth is a violation of this.(This is used by the school to by-pass the WP:MOS
- WP:OR WP:SYNTH making claims which are not explicitly made by sources is not permitted. (Reading the sources and putting them in your own words is required per WP:MOS and is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH)
Talk page
[edit]Not a forum [3]
off topic
[edit]- Oppose content and support removal - Per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:UNDUE. If his program were well-known, it would be well-documented in third-party sources; it's not. Stating in Wikipedia's voice that the NRA "sponsors a range of programs" is particularly promotional. There is no such thing as a "five year consensus". Silent consensus is only valid until someone challenges the existing content. I think readers looking for information about the NRA's gun safety program might wonder how supporting selling high-power semi-automatic rifles to mentally ill children, without a proper background check, contributes to gun safely. Come on folks, of course this material is controversial! WP:NPOV requires that articles proportionally reflect the universe of available reliable sources about the subject. In that universe, the NRA's promotion material is a hydrogen molecule floating somewhere in a supercluster.- MrX 🖋 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Responding to off topic is not ok send to user @user talk