Talk:Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Broken links

Please note that all of the "red links" on this page linked from other pages too (ex. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Breastfeeding link to American Academy of Pediatrics). --Hcheney 22:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair use for Mission statements

Does anyone know if expanded mission statements fall under fair use? The "Mission" section of the article is copied darn near word-for-word from the CSGV website. Arthurrh 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-write

It would work better if major changes were discussed here, before removing cited content. Also, this is not supposed to look like CSGV's own website; it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Cites from other than CSGV's website should be used, too. Yaf (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting cited content, and copying the CSGV's website verbatim and pasting here. There are copyright problems in doing that. Have reverted to the cited version, with cites and references. Yaf (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection

As you probably have by now realized, I have protected this page for two days from all non-admin editing because of the recent heated edit warring. Please use this time to discuss the changes here - especially the anon IP, who apparently hasn't tried this talk page idea out yet. As far as I'm concerned, there will be no reason to unprotect the page in the meantime, so try to use the time to come to a compromise or consensus. Thanks! Tan | 39 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be best to revert to Yaf's revision in order to encourage the anon IP to take part in the discussion? Artichoker^[talk] 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to stay neutral in the discussion. Also, see the latest section on my talk page - the IP isn't happy yet, apparently. I think it will be all right the way it is - if this all resumes in two days when the protection expires, we can take further action. Tan | 39 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Have tried to engage with "anon IP", but no luck thus far... A revert might get him to come out of the woodwork. I want a balanced article, with content coming from other than from CSGV's own talking points website, along with cited references, too. The "anon IP" kept deleting everything, cites, content, etc., coming from anywhere than other from CSGV's website... A traceroute is most illuminating on this "anon IP". Yaf (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is meant as a description of an individual organization's description and initiatives. I constructed this by briefly summarizing the goals of CSGV using their web page, without offering any further commentary about whether these are good or bad goals. Yaf on the other hand has injected into this organizational summary his own political views about the merits of requiring background checks at gun shows, whether microstamping technology works etc. This page is not the appropriate venue, and furthermore the philosophical debate which he is engaging in is entirely inappropriate. If Yaf would like talk about the merits of microstamping etc, he is free to write on those articles or those articles talk pages. This however is the wrong page. This article is merely an organization description. For example, CSGV lists one of its goals as opposing a proposed rule change that currently prohibits loaded weapons in national parks. Yaf edited this to note that some people believe that the rule change is good, because they believe that guns are needed to protect against wildlife. This more to do with the debate about the rule change than what CSGV's initiative is on this issue. It is very clear: CSGV opposes the proposed rule change. Right or wrong. If I were to behave in Yaf's manner I may respond by saying that violent crime is extremely rare in national parks and that more guns would lead to more dangerous situations, or that the caliber gun commonly carried on the person would be ineffective at taking down a large animal and could even enrage it further. I did not include such things in my version because this is not a debate about the merits of allowing guns in parks, but rather an organizational summary that factually describes what the organization does. The page should be left simply at that, a description as sterile as possible. The debates about these issues should be saved for other pages. 216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Find it funny Yaf would right that he tried to engage me but failed. As you can see I have written on this page, and I engaged him numerous times on his own talk page.216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right now, stop with this bullshit attitude. Discuss changes to this article here. You have not responded to concerns regarding copyright violations. You have not shown one bit of good faith in your fellow editors - apparently everything you say is right, and everyone else is wrong. Unless you engage the other editors regarding this article on this talk page, and show some respect and civility, you will not be allowed to edit this article. Tan | 39 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont forget WP:AGF or WP:CIV here. We already have an edit war, we don't need a flame war as well! At least give him credit for being a responsive IP. 95% of the IP's never responds to any inquiry, or only response with a bunch of swears which is not the matter in this case. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to be helpful. I checked into the copyright issue, there is no verbatim quoting of the organization's goals, rather 2 or so sentence summaries. As far as suggestions for the page, please see my first reply in which I suggested that debates about the merits of CSGV's goals be moved to more appropriate areas.216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that you were deleting valid, sourced content. This page is not an advertisement of CSGV. Wikipedia articles need a variety of sources including third-party ones. For example, if there is sourced criticism of this organization, it should be included. You talk in such a way that it makes me think there might be a conflict of interest. Artichoker^[talk] 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be a proponent/opponent section a la Brady and the NRA articles where each side can list their issues. If you think about it though, that would just be a rehash of all of the other gun issue pages. Yaf wants to combine two aspects that should remain separate. CSGV's goals should be listed, and then another section could be included for opinions for and against those goals.216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about this article. Go ahead and be my guest, add that info to the articles you mention. But your revision of this article is just not the way Wikipedia works. We are WP:NPOV, which this article clearly is not currently. It should describe how other people view the CSGV as well. Artichoker^[talk] 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My proposed content on microstamping was: Microstamping: CSGV supports the implementation and research relating to firearm microstamping, an emerging and much-disputed ballistic identification technology, on state and federal levels. Simply calling it a proven or comprehensive or even an emerging technology does not provide balance. Similarly, the National Park rules change content was similarly not balanced. Copying verbatim from CSGV's website is not the way to achieve a balanced article. The goal is neutrality, not a one-sided, white-washed CSGV talking points website. Yaf (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

References

I never saw the word 'proven' used on the page. How about dropping "emerging" and "much disputed." People can view the microstamping article if they wish to learn more. There was no POV in the national parks thing for it to be unbalanced. CSGV opposes a rule change, that is a fact. Like I said earlier both sides on the national park debates have their arguments. Perhaps a separate page could be created for that purpose, because it is an inappropriate argument to be had in an area that simply describes CSGV's goals. 216.15.42.55 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another idea for a proposal. If Yaf wants to add why proponents of the proposed rule change for national parks then below that someone should respond with a summary of why some people favor keeping the current rule. I personally think that this discussion has a better place (as I have said before), but if Yaf writing for the proponents is allowed, then writing by the opponents should also be allowed. This is just an example for one of the disputed CSGV goals and could be applied to microstamping, terrorist watch list, etc. Again I think it would be better to create (or if they already exist update) pages in a separate area 216.15.42.55 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let loose, though WP:CIV might seem to apply, this Anon seems to be hiding behind his anonymity (he's only been editing TODAY and only this article!). While one can assume good faith, it's hard to do when the opposite side of the argument seems not to want to play by the rules. You can't let Sarah Brady write this article, Mr/Mrs 24.55. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is much different to post as anonymous (or I guess not since I think the IP address is displayed) then to register a username, which I will get to in the future. If you want to talk about issues of good faith, look at the history of my IP address in getting in trouble for unfair editing versus the person on the other side of the issue who has been blocked for unfair edits of other firearms pages. I don't think offering a description of the organizations goals goes as far as letting Sarah Brady write the page. That would look like: CSGV supports closing the gun show loophole because it is the right thing to do, etc. For the comment below I don't deny that "comprehensive" was used, just "proven." 216.15.42.55 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" was used earlier, too, here. All of these phrases (emerging, comprehensive, etc.) imply more than what is actually fact. I would prefer to leave "emerging and much disputed", with full cites, to avoid misleading readers, and to present a balanced article. Yaf (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As for copyright violations, the current article follows exactly the breakouts, with titles, as seen/contained on the CSGV website. It then points to each subpage on the CSGV website, in order, as they are listed on the CSGV website, with some copied content, too. We need to work this to avoid copyright problems. Also, the article version I wrote (last one) at least had the References, at the bottom of the article, with names, and I had started putting them into WP webcite format, but the "anon IP" kept deleting these cites, leaving just bare, un-named links to the CSGV website, and deleting all content that was the least bit balancing to the one-sided rhetoric and talking points that was copied from the CSGV website. Our goal as editors should be neutrality, not one-sided-ness. Lets address this imbalance. Yaf (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are not copyright violations in the current version. It does not break a copyright to list the programs of an organization. Furthermore the descriptions themselves are paraphrases (with citations) of what the organization tries to do. When this article unlocks I think it would be fair to make it similar to the NRA page. The NRA page has an organizational description of what their goals are, and then a section at the bottom for criticism. I think the page would be most clear if CSGV's goals are described in one section, and then the merits of these goals discussed in a criticism or opponent/proponent section. 216.15.42.55 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation to discuss the programs of an organization. However, when the discussion follows exactly the same sub-sections, with the same titles, in the same order, and follows the same breakouts as an organization's website, this is a copyright violation. An article on an organization should be written in Wikipedia style, not in the copied website style of the organization. As for calling microstamping comprehensive or emerging, this comment is not worth having to dedicate an entire section later to balance the content. It is easier to simply identify microstamping as disputed, too, (with a cite of course), in the mention of the technology, along with the other language (i.e., "emerging"). Attempting to present a single-sided presentation that is entirely favorable to an organization, while neglecting to mention where controversy exists, or attempting to push any discussion of controversy to another article, is not considered to be neutral or balanced. Yaf (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This page has been overrun by individuals from the Wiki Firearms Project that vehemently oppose the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's mission (and gun control in general). I currently serve as the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and there are no "copyright issues" with correctly stating our mission and the purpose and scope of our current projects. I will continue to challenge the neutrality of this page until our mission is stated correctly and opponents of our organization stop using this space to expound on their views on issues like concealed handguns in National Park that are tiny part of our overall work as an organization. And I want to see citations for ridiculous and broad statements such as "CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership." That is nothing but gun lobby propaganda with the purpose of discrediting our organization. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

please see WP:COI. you have a conflict of interest in editing this article. i have reverted your contributions. Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the claim that CSGV opposes all private handgun ownership is precisely correct. A review of the stated purpose of the CSGV, and its documented history seems to be in order. Yaf (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your citation for the claim that "CSGV opposes all private handgun ownership" is not even technically correct for the date of the citation you provide: 1989. CSGV supported exceptions even during that period for licensed security guards and individuals in pistol clubs, as your own quotation proves. Furthermore, the organization stopped advocating for a national ban on handguns in 1991, when the name was changed to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. That was 17 years ago. You, like other members of the Wiki Firearms Project are clearly trying to discredit groups on Wikipedia that aim to strengthen gun control laws, as your bald-faced lie that "CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership" conclusively demonstrates. You essentially are circulating "Confiscation Myth" propaganda on this public domain website that right-wing gun groups like the NRA use for fundraising and membership recruitment purposes. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the claim that I should review the Conflict of Interest guidelines, I find that suggestion absolutely laughable coming from a member of the Wiki Firearms Project. Even a cursory look at the activity of your members on Wikipedia will reveal that you have consistently used these pages to discredit groups that wish to strengthen gun control laws and used their individual pages to disseminate your own heavily-biased and one-sided views on gun control policies and issues that, in many cases, have their own individual pages at Wikipedia.

What is perhaps most striking is that, despite the overwhelming body of contemporary public statements and testimony available from CSGV leaders, you have instead chosen to use this page to circulate outright lies about the organization ("CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership"), cite 20 year-old statements from CSGV leaders that have no relevance to the work the group is engaged in today, and to editorialize on a series of issues that have no direct relevance to the subject at hand, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. This has included expanded commentary on gun shows and concealed handguns in national parks, which Wiki Firearms Project suddenly decided was no longer "relevant" on this page when a federal court issued an injunction against a Bush Administration rule that allowed concealed handguns in America's National Parks. CSGV's involvement in the issue changed in absolutely way, shape or form with that ruling. We were never involved in that litigation and have consistently opposed legislation to allow concealed handguns in National Parks and continue to do so. You simply decided the issue no longer played well for your side on Wikipedia and made yet another subjective and biased decision as to how to edit this page.

I have no interest whatsoever in using this page to "promote" CSGV, but I will continue to act to ensure that the information on this page is both accurate and non-biased. We will no longer sit still and watch members of the Wiki Firearms Project, again and again, try to dominate the content on this page and use it as a sounding board to disseminate clearly biased and one-sided views that are obviously hostile to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and its mission to reduce gun death and injury in America.

Wikipedia strives for its articles to have a "Neutral Point of View," stating, "The ideal Wikipedia article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge." We will seek to ensure that standard is enforced on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Wikipage and look forward to working directly with the moderators on this page to do so.CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

your tone is highly aggressive and inflammatory. before pointing fingers further, i recommend that you review the following wikipedia core policies: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. you've violated all of these core policies above. attacking other editors, rather than their edits, is not acceptable. frothing at the mouth about the evil wiki firearms project (of which this editor is not a member, nor is this editor a member of the NRA or the second amendment foundation or or the brady campaign or csgv or any other gun rights or gun control organization, thank you very much) is not going to persuade people that you are interested in a neutral article yourself. i have reverted all of your edits because you have a conflict of interest. i would recommend that you cease editing here, as you are violating wikipedia policy with each and every edit you make. Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not cease making edits, and any neutral and unbiased observer will see in a matter of seconds that Wiki Firearms Projects members have used this page repeatedly to slander the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and offer heavily biased and one-sided views on issues that we advocate on (in many cases which are outright lies that are totally unsupportable). That is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy which strives for neutrality in its public editing process. We already have a call into the Wikimedia's San Francisco's offices and will pursue this situation doggedly until it is resolved and this page has ceased to be a platform for attacks against this organization by those who clearly oppose the regulation of firearms. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

again, you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest. you are not neutral on the subject. your desire to remove material from the article that does not present CSGV in a sympathetic light is certainly not neutral. so while you argue that others are violating policy, you are doing so yourself. i look forward to the outcome of your call to wikimedia. i look forward to your account being blocked. Anastrophe (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We very much look forward to taking the matter up with Wikimedia staff, and to offering primary source evidence--including public statements, testimony, and documents--for every revision we have made to this page in order to ensure its accuracy. We also greatly look forward to reviewing the activity of Wiki Firearms Project members on this page and on the pages of other organizations that advocate for strengthening gun laws to prevent gun violence in order to see if their activity has reflected a "conflict of interest" or not. And since you have been involved in defending content on this page (and others relating to gun issues) that is clearly biased, it would be an appropriate point to review your activity as well. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

threats are not helpful. primary sources are generally not used in wikipedia. this further demonstrates that you need to spend more time familiarizing yourself with wikipedia's core policies and values. i have zero conflict of interest, you have complete conflict of interest. my edits will stand up entirely to review and i'm unconcerned about such review; yours, not so much. i'm genuinely amused by the notion that you can call wikimedia to try to bully editors away from editing this article. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly never made any "threats," but I think what has gone on on this page will be of great interest to Wikimedia staff, particularly some of the outright lies that have not only been published, but defended here. I greatly look forward to a thorough review of the history of this page and how it stands up to the Wikipedia regulations concerning Neutrality. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

again, bold talk, not backed up by facts. outright lies rarely survive on wikipedia, because all material must be properly sourced. are you saying that sources have been falsified? that would be quite a claim in itself. not that you care, but i've removed biased material from this article that was improperly sourced on several occasions - biased material that presented 'unfavorable' commentary or opinions about CSGV. i would again strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia's core values and policies. you do not own this article, regardless of your desire to do so formally. rather than slinging epithets and ad hominem, you could try detailing the specific issues with the material that you feel are lies, misrepresentative, whatever, and work with your fellow editors to craft an NPOV article. NPOV does not mean that the article will present your organization favorably or unfavorably - thus, your desire to scrub the article of perceived unfavorable facts (the past name of the group, the past policies of the group) will not stand. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, User:CSGV has just a few dozen total Wikipedia edits, and fairly can be described as an new-comer editor. Yet, Yaf and Anastrophe appear to be biting the newcomer. Check the talk page history of both Anastrope and Yaf and judge for yourself whether these editors have a long history in this regard. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, this is not actually true. If you look at the traceroute of the anon IP editor who previously edited extensively here, it traces to the same CSGV organization. It looks like the CSGV/anonIP editor rather has a long history editing on this article. Running edits continuously like a PR press release campaign, in both cases, while deleting all content sourced to other than the CSGV website, and while copying article text verbatim from the CSGV site as a copyvio problem, by a professional Director of Communications, is hardly the mark of an average newcomer. Let's be fair here. Yaf (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

i'd love to see actual valid evidence that i was biting the newcomer, saltyboatr. the newcomer came charging in here, being uncivil, not assuming good faith, hostile, and making personal attacks. i was polite and unemotional in advising the user of these problems, perhaps with the exception of "i look forward to your account being blocked", which admittedly was due to being repeatedly verbally bludgeoned by this 'newcomer'. have you no criticisms of this user's methods and manner? Anastrophe (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

irrelevant content?

now that the following material has been corrected to match what the cite says, it seems that it is irrelevant to this article:

On March 19, 2001, a federal judge repealed the new rule allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms concealed within National Park Service lands within states where their permits are valid, based upon environmental concerns, in response to concerns by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.[15]

it appears that csgv was not involved in this matter, so i don't see a need for it...? Anastrophe (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not relevant to CSGV. By the way, the date should be March 19, 2009. --Hamitr (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Out it goes. Yaf (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

gun interest groups

Isn't it possible to transform that odd-shaped box into a proper nav-box, so it go at the bottom of articles rather than be randomly placed inside of them? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"anti-gun"?

I notice in the lede sentence this organization is described as "anti-gun", yet I don't see that mentioned in the www.constitution.org webblog pdf file. This, among other problems, seems to be unsourced and may be viewed as a pejorative. Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about the content of the cite: Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, John K. Lattimer, George B. Murray, and Edwin H. Cassem (1994). "GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?". Tennessee Law Review 61: pp. 513-596. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf. "“The position of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns is very clear... [We support] ban[ning] the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns, except for police, military, licensed security guards and pistol clubs. “ Michael K. Beard, testimony on behalf of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns in support of 8-132 Before the Committee of the Judiciary 3 (Mar. 22, 1989) (transcript on file with the Tennessee Law Review;...". Isn't "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns, except for police, military, licensed security guards and pistol clubs" an anti-gun position? What would you rather call it? Yaf (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some more recent source material? That 1994 article appears far out of date and doesn't seem to describe the present policy of the organization. At best that info should be covered down below in the article under a "history" section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You, SaltyBoatr, are supporting the position that between 1994 and 2009, the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence has denounced its anti-gun ways? You are saying that the CSGV is now either pro-gun or neutral? Hmmm. Given the strength of the references provided by Yaf to support his contention that they are an anti-gun organization, then you must provide equally strong references to say that they are, giggle, pro-gun or, at best, neutral. I'd really like to see them. Of course I know they don't exist. You really can't question the verifiability and reliability of his sources without first providing your own. Good luck. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why lead with 35 year old history?

It seems odd that such a high emphasis is given to the 35 year old history of this organization in the lead section, and the current status of the organization is treated as an afterthought. This, maybe coincidentally, seems to match a gun-rights advocacy point of view and could be viewed as a WP:NPOV violation. Isn't there a better way to write the lead? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

are you asking for permission to contribute to this article? none is needed, you know. feel free to actually edit the article and make a positive contribution. Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

rather than waiting for your participation, i took the step of splitting out the history details into their own history section, rather than them being stuffed in the lede. i've rigorously cited the material, scrubbed as much promotional/copyvio material that i can at this late hour, and removed several external links (they may be of interest in the body of the article, but are inappropriate at bare links).

you're welcome. Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Under the "History" section, the editor claims that CSGV was formed with the goal of "getting handguns banned" and then that this goal was later "refined" to include certain exceptions for private citizens. But the source provided for the earlier assertion actually lists those exact exceptions as being included in the original Methodist Church resolution on the topic (the cited source is "Book of Resolutions," 1976, pp. 63-64). This section should be clarified to indicate that the Methodist Church and NCBH included these exceptions from the very first time they issued a public document on the topic. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This section has been edited to work these issues. See any remaining problems? Yaf (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem was still there, yes. How did the coalition "refine" its position? The exceptions for private handgun ownership described in the earliest Methodist resolution on the topic are the same exact ones described in 1989 in testimony by Mike Beard (the two sources you cite). The organization's position actually remained entirely consistent over this period. I have edited these two lines and simply reduced it to one, but maintained both citations. Forward Thinkers (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the timelines of this history seem to be at odds. the article states that the organization was formed in 1974, but the source in question suggests that the resolutions, and the NCBH, were formed contemporaneously in 1976. perhaps the comm. director can point us to a reliable source for when the organization was formed.

further, i've reviewed the current CSGV website and can't find any position statement regarding whether the organization still supports banning handguns. obviously, lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself, so if there's some reliable source that can verify the organizations stand on the matter, it would be welcome. likewise, whether the organization still believes there's no constitutional personal right to bear arms. Anastrophe (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have one other question. Someone provided a quote here from Kristen Goss' book "Disarmed" that reads as follows: "In 1989, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in part because the group felt that 'assault rifles' as well as handguns, should be banned." Ms. Goss has a citation for that claim, citation no. 26 in Chapter Four of her book. Mysteriously, when I went to page down to check that citation on the GoogleBooks link you provided, that page is missing (without any explanation as to why, all the other reference pages appear to be there). What is the citation for this claim and did you verify it before posting this quote to this page? Forward Thinkers (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

the citation for ms. goss's book meets WP:V and WP:RS. if you dispute ms. goss's source, take it up with ms. goss. Anastrophe (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of that book, and on pg 112 the sentence reads "In that year, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed." This sentence is footnoted #26 in the book (on page 237) as "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Timeline" (Washington, D.C.: Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1999). Hopefully that is helpful. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. That primary source, which Ms. Goss cites in her book as validation in that quote, was exactly what I was looking for. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the COI tag

Is that COI tag really necessary? It appears that all the COI offending text has already been deleted out. Which COI offending text remains? Be specific please, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid tag, for at least a while. Some of the extant text that is still in the article has resulted from user CSGV's prior edits that hasn't yet been validated with cites. If problems are found in the course of adding cite tags and cites, then there is definitely a problem. I don't think this tag will need to remain for long. Probably less than a month. Yaf (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Be specific please. I see no cite requested tags. I see nothing particularly suspect either. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

the tag is a notice that an editor with a COI has been at work here. it is an advisory. it should stay up until all issues surrounding this editor's work have been resolved. since the editor's username, actions, and behavior are still being addressed, here and elsewhere, it is premature to scrub the article of this important advisory. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Be specific please. What text needs fixing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

not sure yet. the editor in question may have made previous anonymous edits, and it's also quite likely that this editor will be back, in one form or another, though it's impossible to know whether they'll continue attempting to scrub material from the article that is 'unfavorable' to the organization. it will take time to sort through these issues and the article. if you would kindly reread the COI tag, it is an advisory, plainly stating that there may be issues with the article. please allow your fellow editors the time and space to investigate. badgering is not helpful.thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to be specific with a general tag. That's three editors telling you the same thing. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, I'm sure you don't intend to, but your comments in this section are coming across as pushy and a bit hostile. Let's try to stay cool. --Hamitr (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking as gently as I know how: Does anybody see any specific effect of the COI editor in the article at present? When I look I see that all the COI edits have presently been fixed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

not sure yet. the editor in question may have made previous anonymous edits, and it's also quite likely that this editor will be back, in one form or another, though it's impossible to know whether they'll continue attempting to scrub material from the article that is 'unfavorable' to the organization. it will take time to sort through these issues and the article. if you would kindly reread the COI tag, it is an advisory, plainly stating that there may be issues with the article. please allow your fellow editors the time and space to investigate.thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, no problem. I just don't see that "a major contributor" has any COI contributions which have not been already edited out. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all previously-extant COI issues have been addressed. Have removed COI tagline. If a new COI issue arises, then it can be re-tagged. Yaf (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

removal of POV tag

The #Neutrality Dispute section above specifies a few points of contention:

1. correctly state CSGV's mission statement
2. disallow editing by "opponents of our organization"
3. citations for statements such as "CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership."

I've addressed point #1 here. Point #2 isn't going to happen. And point #3 has been addressed with cites in the History section and throughout the article.

As these points have been addressed, I have removed the POV tag from the article. --Hamitr (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Give this a bit of time for interested editors to consider the end of the dispute. I agree that the recent edits have improved the problem. Leave the tag in for long enough for this to happen. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all the issues have been addressed. Removing tagline. If new issues arise, then the tag will obviously go back. Yaf (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

bad link

I noticed that citation 15 went to a bad link. I tried to find the statement on the organization's website to add the correct link. Turns out the information is incorrect, based on the organization's website. I'm going to delete the incorrect statement. --PFS (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)