Talk:1999 Missouri Proposition B

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1999 Missouri Proposition B article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri B‑class Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1999 Missouri Proposition B received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Untitled

Any comments, suggestions, grammatical errors discovered; are welcomed here.

Thanks for any courtesy's.

ArmedCitizen 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean-up Jklin all help is greatly appreciated.

ArmedCitizen 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is clearly biased.

If one reads this entry, it's loaded with weasel words and displays a Conservative bias in favor of the measure, discussing supporters as almost starry eyed idealists, as "John Ross made tireless attempts" and support is designed as a "vision." Meanwhile, opponents are people who see this as "their last attempt before the elections in 2000 to exercise their political power." The section Battle in Missouri is clearly biased, consisting mostly of large writings made by pro-Gun lobbyists.

The entire section is an utterly pro-Proposition screed. One finds when looking at the sources that they come entirely from the campaign in favor of the Propositon. There is not one regular news source, academic journal, or other reputable fact sheet in the list. This article should either be withdrawn or very highly edited.

Crock1701 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen nothing offered to edit the article.

Nor enter anything constructive. Only your opinion and POV message to demand a rewrite/removal.

Nice suggestion but out of context. This article reflects the Proposition B of 1999. Not the campaign in support nor deny. What has been presented reflects FACT with citations.

Do you blame your pencil for spelling error(s)?? Gun Control issues has a similar effect on me. Give me a FACT you can prove that I'm wrong.

Generalization statements are useless. This was the last attempt before the 2000 elections. (just look at the calendar) April comes before November.

MPS is the store house for most Prop B information. Give me the location of fair play by Gun Control, Inc., and I'll review their material. If you wish for other sources - produce ONE that indicates the Gun Control, Inc., didn't spend money in Missouri to defeat Prop B.

pro-Gun lobbyists !?!? How many times has Gun Control, Inc., changed their name to meet the 'trends' of today? There is more of a majority (48) than the Prohibition Act had in the 1920's (36). There is a movement to enact a Constitutional Amendment to insure a uniform Federal Permit for all citizens of every state.

You want more LINKs - That's NOT a problem. I've added a more anti-gun LINKs for those that believe I'm bias. Give me a regular news source, academic journal, or other reputable anything, that wasn't in fear of Clinton/Gore administration reprisals? Visit Ruby Ridge or Waco for that type of article.

Review the Fox News

Crock1701 I've removed your protest and demand. Please give justification here before removing what you feel is offensive.

BTW- Cute nickname.

ArmedCitizen 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crock1701

Why did you remove and/or edit these?

playing a secondary role to Hillary Clinton's activism,

Did Janet Reno do more than use Federal money?

Activism is the correct term for personal involment.

The Link was replaced? For what purpose?

Why isn't there any objection to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Carnahan#Political_career

The verbiage and presentation is much more severe than mine.

ArmedCitizen 06:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring NPOV tag

I'm restoring the NPOV tag that was added by Crock1701 and shortly after removed by ArmedCitizen. From the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page: 'Often, authors can view "their" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.'

Whent here is a NPOV dispute (as there is here), it is not appropriate to simply remove the NPOV tag without a consensus that the NPOV issues have been resolved.

I agree with Crock1701 that there are significant POV issues with the current version of this page. I think his/her suggestion to remove the page is excessive however, as there is a good deal of useful content here, on a subject that had no article previously. Some couple of examples of biased statements are: - "by those within Missouri that were law-abiding citizens that perceived a need for self-protection" - "John Ross made his tireless attempts" - "Then came the Ballot Language to mislead the uninformed voters" In general, the article is clearly written from the POV of someone who supports the aims of the measure. Individuals who also supported the measure are characterised favorably, and those who opposed the measure are characterised negatively. I am not disputing the factual accuracy of the statements, but how they are worked clearly expresses a biased POV. kenj0418 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenj0418: I'll address your suggested items.

Further attempts to raise issues by Crock1701 should be address HERE prior to the POV tag. (your choice) Random editing within any article and others I've added seems unjustified. Should covert edits be added without first giving reasonable justifications will be restored as soon as I discover the editing. I believe his/her edits have only been directed to this article and adding links to this article. (check history)

Consensus of one anonymous? I've addressed the suggestions while this article was in the Sandbox. Nothing has been contributed except for an attitude directed at my nickname. Guns are tools - nothing more. I've seen the list below and will consider paying for archive access to the local media. This issue is solely regional, what the media prints in other States was distributed by questionable sources. (Gun Control advocates have their preferred press releases.) . I did campaign during the Prob B and saw first hand to the political maneuvers. To say it was a pleasing and 'fair' issue - will be tough.

To repeat; constructive feedback is welcome, will be considered, and acted upon. Sour grapes will not. The WMSA website has my request and I'll add more from their website as it is released.

Changing MY originally offered Wiki Hillary website address to another less effective Wiki address is indeed anonymity at its finest.

That in and of itself should be a swift removal from Wiki editing privileges.

63.19.20.47 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Problem?

Using MPS as the ONLY source clearly presents a conflict of interest. One can find News Reports on the matter, including the NY Times write-up on the actual election:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30915F93D5C0C748CDDAD0894D1494D81

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0E1FF83E5D0C718CDDAD0894D1494D81

Search nytimes.com for "Missouri" "Concealed Carry" to find more information.

Furthermore, I would assume the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Kansas City Star would have information in their archives on the matter, as well as countless other MO Newspapers. While one provides links to pro-gun control organizations, it clearly misses the point of having diverse sources for a neutral article.

What's wrong with this article? Let us count the ways:

Overview:

The Overview doesn't seem to provide an actual overview of the election, but rather a background of the proposition supporters. It doesn't concisely introduce the Proposition campaign, but rather provides a modicum of background for "the conference" and an unsubstantiated connection between the founding of the group with Jim Crow laws. As the conference itself is formed in 1991 and Jim Crow laws had mostly been gone since the 1960s, this unsourced connection is dubious at best.

Supporters:

This section makes it appear to be a grassroots effort behind creating this law. It does not mention the fact that there was a bill vetoed by the Governor.

This entry neglects the efforts of the NRA behind the Proposition, where the organization in fact provided some $3.7 million dollars to the effort, more than 95% of the money contributed. They provided much more than the name. Implying otherwise, as this article does by mentioning them only in passing, creates the impression of a grass roots solo campaign.

The Quote from St. Louis Police Chief Ron Henderson is essentially hearsay, and would be inadmissible in a court of law, citing someone citing a poll. Furthermore, it exists out of the context of any actual contribution by the Police Officers Association in favor of or in opposition of the efforts.

"Eventually, individuals heard of these volunteers/members and took up the task upon themselves to fight the Gun Control advocates with smaller meetings and neighborhood 'grass roots' action group." This phrase clearly inverts the actual order of events in relation to the law. A law against Concealed Carry had been on the books since the time of Jesse James. Passing a concealed carry law would represent a fundamental change in law in favor of pro-Gun forces. Saying that these groups "took up the task upon themselves to fight the Gun Control advocates with smaller meetings and neighborhood 'grass roots' action groups” again denies the massive funding advantage pro-Proposition forces had, colors the Gun Control advocates as being upsetters of the status quo, rather than defenders of it, and creates a 'reluctant warrior' portrayal of the pro-Proposition forces that is clearly false.

Using terms to describe the effort as "debacle in 1999" and "2003 success story" are clearly non-neutral; If one opposes the measure, then one would find the results in the reverse.

Opponents:

First, linking to the 1994 appointed Secretary of State within the context of the article is somewhat pointless, there seems to be little relevance to describing her as being appointed in the first place, much less linking to a website about it.

Secondly, this again revives the chestnut of "federal funding" thwarting the amendment, presented here in passing without source. I'll deal with my objections to that argument under "Battle in Missouri" where it is more thoroughly discussed within the article.

The reason I edited the Janet Reno secondary roll to Hillary Clinton's activism is because nowhere is Janet Reno mentioned as having played a "secondary roll" anywhere within the sources. If you have a legitimate source, please bring it up and cite it, or else go with the baser acknowledgment that both opposed the measure. Secondly, that sentence is just plain awkwardly worded, as it becomes something of a comma saturated run-on as it continues.

Citing Robin Carnahan as having "orchestrated television ads of misdirection with disinformation” is clearly full of unsubstantiated weasel words, again uncited by non-MPS sources.

"Also, on the weekend prior to voting day, coordinated the taped phone message from Hillary Clinton to automatically dial 75,000 homes statewide with the message, "just too dangerous for Missouri families." is not a complete sentence. Subject-verb agreement requires a subject.

Battle in Missouri:

"How does a State Issue become interesting to the Federal Government?" The use of a rhetorical question in an encyclopedia article is clearly stylistically wrong, especially as it is a loaded question.

Secondly, this section proclaims the use of federal funds being used in support of the measure. Even the lone MPS source cited comes up with a letter, with Justice Dept. Letterhead, urging resistance to the measure. This is hardly the massive use of federal funds it is implied to be, as letters do not legitimately cost a substantial amount of money, and, as public citizens, US Attorneys are free to write letters as they so choose. Creating the stigma of Federal Funds is another way to once more imply a "disadvantage" to Proposition supporters that did not in fact exist. Present more information on it from legitimate news sources, or don't present it at all

This section contains mostly two excerpts from MPS related sources presented at length not as statements from advocacy groups, but as actual non-partisan truth.

The introduction of the second passage impugns motives without providing it, claiming that "Then came the ballot language to mislead the uninformed voters." Are there any actual justifications that Voters would be uninformed, or that the language was designed to mislead?

Ballot Language:

Providing the Ballot Language is a good thing, would be nice if it was sourced, but I'll take your word on that.

That said, calling the judge "favorable" again casts aspersions on the legal process, and could be just as easily left out by providing the name of the Judge instead and/or, legitimately sourced background as to the process that led to the change.

There is no need to embolden St. Louis County or the costs citation unless they were emboldened in the actual ballot language. To do otherwise creates emphasis in places where it is not generally needed or located in the legitimate text.

Media Campaigns:

"let's take a look" is clearly just plain colloquial speech in the manner of the prior rhetorical question, and should be removed.

The Uzi is a firearm, but is it impressive? That seems to be something of an opinion out of nowhere.

Again, this entire section reads like it was excerpted from a pro-proposition site. While it cites the so-called "Uzi Ad," nowhere does it actually SHOW the Uzi Ad. Instead it goes to the critiques of it by pro-proposition forces.

It also fails to discuss any pro-proposition media campaigns on the matter, even though anti-ads were out spent by the NRA to the tune of a 3 to 1 advantage,$2.1 million, including one featuring a victim of the notorious "South Side Rapist"

The MPS sourced material in citation 8 is actually worded differently than the excerpt printed within the article.

Results:

Nowhere in the Results section is there any actual mention of the actual result!!!! The section does not state by what margin the proposition won or lost by! Clearly that should belong in the results section!!!

Instead, the Results section cites its passage in 110 of 114 counties. While it is nice to mistake geographic space for Democratic Results, passing in a majority of the area of Missouri matters little if the Majority of Missourians opposed the measure.

Rather than provide actual results, the section mostly casts aspersions on Gov. Carnahan, blaming his "political machine" (Governor Carnahan is not Tammany Hall) for doing "impressive homework." The so-called 69.5% agreement is uncited as well, instead being sourced back to actual results from the election. St. Louis's status as the target of the "NEW ballot language" is uncited, and is presented with NEW in all caps, as well as located in italics. There is no need to shout in a Wikipedia article; it doesn't magically source biased information. The entire area describing St. Louis Metro Area is disorganized and confusing, and does not adequately describe its impact on the election, if at all.

"Breaking Proposition B by 3.3% in the statewide totals." is not a complete sentence.

"Enable law-abiding citizens the rights of self-protection" is a loaded phrase to describe the 2003 passage. One cannot deny that in a court of law one has the right of self defense, and, indeed, had that right before the message was passed. Describing the 2003 measure in this one sentence does a disservice to actually describing what that law stated and what it permitted, instead settling for vacuous cheerleading in support of the measure.

Kenj0418

Some couple of examples of biased statements are: - "by those within Missouri that were law-abiding citizens that perceived a need for self-protection" - "John Ross made his tireless attempts" - "Then came the Ballot Language to mislead the uninformed voters" In general, the article is clearly written from the POV of someone who supports the aims of the measure. Individuals who also supported the measure are characterised favorably, and those who opposed the measure are characterised negatively. I am not disputing the factual accuracy of the statements, but how they are worked clearly expresses a biased POV.

I did a quick search for Murder Capital here at Wiki. Didn't find one article. I did find #3 listing; "Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965". Something tells me that the patronage articles presented in Wiki lean very hard (bias) to the 'left' or 'blue' States. Shall I add a POV to their articles?

"by those within Missouri that were law-abiding citizens that perceived a need for self-protection"

OK, did anyone look/watch the image provided as conceal carry grew across this Nation? I guess images are ignored.

- What started as 30 in 1998 and grew to 48 States that were indeed watched not only in the Murder Capital of St. Louis but by those that feared travel into larger urban areas. St. Louis was listed twice in the top 10. Do I need to produce links for verification? Nope, produce links that prove me wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00.html

Go ahead and rephrase the above to indicate law-abiding citizens in fear.

"John Ross made his tireless attempts"

- Guilty - the term "tireless" will be removed. Have any suggestions to describe the money and hours dedicated to lobbying politicians with (2) very hostile Governors?

"Then came the Ballot Language to mislead the uninformed voters"

- Show me a link that carries the before and after language of the 1999 Prop B. I'll quote it. and copy their PC sensitive narratives.

63.19.20.47 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's me also. I messed up the password thingy. ArmedCitizen 23:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Derksen

Thanks for the repair and sorted arrangement of links. I was going to do it tonite but you were faster ArmedCitizen 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've started doing some looking into the POV issue, and in the process I found that you'd undone a bunch of the cleanup that I'd done previously. Please avoid using external links within the body of an article, external links should be limited to references and the "external links" section wherever possible. Also, I noticed that some of the external links didn't seem to be relevant to the subject of the article so I just removed those. Bryan 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the author the one to gauge relevance?

Inserting external links of the opposing issues seems like POV bait.

ArmedCitizen 04:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author. And you are the author. Also Croc1701 and Jklin, and one or two anonymous contributors who used the IP addresses 128.36.58.155, 64.251.146.217. Anyone else who comes along in the future and does work on this article is also the author. Articles on Wikipedia are collaboratively written by anyone and everyone who comes along, nobody "owns" any particular article. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Anyway, articles that are about subjects like this should have links to all opposing views to help them avoid POV. Presenting only one side of an issue is the essence of POV, presenting all the sides of an issue is the essence of NPOV. Bryan 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crow - Crock1701

Overview: Jim Crow laws may not be in your book but its practiced within the City of St. Louis that added their own 'rules' to the Missouri Law. (ie., MUST be a registered voter to purchase a firearm.)

http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/sheriff/gunpurchase.html

- RSMo 571.090. 2. Applications shall be made to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides. An application shall be filed in writing, signed and verified by the applicant, and shall state only the following: the name, Social Security number, occupation, age, height, color of eyes and hair, residence and business addresses of the applicant, the reason for desiring the permit, and whether the applicant complies with each of the requirements specified in subsection 1 of this section.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5710000090.HTM

Do you see anything in Missouri Law that requires that a person MUST be a registered voter, declare their Race, and Sex, before they can purchase a firearm?

That adds up to spin on Jim Crow laws and a violation of civil rights as well as a violation of Missouri Law.

ArmedCitizen 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV removal

I've complied with every issue.

Can the POV be removed now? ArmedCitizen 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a few clarifications and cites in the sections I've gone over so far. POV issues that one might need to keep an eye out for are terms like "debacle", since that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder - if a law passes it can be seen as both a great success and as a terrible failure depending on who you ask. Bryan 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to watch out for is using a limited selection of sources who are disproportionately supportive of one "side" of an issue or another. I'm noticing a lot of MOCCW references, for example, and they appear to be firmly in support of the proposition in question. We should have some references for the opponents' side as well. Bryan 07:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, done fiddling for today. But having now looked at the article in more detail, I agree that there's an awful lot of POV issues remaining. The language is strongly supportive of the proposition and in places quite biased against opponents (eg, "Then came the Ballot Language to mislead the uninformed voters."). Furthermore, the use of MOCCW as the source for almost all citations is worrisome; MOCCW is definitely one-sided on the issue. Maybe dig up some references for the "other side" on this one. Bryan 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

ArmedCitizen, I've reverted your most recent edit because it once again undid most of the formatting work I'd done, and also reintroduced a lot of POV language that I had painstakingly removed in my most recent edits. I think you need to discuss a few of these specific points here, so that we can make sure we're on the same page. Bryan 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since I haven't mentioned it elsewhere I might as well mention it here. The "NOEDITSECTION" thing might not be doing what you think it's doing. It isn't intended to prevent anyone from editing the article as a whole. All that it does is turn off the little [edit] links that appear next to each header in the article, which prevents people from being able to edit individual sections of the article separately. I can't think of any reason that shouldn't be allowed here, though, which is why I keep removing that. Bryan 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. thanks for the education. It at least slows 'em down.

ArmedCitizen 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, done fiddling for today.....?

This has been rewritten once again. Last attempt to comply. I give up.

Another edit like the last two STAFF folks did and I'm done.

Just another attempt to give STAFF editors a hint.
The supporters of Prop B and the links y'all keep changing don't work worth a diddle.
- Don't change them please. When you click them there is NOTHING in Wiki for them. Readers can 'go-back' with a simple click. Otherwise the reader is gone into the dark abyss of YOUR internet.

Remove the POV

ArmedCitizen 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links to nonexistent articles aren't actually a problem, they're there to encourage editors to start an article on those subjects (provided the subjects are sufficiently of note to have a Wikipedia article, of course - I'm not very familiar with this topic myself so I don't know which of these people might warrant one). See Wikipedia:Red link for more information.

As for POV-removal, I've been trying to do some of that. Here's one example of a bit of POV I removed. The original intro line read:

Proposition B in Missouri began some years earlier than the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by those within Missouri that were law-abiding citizens that perceived a need for self-protection.

This clearly implies that all the people who started this proposition were "law-abiding citizens that percieved a need for self-protection." Unless you've got some reference that explicitly backs that up, though, this may well be a misrepresentation. It also implies that people who don't support the proposition aren't law-abiding and don't feel people should be allowed to protect themselves, which is probably even more of a misrepresentation. Since I take it you're a supporter of the proposition, consider if the first line had instead been:

Proposition B in Missouri began some years earlier than the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by gun-nuts within Missouri that wanted to be able to tote their guns everywhere they went so they could intimidate their foes.

This is what is meant by "POV". The article shouldn't implicitly support one view over another, it should only describe the situation in as straightforward and factual a manner as possible. Ideally, both a supporter of Proposition B and an opponent of Proposition B should be able to read this article and think to themselves "that's a fair description." Bryan 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm called a gun-nut - I've hit rock bottom. Fine, edit it whatever direction fits this agenda.

What was written about Robin Carnahan is worse than anything I've presented - but I'm wrong and there is NO POV tagged on that article.

At Least MY links worked before posting here.

I'm done. To many hours on a Liberal controlled enviorment. Worthless to educate those that don't want to be enlightened.

Delete the whole thing. I'll go play in the Sandbox and amuse myself.

ArmedCitizen 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling you a gun-nut, I was giving an example of what the "other side's" POV might hypothetically look like so that you might perhaps understand how your version of the article might look to opponents of Prop B. The most important thing to bear in mind here is that this article's purpose is not to change peoples' minds. If you try to write it in such a way that someone in favor of gun control comes here and then goes away instead favoring liberalization of gun laws, you're almost certainly going to run afoul of POV issues like this. Bryan 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By eliminating every link with the sweep of the hand is worthless. I gave citations and links to sources NOT within Wiki. I patiently defined and added "abc" and now they're gone.

The gibberish at the bottom of the page confuses me and I wrote the thing. MOCCW. Retrieved on Jamison, Kevin (17 September, 2003). License to carry update. Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. Retrieved on

Who can understand that ?

ArmedCitizen 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Opponents External links? I renamed the Supporters/Opponents and they're gone also. I gave a source for every [citation needed] and they're gone.

Be honest. You saw one line you didn't like and everything just vanished that I spent two/three hours correcting per your request.

ArmedCitizen 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cites aren't gone, they've just been turned into footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for a description of how they work, it's a standard feature of Wikipedia and the way references are cited on most articles. There were a few external links that I did remove outright, but I checked them and they didn't actually have anything to do with Proposition B; they were the external links to the homepages of individual supporters of the proposition ([1] for example. What on this page has to do with Proposition B?). I see now where I did remove at least once citation in the most recent revert, I'll go restore that. If there really had been just one line that I didn't like then I would have just changed that one line. Instead, I saw pretty much all the improvements I'd made to the article undone. I wasn't about to pick through it all and manually fix everything a third time. I've noticed that you've been working on a sandboxed version of this article, I assume you just copied and pasted that in place here? We'd be less likely to run into problems like this if we didn't split out multiple independant versions to work on and just edited this one here bit by bit. Bryan 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mcgheetraining.com/index.html is for the named person Steve McGhee - that is his pro-gun webpage. Just like Ross, Oliver, and Jamison.

If you just want to provide a link where the reader can find out more information about Steve McGhee, then the proper thing to do is to write an article at Steve McGhee. Bryan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Handgun Control, Inc., is their website and NOT Wiki watered down version.

Likewise, we want to give them the "wiki watered down version" (ie, the NPOV version) rather than a potentially biased outside source. The whole point of writing articles about these organizations rather than simply linking to other peoples' pages about them is so that we can produce articles that conform to Wikipedia policies. Bryan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the time line. The last version went into the sandbox.

ArmedCitizen 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I overlooked quite a few, but I think I've got them all now. I did leave out one reference that was embedded inside a blockquote, since I'm assuming the original quote didn't actually include a citation like that - we have to be as accurate as possible when quoting like this. Did I miss any others? Bryan 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right.

Who paid to fight Prop. B? is within context but NOT the title I wanted. I wanted the reader to follow a line of thought to enlighten rather than misdirect.

"Who paid to fight Prop. B?" is the title of the page. It's not my choice what it was titled, and it's not your choice either. That's what the title of the page is. Bryan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Opponents External links? They go before footnotes.

Actually, no. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the "external links" section should go immediately after the "references" section, and this convention is followed almost universally throughout Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/external links. Bryan 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the Supporters/Opponents and they're gone also.

I'm not sure why you made those header changes, there were more supporters than just MOLIC and more opponents than just HCI. Were those two organizations the main organizers of the two sides, perhaps? The current article text doesn't make that clear. Bryan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for shift change. And revert it back to where MY LINKS work. Its still misdirection gibberish in the References section.

ArmedCitizen 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't revert. My edits have done a lot to improve the article and I've done what I can to integrate your edits too. If you just revert back to your version you're ignoring all the points I've raised here, some of which are based on long-standing and widely-accepted Wikipedia policy and guideline. Instead, let's continue working on each item individually. Alternately, if you don't want to work with me we could put out a call to get some other editors to come here as well and give the situation an outside view. Bryan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there - I've cited when asked, changed verbiage, and even added cites where there weren't any to clarify PC elements. Moved graphics to make it easier to follow. You’ve changed 'Links' to go NOWHERE 'cept an abyss to the casual reader. NOW because the References look like a Rat's Nest I'm not to get excited and dump it? You quote "policy" of Wiki about where footnotes belong? Open any reference book and look to the bottom of the page - WOW that is where footnotes belong. GIVE me a break. I've browsed Wiki and seen expletives that I wouldn't use in mixed company. If you want all the links slipped in footnotes - fine. If you want all the footnotes above the Exteranl Links - fine. I feel that would be a distraction to the readership. But, don't replace them with the watered down version of Wiki unless the author (me) did it FIRST.

Why do I suffer a POV tag from one (1) anonymous reader that hasn’t contributed a single article and withstood this type of management examination? If you scan the above issues you will see that I can defend every tidbit with sources to back up what I’ve printed. I can even gather the opposing side misdirection and debunk their presentation. I’m not prepared to sit here politely accept irrelevant verbiage about policy nor guidelines. A guideline gives direction; not restrictions to us infant authors. ArmedCitizen 05:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Wikipedia: pages I've linked to have been guidelines that aren't absolute, true, but some of them are non-negotiable policy. NPOV is king among them, one of the foundation principles of Wikipedia. I happen to agree with the POV tag currently on this article myself, as does Croc1701 and kenj0418 above, so it's not just one anonymous editor holding this view.

Perhaps just as important in this case, though, is Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - you definitely need to read this one. This article is not your article, and you do not get final say over its layout and content. I'm trying to work nicely with you here since you obviously have quite a bit of knowledge in this subject area, but knowledge ultimately doesn't trump the importance of being able to understand and adhere to the NPOV policy. Bryan 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I can't write a biography about McGhee, Ross, Oliver, and Jamison. Restrictions/guideline are to overwhelming. Besides that, I don’t have their permission to create a PC correct article about people that are obviously not accepted as law-abiding citizens with guns. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Armed2003/stickers/bagot.jpg

ArmedCitizen 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating short little stubs with just the bare minimum of information ("X is a lawyer in Missouri notable for his support of Proposition B", for example) and putting the external link in the external links section of that stub? Then other editors could fill in the blanks later, if a more extensive article is warranted. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a finished product, so stub articles and dangling red links are not an inherently bad thing to have. Bryan 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, tried that. Now I'm in hot water with another editor.

Category: Candidates for speedy deletion

ArmedCitizen 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created some stubs and got NAILED to the floor.

And yes, you are stepping into a bit of a minefield here. There have been long-running debates throughout Wikipedia's history about just how significant a subject has to be before it warrants an article about it, and although I know nothing about Missouri politics I'm not surprised that some of these people fell below the thresholds of a lot of editors. My suggestion would be to focus on the main issues first, though. This article is slowly coming together, the POV issues look like they've been largely addressed at this point. Bryan 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stubs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Jamison

Attorney/Author Co-founder; Missouri Legislative Issues Council (MOLIC)

President, Missouri Sport Shooting Association (MSSA)http://www.missourisportshooting.org

Active during the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McGhee

Pro-2nd Amendment activist.

NRA Training Counselor/Instructor http://www.mcgheetraining.com/index.html

Chairman/Co-founder; Missouri Legislative Issues Council (MOLIC) in 1999.

Supporter; Missouri Sport Shooting Association (MSSA)

Active during the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Jeffery

Pro-2nd Amendment activist.

Co-founder; Missouri Legislative Issues Council (MOLIC)

Co-founder The Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance (GCLA)http://www.gclastl.org/

Legislative Consultant to Missouri Law makers.

Active during the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Oliver

Pro-2nd Amendment activist.

Co-founder; Missouri Legislative Issues Council (MOLIC)

Supporter; Missouri Sport Shooting Association (MSSA)

Conceal Carry Firearms Instructor http://www.learntocarry.com/news/

Active during the 1999 Proposition B in Missouri

First attempt just vanished. Then the second attempt got a note plastered with "hangon" option.

Oh, another thing. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmedCitizen#Notability and for Steve McGhee

I'm getting it - from other editor. Told ya it was overwhelming.

Ok Bryan JesseW, the juggling janitor and eaolson; Who is correct?

Bryan, how about the piped links that I thought was allowed here.

ArmedCitizen 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't see how those external links are relevant to the subject of the article, but if you're dead set on including them how about just putting them in ref tags like I did when I originally cleaned the article's linking up? Putting external links in the body of an article like you were doing before is still not really the best way to include such things, they should generally all be down in the external links and references sections. Bryan 04:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.

Did you even look at MY usertalk page?

I'm done.

You've managed me.

Remove the 'Retrieved on' garbage and I'll quit.

Hiding the 'Carnahan pledge violation' is cute too.

I'll keep the sandbox version - You keep this POV version.

ArmedCitizen 06:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "retrieved on" stuff is actually quite important when dealing with web references, since the content of external pages isn't kept track of in Wikipedia's version history. If the pages' contents are changed or they go offline the retrieved-on date is needed to recognize this and hopefully dig up the old version off of Internet Archive. The Carnahan pledge violation bit was commented out by Aecis, not me. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make a judgement call on that one but an accusation like that needs to be carefully sourced so it's reasonable to raise questions about it. I'd suggest asking Aecis about it. Bryan 08:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about I removed every reference and start from zero?

Who can understand that gibberish?

Did you look at my Usertalk?

ArmedCitizen 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references are for the most part good, though, it was only the handful relating to those specific people that I was concerned about since they didn't seem to have much relevance to Proposition B. References are an extemely useful tool to make an article verifiable with, removing all the references from this article would be a major step backward for no good reason.

I did look at your usertalk but I didn't have anything to add to it that I haven't already mentioned here. I don't know anything about those people so I can't make any arguments one way or the other about whether it's reasonable to actually have articles on them. The thing I had issue with was the use of external links within the text of the article.

Frankly, all I can really suggest at this point is that if you don't understand the format of the references then you should learn to understand them. They're not gibberish. References are supposed to include all sorts of bibliographic details such as titles and authors and publishers so that they're easier to find and evaluate. Bryan 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aecis POV

Sorry Bryan: Your right. Its not your edit.

Good work Aecis. Are your related to the Carnahan family? Now this article about the Battle in Missouri over Prop B has nothing to offer to enlighten anyone.

==Battle in Missouri== is totally gone.

neutrality of the Gov. was a myth. His coconspirators did a fine job.

Why not remove Dilemma & Results?

then you could focus on PRO-Gun Control.

My creation has transformed into nothing more than oatmeal mush without any raisins. It doesn't even qualify now as milk toast & gibberish.

ArmedCitizen 15:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not related to anyone or anything. I am a wikipedian who's trying to uphold wikipedia's neutrality standards. Much of what you have written in this article belongs on a blog or on any other personal website, but not in an encyclopedia. I wouldn't call sentences like "misdirection to Missouri voters with political disinformation" very neutral and objective, would you? Or "'educate'" (sic!), "used this firearm out of context" or "brought enough votes to skew the simple majority percentages"?

You're more than welcome to contribute to wikipedia, and you obviously know a lot about this subject, but you must add it neutrally and objectively. That means giving equal weight to either side of the debate, and not passing along your own judgement about who is right and who is wrong, and what you feel about the way either side has behaved during the campaign.

And now that you brought it up: I'm still very skeptic about the "Dilemma" section, while the Results section needs an overhaul. It currently makes it seem as though the vote result was somehow unfair. And while you may disagree with the result, you shouldn't make the article cast doubts over the result. The article should simply give the official outcome. Any interpretation of the result is the reader's own responsibility. A neutral way of describing the outcome of the vote on Proposition B would be: "The vote was eventually in favour/against the proposal. N percent voted for the proposition, while N percent opposed it. The oppose votes were mostly cast in the St Louis area, while most support votes were from Missouri's rural areas." It says exactly the same, but neutrally and objectively.

Perhaps "your creation" has been transformed into oatmeal mush. That's the risk of contributing to an encyclopedia. We're not writing a magazine, we're not here to write op-eds. We have to write as objectively as possible. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without "Battle in Missouri" and "Media Campaign(s)" there is nothing to offer those that look to clarify what did happened.

A-B-C-D becomes only A - huh? - what? -d ?

I'll give citations and clean up the verbiage so the conclusions will be clearer. I do tend to sway more to a persuasion writer giving tons of information. The Gov forced this referendum vote and knew his plans to trash the outcome. This only became know afterwards. Most of us were political novices back in 1990. Now we’ve learned that all is not what it seems to be within the Clinton regime. Maybe, I’m just another paranoid conspiracy freak that’s doubtful of any politician today…... I'll keep expanding and bringing you and the others back to toss my stuff into the mixer; I expect nothing less. When we’re finished there will be a place to explain why Prop B factually failed.

ArmedCitizen 09:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another try to remove POV

It's not important to who those people are.

Added another source.

Cleaned up and dusted off the coffee table.

Can the POV go away now?

ArmedCitizen 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing my NPOV objection - After reviewing the edits made by AC and Bryan and others, I'm OK with removing the POV tag. Since Bryan has also expressed POV concerns, you should see what he has to say (and Croc1701 if he/she cares to comment). I would like the "Opponents" and "Dilemma" sections improved as they both include quotes that are not adequatly placed in context or explained what their purpose are. (But, in my view, this is a cleanup issue not a POV one).

AC, thank you for your knowledgable contributions, and the efforts you have made to work with us all to address our bias concerns on an issue you obviously care a great deal about. kenj0418 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think enough of the POV has gone away at this point for the notice to be removed. The article still needs work, but it looks more like a matter of steady tinkering now rather than large-scale revamps like it did originally. And thanks also, AC, for sticking with this. It's been a bit of a crash course in Wikipedia policy but hopefully now that these matters have been addressed they'll be acceptable to work within. Bryan 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has left the planet Earth 0 times.

OK - glad your happy. Thanks for the expert help.

Now where shall I stick this and how ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri/persons

That's because I got nailed to the floor by at least two (2) other editors for starting 'stub' pages.

ArmedCitizen 07:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag back

Sounds like this will last about five seconds, based on the discussion, but the article is clearly biased. The "Delema" section is simply a political arguement. The "Results" section is probimatic as well. I will try to fix it. 198.112.236.6 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is me, sorry I wasn't logged in. I made changes to try to fix the problems. Please comment on them. I also will change the intro to make it more clear. MarcusGraly 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro rewriten. Please comment before reverting. I do not have a political agenda. I'm just trying to make the article clearer and have NPOV. MarcusGraly 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarcusGraly had comments before making changes? NOPE.

"Dilemma" has the citation. You can't change their wording.

"Results" ?

I'll revert back on the image caption due to that being fact and not fiction. Better yet, you can reword (if you wish) but the numbers won't ever change. Missouri was the fourth in 2003. Page 2 has the same image with simalar wording to yours.

ArmedCitizen 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dilemma section in the Article in the first place? It's difficult to understand and it's obviously trying to persuade the reader to a certain view point.

I did comment (anonymously) before making changes. There was no response, so I made the changes.

What's wrong with my wording on the image? The previous wording was full of buzz words, this is neutral. Even if it's true that a "growing majority" supports these laws, putting that in the description of the image is unnecessary and baises the page. MarcusGraly 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to be more clear. My issue with the "Dilemma" is obvious. It's a political argument, so I deleted it. Arguements for and against carry conceal laws are better discussed in an article devoted to that.

My issue with the intro and results was primarily that they were unclear. I think my rewording of them helped. The article throughout had a problem that it emphisised the broad support that it had, (ie. saying the number of counties that supported, rather than the number of voters). I cahanged the results and the image text, to avoid this. MarcusGraly 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More changes

I got rid of reference about Gun Laws in Massachussets in 2002. I fail to see how that could be remotely relavent to organizations founded in the early 90s or a 1999 Proposition. I added back the material I removed from the intro in the first paragraph of supporters. I rewrote it some for clarity.

Summery of my changes: (please sepcify your objections or approval of each)

1) deleted "dilemma" section, due to POV issues

2) reworded text on image (again POV)

3) removed MA Gun Laws reference, as irelevant

4) moved Intro info to Supporters and reworded for clarity.

5) wrote a new intro to give a basic overview of what the Proposition was.

6) Rewrote results section, deleting redundant referances. Primarily for clarity, though also small POV issues.

MarcusGraly 22:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reworked the opition and ballot question sections of the article. I think they are clearer now. Who exactly changed the wording? This was unclear in the original article, and I'm not sure if I got it right. MarcusGraly 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarcusGraly

Just who do you think you are? Who are you to remove citations? You've created which articles?

I removed a citation, since it was an article written after 1999 about another state entirely, atached to a sentence about events before 1999. I explained this in the talk page. The citation is superfulous. MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its called a timeline. Just who is MPS? You live where? The moon?

Where is the numbers for 1998? I gave you a chance sport.

I'm not sure what this refers to. MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out. You're talking about the image language right? It's restored, but with more nuetral language. MarcusGraly 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore what you have destroyed and make your points first.

There was nothing I destroyed, except that one quote, in "Dilemma," which as I explained was too much one POV. I rewrote a lot of the article and reordered things, but the basic information is the same MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've 24 hours to replace your edits.

Or what? You'll revert everything I did? The old article was baised and poorly written. I beleive I've substantially imporved it. If you have specific critisisms, please address them. MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous vandalization without justification.

I explained everything I did in the talk page. I realize you feel a bit posessive about this article, but I'm only tryingg to help. MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your a busy little critter. Some were good changes.

Thanks. MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing back the Media Campaign doesn't work without the Uzi information.

I'll look and see if I can incorperate it. MarcusGraly 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Uzi info as it was wouldn't work for POV reasons. I'll rename the section Campaign Controversies and try to find a way to include it. MarcusGraly 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArmedCitizen 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another policy you should perhaps familiarize yourself with at this point is Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. Marcus has just as much right to edit this article as you do.

As for his recent edits, the only citation I see having been removed is [2]. Upon examination, this page doesn't seem like a good reference; it was used as a citation for the line "Support for this measure was in part a response to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other efforts make legal gun ownership more difficult." But it was written three years after Proposition B and is focused on gun laws in Massachusetts rather than Missouri. It doesn't give any indication of the motivation for support for Proposition B. Bryan 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I totally disagree with him.

I know about the edit rules. I think I know who that is also. I've emailed him to make sure.

His style is like someone I know. (he's a much better writer than me.)

ArmedCitizen 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said. I started this as a timeline.

Good stuff MarcusGraly - Don't stop now. Keep going. The caption is back on the image and tons of 'fix it' language. And you managed to slide the Uzi in at just the right time. (Nice touch too - hope you don't mind the spelling correction.) "contentious" cracked me up and caused a minor screen cleaning (hint: keep liquids/drinks away from operator during review)

I entered the Dilemma as a replacement for Media Campaign(s). Now it Media Controversies and looks much better.

Results? Good to include Kansas City and their percentage. However, I don’t see the ‘target of the ballot’ in there. The whole purpose of the ballot language change was to target a specific area . Had the language not been changed this article wouldn’t be necessary.

The Jim Crow stuff was to give history and the link [3] was intended as a citation to present days (update) Bryan.

The bellwether link was again; to give history. With the two 'red zones' and interior 'blue zones' - Missouri has been the trend setter and predictor of winning national campaigns.

ArmedCitizen 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything that you had in the original article should go back in there. Anything that is factual and relevent is fair game. Opinions and political arguements, especially inflamatory ones, like the Jim Crow anaology, should be left out. MarcusGraly 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarcusGraly 2

Editing these doesn't "pop up" to notify changes.

Everything you've done has made it better. The POV issues is not my concern without the whole story. I don't know how to put the fact that a crime was committed by those people. Bad manners, poor etiquette, or just plain POV seems to grow out of my brain. You've concluded this with politically correct (PC) terms. I'm not a PC kind of guy about facts lost/misrepresented.

I’ve put the proper link to HCI history and their claims to fame. Another to their ccw FAQ. The PC Wiki site offers nothing near the truth of their political agenda.

Keep Safe & Be watchful of those nearby.

ArmedCitizen 21:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to add that I'm also quite pleased with how the article's been developing. Sorry about the abrupt introduction to so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines earlier on, AC. Glad it seems to be working out more smoothly now though. Bryan 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem with me Bryan. Its my attitude that needs work.

I'm just glad {{Controversial2}} wasn't hammered to the door.

Now can the "peer review" bunch get to work?

ArmedCitizen 00:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan

Repeating earlier question.

Where shall I stick this and how ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri/persons

This is because I was nailed to the floor by at least two (2) other editors for starting 'stub' pages as suggested.

Is there a tag line or user box to indicate a second page?

I entered it under the "See also" section also.

Ive snooped all over and can't find anything appropriate.

Visit Page 2

ArmedCitizen 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that information necessarily needs to be anywhere at all in Wikipedia. If they don't warrant articles of their own and details about them are only tangental to the issue of Proposition B itself, why do readers need to read about these people here? I'd recommend just letting that stuff go. Creating a subpage like this isn't a good idea since (yes, yet another Wikipedia policy link coming) Wikipedia:Subpages have been disabled for the main article namespace. In other words, that isn't really a subpage, it's just another independant article with the rather odd name of "1999 Proposition B in Missouri/persons." Bryan 08:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent my time in hell with the

United States Marine Corps.

Wikiworld is winnable

As long as its not illegal and will bring other editors out of the woodwork to hammer me to the floor again. I know of one other person that abandoned his project due to constant 'nit pickers' and vandals.

I figured out the userbox stuff and made a few of my own on the user page. Cute huh?

This place has been an education. Keep safe.

ArmedCitizen 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, you don't like jokes?

Those people who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.

Your right. I wanted to add a bit of humor to a tragedy.

a positive 'for' campaign rather than a negative 'against' campaign - political strategy 101

Now, this explains the cause for the name change to MPS and there was no other reason.

ArmedCitizen 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename the page to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri_Participants

And I'll go ahead making the changes to the LINKS

GrumpyAC 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to merge

If anyone has a suggestion on how to merge the Prop B "people/persons" without making the Reference section go insane - give me a note here.

ArmedCitizen 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the merge tag removed [4] without discussion? -Phoenixrod 09:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is or would be the reverse. If you have a hint about how to merge them - give. Endnote perhaps? That was tried but ‘editors’ say the NPOV isn’t there when describing their actions. 2nd page is simple as persons that participated with their backgrounds.

Now you've gotten Bryan restoring this 'issue' stuff. Change the name of the page. Would that make y'all happy?

I couldn't create a 'stub' page and was hammered by three editors then.

I've seen pages listed similarly without issues - to add the 'persons' onto this page would cause clutter; plain and simple clutter. Main aritcle is at the top of that page and links back to the original. (exacly as other)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri_Participants

Would that allow your issue to disapper?

Or are you building more editing credits?

GrumpyAC 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article isn't the reason for the suggestion to merge, the issue is actually whether the subject warrants an article (of any name) in Wikipedia at all. If the individual people aren't noteworthy enough to each have their own article I suspect lumping them together like this isn't going to change things much.

And please, assume good faith. Nobody here is trying to "fight" with you, we don't win credits for arguing. Bryan 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bryan. Getting voted to the board here requires number of edits. <hint>

Just as the opposition conducted a poll of the ballot and forced a referendum. I'm covering the complaint to merge. The page was renamed and is now a moot issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri_Participants

I've expanded and included the opposition. Now, waiting for POV to be argued once again. What's odd is that Hillary has a ton of pages and not much listed as POV. But, they all interact. As does my minor two (2)pages.

GrumpyAC 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I have well over sixty thousand edits to my name already you can cross "getting my edit count up" off the list of reasons why I might be involved here. In fact the reason is here, where you asked me to come and contribute further on this article: User talk:Bryan Derksen#Prop B. I have no personal interest in the gun control politics of Missouri.

As for the issue of merging, renaming the people-page does nothing to address the basis for it. The subpage-like name was a separate issue entirely. The basis for the suggestion to merge is that these people don't warrant articles of their own as their only significance is their involvement in this proposition, so the information should be encompassed within the article on the proposition itself. Bryan 04:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Bryan the one that wants to merge, ie. Phoenixrod.

There is spin off pages to Hillary ↔ Gun Control that I entered into ‘Controversies’ that was instantly transplanted into → 'Political views'. Both have their own pages added to encompass varied information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Gun_control

I copied their method of operation with my tiny article(s).

Now, can the merge flag go away?

What happened to the 'peer review' stuff?

When will that show begin?

PS. You had better not run off to join the Board. Nobody can get me to do what they demand of me. You manage it without a whip and chair. I'm starting to understand what all these little buttons do and its starting to scare me.

GrumpyAC 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to merge 2

There has been no further input about the merge.

Can that flag be dropped/removed?

GrumpyAC 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't care all that much one way or the other myself; I was hoping that the other participants would chime in. However, as 1999 Proposition B in Missouri Participants currently stands I expect that eventually someone's going to put it up for deletion and I expect it'll probably pass. Hillary Clinton is a highly notable person in her own right but the people listed in this "participants" sub-article aren't nearly so much. I'd recommend going ahead and merging the material to prevent its eventual deletion, frankly. Bryan 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your estimates the average person doesn't mean diddle. But, then again, most people didn’t know about the founding fathers until the Declaration of War was filed via our Constitution. Jane Randolph would have been insulted to read that her son accomplished nothing. (Her son was Thomas Jefferson.)

Slick Willie and that witch Hillary (if they keep away from the media) will fade away into obscurity with Monica as their footnote.

GrumpyAC 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect you're wrong about the Clintons fading into obscurity - at least one of them will be forever included in the list of US presidents, and unless the US itself were to somehow become just a historical footnote we'll always have articles for every one of those. :) As for the people on the list under discussion, if they eventually do other stuff that makes them notable independant of this particular proposition (as Thomas Jefferson did) then by all means they'd warrant articles of their own. They haven't actually done anything like that yet, though, as far as I can see. Bryan 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, Slick Willie will forever be in the history books as a role model for improper etiquette while in office. Then again, the episode on Fox News recently proved my point. The only way he can create notoriety is some trite spin off to avoid the facts. Hillary loves the 'race' trump card and disinformation spin. How many times has she been caught in her attempts to glean ‘plantation’ recognition? At least the persons I’ve listed haven’t used their positions to ‘influence peddle’ an agenda to make a safer work environment for criminals….. and transformed the Democratic working class Party into some type of racial banner.

GrumpyAC 06:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions to where to plant the listed items into this article?

After the Results?

GrumpyAC 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge tags

Its been over two weeks and no further discussion about the merge.

Tis time to remove the merge request? Yes/No ?

GrumpyAC 08:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political favoritism: priceless

How exactly can one remove the "Political Favoritism, Priceless?" That is utterly biased, factually untrue, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article.

Crock1701 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed it, although you could be bold and do so yourself in the future! -Phoenixrod 07:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know how to fix something in that format without ruining the rest of the table.

Crock1701 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't either. :) But that's where the "show preview" button comes in handy. -Phoenixrod 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing the facts would vanish eh Italiavivi?

Hillary has always been the power in the White House. Slick Willie was just a smoke screen.

FACT her Gun Control Agenda is well documented.

Enter your objections with justification here first before making future changes. No one wishes to read boring background information on her page #1. It's the political views that have been demonstrated that effect the thought process. Such as: the lack of support for our Armed Forces after voting to give them support.

GrumpyAC 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to steal an election link?

Why is this in the links section?

Did I miss something. I don't see the relevance. Perhaps it's too subtle. Perhaps it's just inappropriate. --Thistledowne (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Missouri Proposition B (1999). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]