Talk:Project Appleseed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rifleman Qualification

Regarding the "Rifleman Qualification" section, perhaps more detail should be added regarding the targets, e.g. the modified AQT is 40 rounds, 10 for each stage, that stage 1 (single target) is standing, stage 2 (two targets) is standing-to-sitting with a magazine change, stage 3 (three targets) is standing-to-prone with a mag change, stage 4 (four targets) is prone, etc.

Also, one might add information regarding Winterseeds and qualifying as a rifleman under wintry conditions. http://www.appleseedinfo.org/winterseed.html GMW (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Have added the requested Winterseed and, its corrolary, the Infernoseed patch information, to the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Have also added the requested modified AQT information. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with both of these edits. Neither are sourced, and neither does anything but make the article look more like a sales brochure, which is why I was at this article to begin with. KillerChihuahua 19:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you are going "at this article" so heavily, and detest it so much. It clearly has significant content. Do we need to add cites? Of course. Do we need to delete this article? Clearly not. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Have sourced the AQT section. Have been unable to find secondary sources for the Winterseed and Infernoseed patch information, so have removed that content for now. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfc on content

Is the attempt at cleanup of this article an improvement, or not? This article was tagged for being written like a sales brochure. I cleaned it up[1] and was reverted. I tried to restore the cleaned up version, keeping the one sole addition of sourced (to the Appleseed website, but still...) content which added value to the article. IMO the disputed content reads 80% like a sales brochure, 20% like a how-to. Neither is Wikipedia's purpose. Another editor disagrees, as he has reverted the cleanup three times now. Which version is preferable?

Version A[2]

Version B[3]

Comparison of the two versions [4]

KillerChihuahua 15:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Version A; Wikipedia is not for sales brochures or advertising. The article was correctly tagged for cleanup as an advert; cleanup was an improvement. KillerChihuahua 15:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Neither. It's the wrong question. The article is still being re-written, in contrast to the removal of all content by KillerChihuahua without entering a WP:BRD cycle of discussion here on the talk page. The article was stable for months, until the article was scrubbed of nearly all cited content by KillerChihuahua. The real question should be, "Do we want to remove all the cited content of this article and make it a hatchet piece against guns?" I say, No. It is better to include both cited content and criticisms, properly cited of course. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  The crap you restored is sourced to the Appleseed site. It's not encyclopedic. No one disputes there is room for improvement, but your implication that I simply gutted the article is insulting and I take exception to it. Regarding discussion, I posted on your talk page and started this discussion, while you were busy reverting three times in a row[5][6][7] and never bothered to try to discuss at all. Not seeing you have the high ground here. KillerChihuahua 16:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  I take offense that you classify sourced edits by other editors to Wikipedia by the term "crap", when they are sourced to references that you simply don't like. Where better to find what the goals are of an organization except on their web site? It is better than making accusations of Appleseed being a subversive organization when the NYT reference specifically says they are not! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  The entire Eligibility and markmanship goals and Clinics sections are completely unsourced - and the only way to source them is from the Appleseed website or a brochure, because that's all the content is. This is why the article was tagged for cleanup - because it was too much like a brochure. For example: "Shooting mats are brought by participants for prone shooting, as well as a hat, sunscreen, water, food, appropriate clothing, a small folding chair, safety glasses, (double) ear protection, and multiple magazines for their magazine-fed rifle." - this is appropriate for a sales brochure, or an information packet to a customer. It is completely inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. The Eligibility and marksmanship goals has two sources - one is a blog, which does not meet RS, and one is Kinsey, M: Are You A Rifleman Or Cook?, "Ohioans For Concealed Carry" April 2007, with no link at all, although it is online here. That is a gun activist site, not a neutral source such as a newspaper or magazine. I could go on and on. But yeah, instructions on what to bring, sourced to a private blog? That's kindof crap, so sorry. KillerChihuahua 19:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Having a bad case of Hoplophobia?? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  No, and I'm about done with your personal attacks and insulting speculation about me. I'm here because the article was tagged for cleanup for being too like a brochure, I cleaned it up, and you are edit warring to restore lots of brochure content sourced to the company and to private blogs, as well as unsourced content. Your bizarre idea that my desire to ensure this article meets Wikipedia standards indicates some kind of fear of weapons is just that.. bizarre. And useless. A helpful argument would be explaining why you think a private blog meets WP:RS, not calling me names. KillerChihuahua 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  I was not the one who put in the cites to blogs. I am removing and replacing them as fast as I can, instead of simply deleting all article content. We are both trying to make this article meet WP standards, but only one of us is trying to save useful content that has been written by many contributors over several years and that is worth saving. I have been adding cites that are not blogs, and that are clearly reliable and verifiable secondary sources. It is just that I prefer not to delete the entire article content. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Version C [8] is the version after the major re-write.

Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Version C; Article no longer looks like an advertisement, and now has reliable and verifiable sources to newspapers, magazines, etc. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up of article

Have finished a major clean-up of the article and removed the taglines regarding better sources and whatnot from the header of the article. If anyone objects, and feels the tagline removals were premature, please tag the article with the pertinent tagline(s) accordingly. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

After getting a bunch of taglines, have finished yet another major clean-up of the article. If there are still issues remaining, please tag the article with pertinent tagline(s) accordingly (but try to tag the sections to identify just where the issues are, instead of posting a shotgun blast of taglines at the top of the article.) Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Have now finished formatting the cites into Wikipedia format. Article is coming together well. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Have essentially finished the re-write, including setting up auto-archiving of talk page. Getting close to being time for a peer review. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Classification

If Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, then what's the point of this section, where both of the examples offered are somewhat negative in tone? (Well, the ADL's portion is decidedly biased, to be honest.) It would seem to be more appropriate to delete the "classification" section since it doesn't really have any bearing on the Appleseed Project's origins or goals. It appears to be in there just as a "take that" to anyone who supports or approves of Appleseed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHenry1969 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Apolitical"

Miguel Escopeta has reverted me on several occasions from removing the word "apolitical" from the first line description of this subject. He claims the source supports this, but this source is merely a statement from the organiser. Other sources, including the New York Times, have explicitly explored the political aspects of this event. This clearly does not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as we should not unquestioningly use Primary sources to describe a topic, which is what is happening here. I believe my edit, showing the event is self-described as non-political while showing commentators have investigated the political aspect, should stand. SFB 06:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding other viewpoints, to viewpoints that are already supported by cited and credible sources. But, to simply remove one credible source and put in the weasel worded of "some commentators believe" when there is apparently only one source that is questioning the political nature of shooting sports activities seems extremely biased. Let's let the readers decide for themselves what to believe, leaving in all of the credible sources and statements. That said, I have added back in the criticism that you advocated, but have also retained the other viewpoints. Readers can best decide for themselves. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV does not let readers decide for themselves. Consensus decides what neutral is. NPOV explicitly says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Lefty outfits like the NYT are going to question Appleseed's motives, so that has to come in. I would recommend keeping the word apolitical in but also including the "Some commentators have questioned the political aspect..." sentence, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadly agree. That said, it feels a bit odd (and defensive) to put "apolitical" in the opening sentence unless "being apolitical" is one of the fundamentally defining aspects of the organisation - it's a bit like adding "secular", which would also no doubt be true but would seem equally clunky!

Perhaps drop it from the lead sentence ("...is a program that focuses on teaching..."), and merge it with the (equally awkward) "some commentators have..." bit at the end? "While some commentators ... the organisation stresses that it is apolitical", etc. Flows more naturally and doesn't give the dispute over politics undue emphasis. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This was the intention of my original edit. Maybe this comes down to my (non-American) interpretation of the word "apolitical", meaning "of no political significance" – the act of "teaching American heritage and history with the intent of encouraging people to become active civically" is a highly political aim (and the first sentence of politics seems to agree!). In this instance I think the meaning of "apolitical" seems to have been confused for "not promoting political parties" – this idea is better described as "non-partisan", which I would have no problem adding to the lead. I think a party-centred reading of the concept of politics is a very limiting approach. SFB 20:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

The article is very detailed and interesting, but the most of pictures don't seem to illustrate the text or be closely connected to the actual topic (which isn't the Revolutionary War). It'd be better to have pictures of the actual clinics. Rezin (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the current photos are closely associated with the oral history stories that are always told during water breaks in a Project Appleseed marksmanship clinic, and over lunch. Photos of the various targets, and the shooting line, with shooters in the 3 different positions (offhand, seated/kneeling, and prone) taken from an actual Appleseed would greatly add to the value of the article. Perhaps someone has some photos that they can add. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, photos like that would be great. But this article isn't about the topics of the oral histories. Likewise, we wouldn't add them to an article about a university just because they offered classes about the Revolutionary War. As it is, they seem merely decorative and kind of distracting. As I read it I kept wondering how the maps related to the class. I think this may be the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. More to the point would be a photo of one of the instructors in front of a group giving their oral history talks. Rezin (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The maps are the ones displayed at Project Appleseed marksmanship clinics, being National Park Service maps and in the public domain. Hence, the reason they are available on Wikipedia, too. The 3 strikes of the match are the three events that had to happen before the Revolutionary War actually started on April 19th, in analogy to striking a match multiple times on a box of matches before the struck match actually flares into flame. The maps are used to tell the 3 strikes, framing the locations and actions relative to actual place names/locations. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But this article isn't about the Revolutionary War, or even about the 3 Strikes. Did you read the whole guideline that I linked too? Especially the part at WP:PERTINENCE. If not I'd urge you to do so and then make use your own judgement to decide if it's compliant. I'm not gonna pursue this, but I think it's a big exception to the normal guidelines, one which detracts from an otherwise good article. Rezin (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a possible compromise to allow the pictures to stay. WP:MOS#Images says "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates..." There's currentl;y no secion on "Oral histories", but if it's such a major component it should be possible to create one. Then place the images which illustrate the oral histories in a "gallery" in that section. I believe that'd bring the article into compliance. Rezin (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion! I have re-organized the material. I believe we are compliant now. (I also took out a redundant picture of another Isaac Davis statue.) It also flows better, too! Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Great - thanks for doing that.Rezin (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)