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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Any comments, suggestions, grammatical errors discovered; are welcomed here.
Thanks for any courtesy's.
ArmedCitizen 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean-up Jklin all help is greatly appreciated.
ArmedCitizen 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
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 This article should either be withdrawn or very highly edited.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Further Reading:
It would be better to find a govt. source for the Ballot Language. While the link provided gives the language, it couches it in rhetoric that favors its side. All things considered, however, this is relatively minor.
This list should likely be separated between internal links to other Wikipedia articles, and External Links to outside ones.
The article linked as "A Statistician Explains A Conundrum" is just plain flat out racist, blaming the result of the referendum on the fact that blacks supposedly have larger extended families that in turn are full of at least one criminal. This is a ludicrous reasoning for the failure of the measure, and belongs nowhere near Wikipedia.
"Missouri Makes Political History" should instead be changed to Missouri Bellwether, the name of the actual Wikipedia article. Providing within the article descriptions of its actual implications on the National Agenda would be better served in making this link relevant to the article.
Not sure of the relevance of "Missouri makes history again."
The Q&A Missouri information leads to some sort of invitation to a picnic. As such, I think the link is out of date.
Missouri becomes 36th Information leads to attempts to advocate for the 2003 law, not the actual law itself.
Not sure of the relevance of the Latin linked, which, while certainly in favor of preparation, has limited connection to the Proposition.
The Life Clock seems to also have little relevance as well on the Proposition specific battle.
Handgun Law Information wouldn't open; I don't know whether or not the website is gone, or something else. That would be something to look into.
Direct Responses:
As for why I edited the link the Clinton instead of Clinton Controversies, I read through her article on Controversies, and found no mention of this campaign in that article. As such, I felt that that wasn't the best link available, and it would be better to link straight to her profile rather than other controversies.
Truth be told, I hadn't seen Robin Carnahan's article.
As for the Janet Reno secondary dispute, the two US attorneys wrote the letter. Do you know of any connection between Janet Reno and that act? She may not in fact belong in this article. The activism was dropped mainly in cleaning up that sentence, rather than any major specific reason. That said, presenting her first seems to overstate her importance on the Proposition, as she basically seems to have recorded a robo-call, but not appeared in TV ads or stumped on behalf of the measure.
Crock1701 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/sheriff/gunpurchase.html
Check the footnote -
now what? Your going out of context again.
Maybe your right. But, the intention was to follow-up the string of events with a conclusion.
Change the facts? Cook was hand selected and appointed. What is the point to delete her presence.
If you doubt the NRA FAX ALERT; find a lawyer.
check the first footnote within that paragraph.
We're done. Seek counseling.
ArmedCitizen 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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?
OK, did anyone look/watch the image provided as conceal carry grew across this Nation? I guess images are ignored.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00.html
Go ahead and rephrase the above to indicate law-abiding citizens in fear.
63.19.20.47 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's me also. I messed up the password thingy. ArmedCitizen 23:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/sheriff/gunpurchase.html
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?
ArmedCitizen 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've complied with every issue.
Can the POV be removed now? ArmedCitizen 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I know. thanks for the education. It at least slows 'em down.
ArmedCitizen 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Remove the POV
ArmedCitizen 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Also, Handgun Control, Inc., is their website and NOT Wiki watered down version.
Check the time line. The last version went into the sandbox.
ArmedCitizen 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Where is the Opponents External links? They go before footnotes.
I renamed the Supporters/Opponents and they're gone also.
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)
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.
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)
Yep, tried that. Now I'm in hot water with another editor.
Category: Candidates for speedy deletion
ArmedCitizen 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I created some stubs and got NAILED to the floor.
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
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)
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.
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/
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)
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)
How about I removed every reference and start from zero?
Did you look at my Usertalk?
ArmedCitizen 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Why not remove Dilemma & Results?
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just who do you think you are? Who are you to remove citations? You've created which articles?
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.
Restore what you have destroyed and make your points first.
You've 24 hours to replace your edits.
Anonymous vandalization without justification.
Your a busy little critter. Some were good changes.
Bringing back the Media Campaign doesn't work without the Uzi information.
ArmedCitizen 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
ArmedCitizen 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
![]() |
ArmedCitizen 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hmmmm, you don't like jokes?
Your right. I wanted to add a bit of humor to a tragedy.
Now, this explains the cause for the name change to MPS and there was no other reason.
ArmedCitizen 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
There has been no further input about the merge.
Can that flag be dropped/removed?
GrumpyAC 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
After the Results?
GrumpyAC 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Any comments, suggestions, grammatical errors discovered; are welcomed here.
Thanks for any courtesy's.
ArmedCitizen 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean-up Jklin all help is greatly appreciated.
ArmedCitizen 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Further Reading:
It would be better to find a govt. source for the Ballot Language. While the link provided gives the language, it couches it in rhetoric that favors its side. All things considered, however, this is relatively minor.
This list should likely be separated between internal links to other Wikipedia articles, and External Links to outside ones.
The article linked as "A Statistician Explains A Conundrum" is just plain flat out racist, blaming the result of the referendum on the fact that blacks supposedly have larger extended families that in turn are full of at least one criminal. This is a ludicrous reasoning for the failure of the measure, and belongs nowhere near Wikipedia.
"Missouri Makes Political History" should instead be changed to Missouri Bellwether, the name of the actual Wikipedia article. Providing within the article descriptions of its actual implications on the National Agenda would be better served in making this link relevant to the article.
Not sure of the relevance of "Missouri makes history again."
The Q&A Missouri information leads to some sort of invitation to a picnic. As such, I think the link is out of date.
Missouri becomes 36th Information leads to attempts to advocate for the 2003 law, not the actual law itself.
Not sure of the relevance of the Latin linked, which, while certainly in favor of preparation, has limited connection to the Proposition.
The Life Clock seems to also have little relevance as well on the Proposition specific battle.
Handgun Law Information wouldn't open; I don't know whether or not the website is gone, or something else. That would be something to look into.
Direct Responses:
As for why I edited the link the Clinton instead of Clinton Controversies, I read through her article on Controversies, and found no mention of this campaign in that article. As such, I felt that that wasn't the best link available, and it would be better to link straight to her profile rather than other controversies.
Truth be told, I hadn't seen Robin Carnahan's article.
As for the Janet Reno secondary dispute, the two US attorneys wrote the letter. Do you know of any connection between Janet Reno and that act? She may not in fact belong in this article. The activism was dropped mainly in cleaning up that sentence, rather than any major specific reason. That said, presenting her first seems to overstate her importance on the Proposition, as she basically seems to have recorded a robo-call, but not appeared in TV ads or stumped on behalf of the measure.
Crock1701 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/sheriff/gunpurchase.html
Check the footnote -
now what? Your going out of context again.
Maybe your right. But, the intention was to follow-up the string of events with a conclusion.
Change the facts? Cook was hand selected and appointed. What is the point to delete her presence.
If you doubt the NRA FAX ALERT; find a lawyer.
check the first footnote within that paragraph.
We're done. Seek counseling.
ArmedCitizen 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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?
OK, did anyone look/watch the image provided as conceal carry grew across this Nation? I guess images are ignored.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00.html
Go ahead and rephrase the above to indicate law-abiding citizens in fear.
63.19.20.47 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's me also. I messed up the password thingy. ArmedCitizen 23:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/sheriff/gunpurchase.html
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?
ArmedCitizen 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've complied with every issue.
Can the POV be removed now? ArmedCitizen 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I know. thanks for the education. It at least slows 'em down.
ArmedCitizen 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Remove the POV
ArmedCitizen 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Also, Handgun Control, Inc., is their website and NOT Wiki watered down version.
Check the time line. The last version went into the sandbox.
ArmedCitizen 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Where is the Opponents External links? They go before footnotes.
I renamed the Supporters/Opponents and they're gone also.
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)
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.
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)
Yep, tried that. Now I'm in hot water with another editor.
Category: Candidates for speedy deletion
ArmedCitizen 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I created some stubs and got NAILED to the floor.
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
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)
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.
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/
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)
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)
How about I removed every reference and start from zero?
Did you look at my Usertalk?
ArmedCitizen 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Why not remove Dilemma & Results?
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just who do you think you are? Who are you to remove citations? You've created which articles?
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.
Restore what you have destroyed and make your points first.
You've 24 hours to replace your edits.
Anonymous vandalization without justification.
Your a busy little critter. Some were good changes.
Bringing back the Media Campaign doesn't work without the Uzi information.
ArmedCitizen 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
ArmedCitizen 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
![]() |
ArmedCitizen 23:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hmmmm, you don't like jokes?
Your right. I wanted to add a bit of humor to a tragedy.
Now, this explains the cause for the name change to MPS and there was no other reason.
ArmedCitizen 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
There has been no further input about the merge.
Can that flag be dropped/removed?
GrumpyAC 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
After the Results?
GrumpyAC 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)