Talk:Eddie Eagle

Opposition?

It would be nice if someone from the Other Side would say in a bit more detail how Eddie Eagle is objectionable. One might uncharitably suppose that to the gun-grabbers the only appropriate response to firearms is blind panic, which the litany (if it works as advertised) would counteract. —Tamfang 19:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the kids played with the guns because they knew they were toys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.46.193 (talk • contribs)

It's like you said - it's objectionable because of the source, not the message. They feel that if it didn't come out of the Brady Bunch, it must be biased. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

is there even a citation for the criticism. and is there similar programs, ie: one by the Bradly campaign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Eagle in the news

Is it up to Wikipedia editors to decide which criticisms are "legitimate"?[1] Or do we just compile reliable material on notable topics? This issue was reported in multiple sources, so it appears to be significant. If the issue is the wording, I'm sure we can find a different way of summarizing the issue. Felsic2 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's the text that was deleted:

• In April 2016, Samantha Bee on her show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, in a sketch critical of the NRA's political advocacy, attempted to purchase an Eddie Eagle costume from the NRA but was denied, while also successfully purchasing several firearms.

That seems like a minimal and accurate summary of the sources which would be hard to improve upon. Here are some more sources which establish its notability: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] FWIW, here's a link to the original episode: [17]. Since no one has provided "legitimate" reason for cutting this well-sourced and neutral text, or suggested any changes, I'll go ahead and restore it. Felsic2 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This was a PR stunt, not a legitimate criticism of the program. If you think the material should remain please raise the issue to get more eyes on it. Springee (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A request for extra eyes was placed on the NRA talk page [[18]]. Springee (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article following the latest set of reverts here today. Please discuss and reach a consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: - what is your basis for calling it a "PR stunt"? Is that your own personal assessment or is that what reliable sources call it? If the latter, then it'd still be a reasonable addition. I suppose some might call the entire Eddie Eagle program a PR stunt for the NRA, and many PR stunts are notable, so that issue alone does not disqualify its inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You have to be kidding yourself. The section discusses criticism of the program. The material was rightly removed with all the justification needed. That the NRA wants to protect who gets a trademarked item that could be used disparagingly against them is perfectly reasonable. I noticed that you included the National Review. That article makes the point perfectly, this wasn't a criticism of the program but an anti-NRA PR stunt. This is the sort of thing that you should be able to understand. It was perfectly reasonable to post this to the NRA site since this is an NRA program. You are just looking for a sympathetic audience. Since this is firearms related I will post it to that site. I'm sorry that common sense hasn't prevailed here. Incidentally, you seem to be the only editor who supports inclusion. The 86.whatever IP address was trolling my edits after I stopped it's disruption at the Mini-14 article. Springee (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write the original material. @Krapenhoeffer: added the National Review.[19] Do you consider it to be a reliable source? I'm fine with adding more about their view of the issue. What I disagree with is deleting it entirely, since it has received so much coverage. Whether or not it was an "anti-NRA PR stunt" doesn't really affect the decision to include it. That should be based on whether it was reported in reliable source, and it was so it should be included. As for your description of Full Frontal as a "pop TV show", that seems a bit biased.[20] Pretty much all TV shows are pop TV shows. Felsic2 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The only consideration is notability of the criticism itself. While the criticism did get a lot of press coverage at the time, my personal judgement is that as it was a comedy sketch it could warrant a maybe 1 line mention in the criticism section. My personal inclination is to give weight to academic critiques over and above any sort of television program. I also tend to have a heterodox philosophy that Wikipedia can and should have temporary additions in articles for people who are searching for something that is trending that can be removed later. I do not believe that the goal should be a static encyclopedia. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a publicity stunt, an effective criticism or just an example of a liberal being an idiot is irrelevant to whether or not to include it. For example, Mass Effect (video game) contains criticism from conservatives that gives a completely inaccurate description of the game. What matters is the amount of coverage that the criticism has received. In this case, more than enough sources have been shown to prove that the Sam Bee segment has received enough coverage to be included in the article. Now, if a notable gun activist has issued a response to her segment, that might be worth including as well. JDDJS (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The material was in a section called "criticism". If it's going to be "media coverage" then there may be a weight argument but it would have to include follow up explanation/reply material. For instance, NR mentioned that it was a RP stunt and that it's very reasonable for a private organization to protect trademark materials from groups that are likely to use the items in a negative way. Regardless, the material as is, it clearly not a legitimate criticism and as editors we can make an editorial judgment to remove it. Springee (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If your concern is that it is in the "criticism" section we can move it out of there. Has there been any other media coverage of the mascot or the program? If so then go ahead and add that too. As for National Review, I don't see where it calls the segment a "PR stunt". It calls it "willful stupidity", which is a very different matter. Felsic2 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

*Keep the text, but place the text in a media section. My opinion: Per Users Felsic2 and JDDJS the text has multiple reliable multiple sources, and per WP:NPOV is to be included in this article. Per User Springee I do not consider the text a criticism of the Eddie Eagle program, but describes a media event or a type of investigative reporting. I did not find any statements in the sources stating the actions are a PR stunt.CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Per feedback here I've updated the section heading and rephrased the sentence. Springee (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Due to the return of the UK based IP vandal I'm requesting the page be semi-protected. @Ritchie333: Springee (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: You need to read WP:NOTVANDAL right now before I give both you and the IP a block for edit warring. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Sam Bee segment should be reworded. First of all, she did not directly compare buying the costume and guns. Second of all, the fact that it's trademark doesn't need to be in the sentence. Finally, after mentioning the segment, another sentence should be written that acknowledges that some praised the segment, but then a brief summary of the National Review's response to her segment, so that it is unbiased. JDDJS (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good. Felsic2 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Another suggestion is that we could move the "critical" material to a section titled "Effectiveness". Since the material is already pro and con POVs about its effectiveness, that seems like a better heading. It might also reduce the impression that there's undue weight on critical material. Felsic2 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the Effectiveness idea, good call. Springee (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To all that support inclusion, what do you feel her segment actually added to the reader's understanding of the Eddie Eagle program? I see this as a core problem here. Was her segment actually about the kids education program or its effectiveness? It is only important to the topic of the EE program to the extent that the NRA is clearly interested in protecting their trademarked costume. Remember we are dealing with a weight issue, mention of the costume, even though it's a critical element of the story doesn't mean the story has sufficient weight for inclusion here. There are several recent topic examples were an event got coverage in the press but it wasn't considered of sufficient weight for inclusion in a particular topic. Does anyone see this as anything but a political statement against the NRA, not a stand on the EE program itself? If the commentary is about the NRA vs the EE program then we don't have clear weight for inclusion in this article. I would support inclusion in the comedian or show article. It also could fit into the NRA article if a proper subsection exists. Finally, currently it appears to me we have consensus for just a one sentence mention. Given a single sentence I think it's only proper to include mention of the trademark since that is what the NRA is protecting. Springee (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the text belongs in the article as stated in the article, which is a media investigation comparison. The scope of the article is more than the EE program, the scope also includes uses and comparisons. Because the EE costume is used in the comparison, the text belongs in this article, the text in addition, could also be placed or noted/linked in the NRA article. fyi, I think the current text is missing the results of the comparison. CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't an investigation, it was a comedy show and sketch. Why do you think the article scope is about more than the EE program? I agree that scope would include effectiveness and impact but it's a stretch to say it would include NRA trademark protection. I can see this sort of thing being on the NRA page (given it was meant to highlight what can be seen as hypocritical policy) but what about on the show's page or the comedian's page? The show was on for only one season so it seems this is actually better placed there. Also, that would be a better place to include both the positive and negative replies. Again, I ask, how does the NRA's wish to protect their trademark and a comedy show's wish to juxtapose the trademark protection with the NRA's position on gun purchase restrictions fit into the context of the NRA's children's safety program? Springee (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a satire investigation/event. An article's scope, and every article's scope includes uses, events, investigations, comparisons, history, aftermath, popular culture, causes and effects et al. I think a brief text note can be in the NRA article too, and in the show's article. I did not find any objection to protecting a trademark. CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's satire but investigation is a big stretch. An article's scope isn't everything under the sun that can be associated with a subject. We saw that with the RfC related to criminal use of vehicles RfC [[21]]. That RfC made it very clear that coverage about subject A which used B doesn't ensure weight in subject B. To see if this is really about the EE program all we have to do is look at the articles that cover it. VOX and RS (RS was more of a blurb than a real article) mention that the NRA was protective of people getting the consume and the episode compared that with the laws around getting guns in some states. OK. First, how is that about the EE program vs about the NRA's control of it's trademarked items. Note that the National Review specifically mentions trademark. The NRA, in responding to the satire also notes trademark protection [[22]]. Second, again how that satire inform the reader about the EE program? It informs the reader about the NRA's wish to protect their trademarks. If the text in the article said that "The NRA restricts the use of the EE character and costumes..." and then presented the SB satire as evidence then I can see it. We shouldn't confuse satire targeting the policies of the NRA with satire targeting the EE program. If this satire has sufficient weight for mention then the NRA page (or a page about the NRA's policies) would be the correct place to mention it. Perhaps an "also see" at the end of this article. Springee (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Springee, we have different opinions. I think the satire on NRA policies using the EE program belongs in both articles, see also cross references are valid also. If you wish, you can create an RFC. I do not have an interest editing this article, only commenting on the talk page. I responded because I read your request to see this talk page n the firearms page. CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is important enough to create a RfC. I would hope that we can come up with a more balanced entry (never mind the edit warring IP). In to the arguments that the SB stuff isn't about the EE program we also have the issue that currently the article makes no mention of why the NRA wanted to protect the trade mark. What would you think of starting the SB part off by noting that the NRA is protective of the trademark (ie about the EE program) then followed with the SB material as evidence that the NRA was protective and SB used that to highlight a difference? Given that this is an NRA program do you feel it's at least correct to include the NRA's response to SB's attempt to get the costume? Springee (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd delete "sketch", as that may denigrate it. To accommodate Springee, we could add "trademark". But otherwise I think the text written by Krapenhoeffer was adequate. I don't see any benefit from quoting the National Review article in the footnote. It's a strident opinion piece and is readily available. We should delete it. If there's a good reason for keeping it then we should find a similar but opposing quote to balance it. While a sentence is OK, this has received more coverage than other aspects of the program. NPOV says to cover things in proportion to their coverage, so it could be longer if more sides of the issue need to be included. Felsic2 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've given it a second crack. This time I left Krapenhoeffer's sentence almost untouched. I removed the date of the show simply because that was obvious from the links and unneeded to tell the story. I added a lead in sentence that explained that the NRA has strict usage guidelines for the mascot (including supporting statements from the NRA). This ties the SB material to this article vs general NRA policy. I added a reduced quote to the NR footnote that just explains that their is a difference between private property rights and gun access laws. I'm in favor of keeping "sketch" because it's a comedy show, not an investigative show but I'm open to other terms. Springee (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I split out "effectiveness" and "media coverage" as separate topics. I moved the NRA reaction to the end, changed "sketch" to the more neutral "segment", and removed the unneccesary quote from National Review. I also added a link to "trademark" in case readers want to learn more about those. Felsic2 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's an improvement vs the previous text but we are probably close enough to not bother with more structural changes. Since the NRA sentence is now used as a supporting sentence vs subject sentence of the paragraph I expanded it to make it clear the NRA sees this as private property rights vs 2nd A protection. I also restored the footnote that was deleted. Springee (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to add a long response from the NRA and an even longer quote from the conservative National Review piece[23] then we should add more about Bee's commentary on the Eddie Eagle program and mascot, per WP:DUE. Felsic2 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The response from the NRA, ie the target of the SB segment, is reasonable to include. The sentence was shorter when it was used as the subject of the paragraph. If you choose to make the SB segment the subject then why object to including the NRA's response to the segment? The footnote is included because it provides insight rather than just support that SB did the comparison. The Vox and RS sources basically say "SB did this, watch the video". If you think one of the other sources should have a footnote then perhaps you can add it. Previously you had objected to what you saw as inflammatory language in the footnote and that has been removed. Springee (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so then it appears we agree that this matter deserves more than a single sentence. If we're going to devote space to the NRA's rebuttal then we ought to actually explain fully Bee's point about the mascot costume. As listed above, there are many more sources to choose from. I still don't see any need for adding a quote from an opinion piece that's easily available, but we can balance it with a quote from the opposite POV. I went ahead and added a sentence with more details about the application process for the costume versus versus buying a gun.[24] Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think that one sentence is too many given that this is at best a tertiary connection to the subject of the article. Two sentences is more than enough. Your additional content is borderline COATRACK and UNDUE. Additionally it didn't add any information. The first sentence already says she bought guns and her opinion is just that. Note that the NR footnote doesn't contain inflammatory opinions, it states the facts. As a compromise I've expanded the NYDN footnote with much of the factual information. To keep the number of citations down to 3 I've removed the Vox reference since it says about the same things as the NYDN. Springee (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The process of obtaining an Eddie Eagle suit seems directly related to the article, not tertiary. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore the material. My preference would be to remove all quotes from citations. Basic information should be in the article, not the footnotes. Felsic2 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, I appreciate that you are asking and discussing. I do not agree that the NRA's protection (and obviously warranted caution) regarding the use of their trademarks is of significant weight to this program. More germane to the topic would be what the program teaches, how they teach it, what the successes and failures have been. The SB material is at best a side show since it was not done to protest the youth education program but the NRA's stance regarding public policies. Footnotes are a reasonable place to put the extra information. Please note that the material in both of the footnotes is factual, not opinions or hyperbole. I think we have been bouncing back and forth in this disagreement but I also think we are both getting closer to a mutually satisfactory version of the text. Perhaps adding a bit more to the first sentence, something like (needs some attentional work):

Samantha Bee on her show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, in a segment critical of the NRA's political advocacy, contrasted an unsuccessful attempt to acquire an Eddie Eagle costume, noting an 18 page application and 20 day review period, while legally purchasing several firearms without a background check.

Anyway, we have a vote above for no more than one sentence. Let's keep it to two sentences. Footnotes can help in that regard. Springee (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Springee, I think your proposed sentence above is good, and the NRA response already added, meet WP:NPOV.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall that's fine. Two small changes:

Samantha Bee on her show Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, in a segment accusing the NRA of hypocrisy, contrasted an unsuccessful attempt to acquire an Eddie Eagle costume, noting an 18 page application and 20 day review period, while quickly purchasing several firearms without a background check.

I don't think the sources say Bee criticized the NRA for politial advocacy. However even the NRA-ILA piece says she accused them of hypocrisy: Comedian and television host Samantha Bee supposedly did an “epic takedown” of the NRA’s “hypocrisy”... [25] Also, the issue with contrasting the purchase of the suit with the purchase of a gun isn't that one was legal and the other illegal - it's that one was quick and easy while the other was complicated and unsuccessful. Felsic2 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we are very close. I agree with the hypocrisy part but I don't think 'quickly' ads anything and is a subjective term. I'll change the first part of the sentence as you suggested. Springee (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The only outstanding issue seems to be the use of quotes in the citations. I'll add in the consensus version while we work to resolve that matter. Felsic2 (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll say again that the quotes repeat what is alrady in the text, that the sources are easily available, that they give additional weight to certain points of view, that the article would not be helped by making the citations longer, and that there's no need for them. If there is important material in them it should be in the text instead. FWIW, I don't see significant support for limiting this material to on or two sentences - let's give it its due weight. Felsic2 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a one line sentence noting that the Brady Center and VPC are both critical of the program. I'm actually not sure this information should be included per UNDUE but inclusion may satisfy both sides of the discussion. Springee (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you quote the part of "UNDUE" that you're referencing?

Do you have a response about the quotes? Felsic2 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is this part of Project Medicine?

Why is this article part of project medicine? It seems a stretch for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed reverts

I don't see a good explanation for this major revert: [26] I checked some of the sources and the text seems like a fair summary. I'm going to restore the text pending some agreement on any problems with it and what needs to be fixed. Felsic2 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

First, we have had a number of issues with IP editors on this page so we should be suspicious of yet another IP editor who shows up just after the block is lifted and proceeds to make a large number of edits. Second, the material is a clear POV push. The editor didn't add new material rather they expanded material taken from existing sources to the point of being a serious WEIGH concern. I guess we could say that the material from two anti-gun activist organizations is "new" but is it credible? Including extensive quotes from anti-gun organizations again becomes a POV push/WEIGHT issue. If the IP editor feels the material should be there after two editors removed it then the IP editor can make a case for it on the talk page just as you, I and others have done. Springee (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not restore material that has been removed by two other editors without discussion. Sorry, I saw that you restored the material at the same time I posted above. Regardless, you should have waited given two editors had removed the material. Springee (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IP editors have equal rights here. We include informaion from pro-gun organizations, but sources don't need to be neutral. What specifc issues do you have? You deleted everything he did, so it doesn't look like you were being discriminate. The other editor, @Babymissfortune:, seems to have mistaken the edit for vandalism, for some reason. If they don't contribute here we can disregard their edit. Felsic2 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IP editors do have equal rights but that also means they need to make a case for their work like you and I often do. The POV push should be clear. Greatly expanding quotes from sources that are critical of the program violates equal weight. We have academic sources that say the program isn't effective because it relies on a teaching style that isn't effective with the target age group. That is a legitimate criticism. That isn't where the IP editor put his efforts. Look at the 20/20 material. ABC has run basically the same new story twice. Since they said the same thing each time why at 150% more text to say the same thing a second time? It gets worse when one realizes the 2014 20/20 episode was basically already covered later (Eckard's research). It would be better to just mention that Hardy's work on the subject was covered by 20/20 in 2014. The "reception" section is very WP:POVPUSH. Opinion quotes from anti-gun groups like VPC and the Brady Campaign are highly suspect in this article. Let's at least stick with true academic publications rather than anti-gun groups. Finally, this was really sloppy work. For example, Hardy's work and its 2014 20/20 connection is mentioned twice. If it's academic work then it would be best to put it with the other academic studies and include a note that Hardy's study was repeated for cameras by 20/20 with a link. Perhaps you can propose how this material could be integrated. Sloppy work like the IP editor's is often easier to save by removing and starting over. I'll give it a shot and you can tell me if you are open to the edits. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken. NPOV says nothing about "equal weight". Instead, the section on weight says Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So we need to look at the reliable sources, judge the prominence, and then summarize them. Can you please offer alternative summaries of the sources? Felsic2 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I checked "WP:POVPUSH, Here's what it says:

POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas. Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them.

Are you saying that ABC reports on a minor or fringe idea? Based on the number of sources which make siumilar points, it does not seem to be a fringe point of view that's too minor to give due weight to. Felsic2 (talk)

You need to review POVPUSH. It doesn't say the idea must be fringe. This is an NRA sponsored program. An unknown editor is trying to add extensive quotes that are critical of the NRA and one of it's program to the article. That looks like POV pushing. Remember that as part of the original addition the editor added quite a bit of clearly anti-NRA opinion material, not just the 20/20 redo of a 2002 research publication. When we give more article space to the opinions of an anti-gun advocacy group than we do to describing the actual program we have a weight issue. Anyway, I've cleaned up the addition of the Hardy study and noted that 20/20 recreated the study as part of a feature. Springee (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I quoted POVPUSH - it says "undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas". Can you quote what part you're talking about? Are you going to post your text without getting consensus? Felsic2 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I won't be able to engage here for a couple of days. Please post your explanations of your material and a summary of the other sources as well. And tell us why you deleted Jason Priestly too. Felsic2 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. POVPUSH is not limited to fringe material, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article". It is most commonly a concern with fringe points of view but not limited to such. Giving two unashamedly anti-gun organizations more text space than we give to the program itself is certainly UNDUE. Given the strong political POV of those sources and their general opposition to the NRA we also have a POVPUSH problem. Perhaps a one line stating that the two groups are critical of the program with links to the sources would be sufficient. Springee (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the presentation is especially aggressive. Your own draft has included most of the material you previously reverted out entirely. Edit warring isn't a good way to improve articles. In any case, if there's a problem with an editor then that discussion belongs on another page. Let's keep this page devoted to discussing content.

The question isn't whether a source is pro-gun or anti-gun. It's whether they are reliable. If we prohibited sources with strong opinions the entire gun topic would be far smaller.

Saying someone criticizes something without describing the criticism seems like an enmpty exercise. Can you please add a summary of their main points?

Again, why did you delete Jason Priestly? Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor (the UK based one) is clearly trolling. A large number of edits with "rrv" as the edit summary (are you saying my original edits were vandalism? The IP is) without engaging in discussion means we have a problematic editor.

As for Jason, I'm rather indifferent on that content and don't object to adding it. I disagree that we don't have a weight issue. Remember, the entire description of the program is shorter than some of the negative material in question. You are correct that my draft added material that I don't agree with. As we did with the SB section I'm hoping this will work as a compromise that we can all be happy with. It does mater if a source is heavily anti-gun when we are dealing with the presentation of an opinion. I think you will find many who don't consider Brady or VPC to be reliable sources of gun information in cases such as this. Furthermore, the quoted material wasn't factual but was pure opinion based. Extensive coverage of an anti-gun organization's opinion, more extensive that even the coverage of the program itself, is certainly a WEIGHT issue and POV pushing. I kept links to the material in the text but cut the text itself down to improve the balance of the article. Finally, POVPUSH doesn't only apply to fringe theories. Again, look at the quote you provided. It says it's particularly common in the case of fringe theories but that doesn't limit it to cases of fringe theories.

Actual opinions should either be attributed or omitted. But factual material from reliable but biased sources is allowed. Let's leave talk about POV pushers and who reverted more out of this discussion - that's about individual editors and belongs elsewhere. As for weight, I refer you again to WP:WEIGHT, which is the only authority on the matter. You still haven't said why you've repeatedly deleted the reference to Jason Priestly or called the addtion "vandalism". Please be more careful in your editing in the future. Felsic2 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, how much text space is given to a particular opinion is a weight issue. It is inappropriate to give extensive coverage, including long in text quotes to negative opinion articles out of proportion to the total length of the article. That was the issue we were having. I think much of what you've added is a big improve to the article. I'm generally like your efforts to and balance by including more positive material as well as general detail and when I get a chance I would like to help out with some additional material. As for Jason, I already answered. It was removed it as part of a larger removal when our UK IP dumped text with no regard for how it integrated with the article nor concern about redundant text. I don't think it adds but I'm not against keeping it. I've thanked you for several of your edits because I think they were good additions. Its my hope that you are talking those as genuine appreciation. Springee (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

While I disagreed with your earlier edits here, I think you have done a good job with many of your edits today. Would you look at adding information from this research paper, [[27]] and this government report [[28]]. One other note, you put a CN tag next to the part where it was said the program materials are available for download. Well, this is a primary source but here is the link to the material, [[29]]. Anyway, I know we haven't seen eye to eye on this issue but your edits today have really been very positive! Springee (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, there are major deletions without discussion. Please explain why you deleted sourced material from reliable sources. And please limit your comments to your own editing. Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

What major deletions? No sources were removed. The three long quotes were consolidated into a position statement. The long quotes don't add content or understanding but they do present a WEIGHT issue. The NYT short opinion editorial (no evidence it was a "significant noteworthy viewpoint") stated the same thing as the previous "Advocates of safe storage laws..." so I moved the reference there. Springee (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I again consolidated some of the edits that "yet another" IP made. In truth I suspect we are dealing with two recent IP editors. The UK based one and the other, likely a sock of a current banned editor. It seems unlikely that a random, novice editor would make such clean edits and edit comments. Regardless, the additions in question had WEIGHT issues. I've condensed the material but left the references to the actual source material. I didn't keep the references to sources that were about 20/20 vs the NRA program. Springee (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, major edits/reverts without discussion.[30] I don't see where any IP editor has been determined to be a sockpuppet, so let's leave that part out of the equation. As for the latest edits, I'm going to restore them. The sources appear reliable and the material seems relevant. Overall, the edits appear to improve the article. Felsic2 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, the recent IP sock edits were reverted for several reasons. First, per WP:DENY we shouldn’t allow edits made by banned or sock editors to remain. Second, the quality of the edits are of a low standard. Third, the IP editor has restored material removed by other editors. That means we need to get into the discuss part of the BRD cycle. The IP editor has been invited to join the discussion but has refused. Regardless of WP:DENY, let’s review the edits so we can see why this material shouldn’t stand.

We are dealing with a sock of a currently banned editor from the Chicago area. If nothing else doesn't it seem odd to you that we have a series of IP edits initially from Chicago but now from all over the world (the world of Amazon servers) that clearly know about things like edit summaries and citation formats yet refuse to enter into talk page discussions about their edits? If the IP editor isn't a sock then the IP editor can join the talk page discussions and justify their edits but in terms of weight and the way they have elected to add the material. There is no reason for you to speak for the editor. They clearly are experienced.

The material added to “training program” is mindless and seems to be nothing more than an excuse to stuff a reference into the into. Really, all the references stating what is available should be to the NRA-EE website directly or perhaps to a neutral source rather than a source that is then going to be critical of the subject. The sock editor in question commonly used this tactic on other articles to include disparaging references for innocuous facts. Do you really feel it adds to the article to say “order forms are available”?

The middle section contains long quotes from articles that state conclusions similar to others. They should be grouped and simple summaries put in the article. Extended quotes (and we have already seen similar out of this IP editor) are often a way to add weight to one aspect of an article vs another. Of any of the material that was added this is the closest to a reasonable addition in terms of sources but not in terms of editorial style.

The final section is material that we have already discussed. On Dec 8th we discussed the VPC opinion material and it is included as a reference. The long list of “as mentioned here” content again creates a weight issues. It doesn’t add to the understanding of the subject. If we are going to increase the length of prose we should at least do it with good content, not with claims that local papers or the NRA hostile NYT’s editorial section mentioned a VPC “study”. Again, given that the IP editor is treading on previous discussions said IP editor should be on the talk page justifying his edits.

You're misquoting WP:DENY. The IP's edits aren't vandalism. I don't see any official determination about him evading a ban, just your assertion.

As for the edits, your simply making sweeping deletions without any effort to summarize these reliable sources.

I'm not going to waste my time since it seems you're only interested in pursuing conflicts instead of improving articles. Felsic2 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts:

• DENY's optional advice; you can take it or leave it. OTOH, doing what's best for the article, even if that means leaving in content that you disagree with or that might have been written by someone you don't believe ought to be editing, isn't optional. It's a core policy requirement.
• WP:DUE weight isn't merely a matter of whether the "pro" or "anti" side gets more space. If a reasonable description of the content takes one paragraph, but a reasonable description of the "anti" view takes two paragraphs, then we actually need more space for the "anti" view. That is particularly common when you're writing about a relatively simple project (e.g., "let's build a stadium here for a professional sports team") that are opposed for multiple reasons (e.g., "not in my backyard", "that's an environmentally sensitive location", "the contractor's a crook", "the taxpayer will lose money", "the design is ugly", "we're subsidizing the wealthy team owner at the expense of local citizens", "that plan costs too much", "my small business will have to be re-located", "that sport is dangerous", and more).
• A more useful metric for DUE weight is to look at how much space is used in WP:Independent sources. If the best sources (all of them added together) give 50% space to describing the program, 25% to describing support for it, and 25% to describing opposition to it, then we should try to follow that (approximately). But if they're mostly talking about criticism (which seems to be the case here), then we should spend more space on the opposition than on the program, too.
• Given the realities of cognitive development, etc., the criticism about the program not working is probably all too accurate. There's a reason that things like "look both ways before crossing the street" are never taught just once, in a single, short session: a single lesson does not change young children's behavior.
• I suspect that, if someone researched this in detail, we would learn that we should be giving more space to the criticism that this program is insufficient on its own: if you truly want to reduce child deaths from firearms, then you want the fewest number of guns, the most secure storage systems to always be used, the best possible supervision of children, and for children to leave guns alone, in the now-unlikely (because of the other policies in place) event that an unsupervised child actually encounters an unsecured gun.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not many secondary sources on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)