Talk:Brady Campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent Court cases?

Should we add in their response to the recent court cases? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Under what? A new heading called "Press Releases"? I fail to see how this press release is any more relevant than any other that they have published (read: meets the notability standard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.137.64 (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hence why I'm asking. It's an important setback for the organization, but I don't know if it belongs here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If a dispute a person or organization was involved in is notable and documented then their own website is counted as a reliable source for their response. This is not a permit to stick in loads of references to an organization, WP:ELOFFICIAL says such links should be limited to only the most pertinent. Dmcq (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute was very notable - I'm just wondering what the consensus is on whether or not it's notable in this article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the Brady Campaign a major player in the case and reliably sourced as such? That's really all there is to it. If they were just an interested party then a response on their own site wouldn't count. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I just had a google and there is a cbs news article which does say a bit about their amicus brief whilst summarizing most of the others. I think that probably is enough to justify them as a reliably sourced player and justify including their response to the outcome. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Brady made the case a big issue of theirs and it does strike at the core of their position, so I think it is relevant and should be included. Any inclusion should, however, be properly sourced and NPOV, not a rant agains them. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the sourcing, Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign is "pleased"[1] with the results of the recent McDonald ruling. The presumptively lawful wording found in Heller (and affirmed in McDonald) indicates that "...the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly legal". This is a cause for celebration by the Brady Campaign. Because the McDonald ruling is focused so narrowly on just the Second Amendment right to handguns in the home, and simultaneously declared virtually every other gun law to be presumptively lawful, it takes the 'slippery slope' extremes of the debate off the table which is to the advantage of the Brady Campaign. The other side of that coin is that immediately after the McDonald ruling Wayne LaPierre (of the NRA) said[2] regarding their desire to defeat these other presumptively lawful gun laws, that the NRA has: "A lot of work ahead". McDonald reaffirmed Heller, and made it applicable to state laws. In the two years since Heller, over eighty court challenges to gun laws on Second Amendment grounds have been ruled[3], and every one of these cases ruled in favor of the gun control law based on the presumptively lawful wording. There is every indication that this trend will continue with McDonald. No wonder Brady is pleased with this ruling, and this is well sourced and should be put in the article. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well this article could refer to McDonald v. Chicago for most of the details, this article should not have references which don't specifically mention the Brady connection. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

I added this above, with the points that I have made about article improvement, and one currently under discussion below. I suggest that maintaining this and directing your efforts to the items on the list will help reduce the level of disruption to this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"If we vote, we can make the article's subject whatever we want!"

...no. I've collapsed the several threads in which editors discuss voting to make the article's subject into a "hate group". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and consequently it reports what others have reported - not what its editors think, believe, interpret from the dictionary or legal precedents, or fancy having a rant about.

I'd suggest that any editor who is unsure about how encyclopedias in general, and Wikipedia in particular, work should take a look at WP:5P - particularly the "first pillar". WP:RS should help you understand "reliable sources", and is well worth a read, too. WP:SECONDARY will help you understand the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Based on my past experience of shutting down WP:NOTAFORUM threads, I fully expect to be accused of "censorship" - for bonus points I also expect someone to point me at WP:NOTCENSORED. Rest assured that I understand what censorship is - and isn't - and that I am familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED.

TFOWR 09:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been hoping that someone would cutoff the forum chatter occurring here. Our visitors need to find another place to express their feelings. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes the page look a bit cleaner. =) Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

just because you understand doesn't mean you care Finch590 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I presume from that you are saying that the edd does not care about what?.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they think Wikipedia has a duty to report any old bods views rather than sticking to WP:reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrrr! I see its not caring about the truth. Well as you say lets see some RS then or shall we all be allowed to expound our version of truth?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear, but I'd imagine Finch590 is suggesting I don't care about censorship. To which I retort: nothing has been censored, the off-topic nonsense is still there for anyone interested enough to read it. Comparing collapsing an off-topic thread with "censorship" is ... bizarre. TFOWR 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In principle it's a good idea to organise a straw poll, and although this one attracted a lot of newbies/SPAs/socks unfamiliar with sourcing policy, there's no harm done in the end. Thanks in particular to Niteshift for putting the interests of the encyclopedia first and alerting NPOVN promptly.Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

History X

I cannot find in the source for this paragraph "HCI grew rapidly following an assassination attempt on U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981. Both Reagan and his press secretary, James Brady were shot; President Reagan recovered quickly, but Mr. Brady, shot in the head, was paralyzed for life. This led his wife, Sarah Brady, to join HCI in 1985, of which she became chair in 1989. Two years later, she became chair of CPHV (in 1991)." any mention of this in the source provided. "The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has a long and rich history of working to save lives.

Mark Borinsky, who had been robbed and nearly killed at gunpoint, founded the organization in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns. Pete Shields became Chairman in 1978 following the murder of his twenty-three-year-old son, Nick, in 1974. The organization was renamed Handgun Control, Inc (HCI) in 1980.

In 1983, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) was founded as an education outreach organization dedicated to reducing gun violence. In 1989, CPHV establishes the Legal Action Project to take the fight against gun violence to the courts.

In 2001, HCI was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CPHV was renamed Brady Center to Prevent Gun VIolence in honor of Jim and Sarah Brady for their commitment and courage to make America safer.

Please take a moment to read about the highlights throughout the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. And then be a part of our efforts to save lives. There are many ways to become involved: sign up to be part of our e-action network, learn more if you are a victim or survivor of gun violence, become an activist, and to donate."

This looks like OR to me. Please justfiy why we should include uunsourced claims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Then thbe link should be to those section, not a front page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• From the content and structure, it sounds like it was just lifted straight from the Brady site. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it shoudl not be difficult to give us the correct citation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A link to the site itself for its history would be fine from the point of view of WP:ELOFFICIAL I believe. An external site would be nicer. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as the history page that is used actualy contains the facts being presented in this articel, but at the moment this does not appear to be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Even under ELOFFICIAL, the crap about "sign up etc" shouldn't be in. And the whole passage is very, very POV and promotional. If it were more factual and less POV pushing, I'd be ok with ELOFFICIAL. Even their use of the term "gun violence" is used as POV term. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.79.149.128, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} [Deleted entire text of article] 74.79.149.128 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Question: What is it you need to be changed? Just point me towards the part of the article, what's there already, and what you have all agreed it should be replaced by. I'll expect to see evidence of a consensus for the change, too. And don't post the entire current article - there's no way I can decipher what you need changed from that. TFOWR 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

Could I ask please that citations put in actualkly mention the Brady Campaign somewhere or are obviously referring to their campaign? I understand that sticking in a reference to for instance the amount of metal in a plastic gun could be useful additional information, but sticking in things where a person has not made an explicit connection is WP:synthesis. Wikipedia is not in the business of figuring out the connections that people have not made already. If a critic wants to criticize the Brady campaign they will say what they are criticizing them for, it is not up to this article to say extra things they don't say. The links are there so people can look up explanations of what things are. In a non-contentious subject the synthesis might be innocuous but in a contentious subject like this one it is too easily used for advancing a point of view. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles I put in there were written as "Opposing views" to the Brady Campaign. Just click the links and it'll be a bit more clear. When they say "the anti-gun lobby" they usually mean "the Brady Campaign" anyway, just as when the Brady Campaign says "the gun lobby" they usually mean "the NRA". (though in this case they're a bit more explicit) Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• In reality, any mention of the Brady Bill is a reference to the Brady Campaign. The Brady Campaign considers that piece of crap legislation one of their acheivements. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that whenever a source refers to "Handgun Control Inc.", then that is "The Brady Campaign". The organization changed its name, not its politics. Rapier (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"(Assault rifles, by definition, are select fire.)"

I added this sentence because it provided additional information for the reader, allowing them to see the difference between assault rifles and semi-automatic-only carbines. It's a simple fact. However, I'm wondering whether putting it there could be seen as pushing a POV by putting the facts too close to the Brady Campaign's assertions. Should we rely on the reader to click through to the definition of assault rifle in order to find out the difference? Or should we put it right there where they can read it? Put another way, which is more valuable - the reader's time and convenience, or being ultra-NPOV? Thoughts? Does this even present a POV issue at all or am I being paranoid because of the topic? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be removed. A criticism article about the Brady campaign talking about them misusing the terms will have enough to put their point of view about the difference and the Brady campaign have enough in theirs. Editors here putting in their own links which are just for clarification is just too liable to be an POV an should be avoided and there are articles about the subjects. It is important in a controversial subject. Dmcq (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what you're trying to say, especially with "A criticism article about the Brady campaign talking about them misusing the terms will have enough to put their point of view about the difference and the Brady campaign have enough in theirs. Editors here putting in their own links which are just for clarification is just too liable to be an POV an should be avoided and there are articles about the subjects." Could you please rephrase it? Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What I was saying is basically WP:OR and in particular WP:SYN, perhaps they can explain better. Wikipedia is in the business of writing about things other people have noticed, not what we figure out. Citations should really always refer to the topic either by name or very obviously. If there is something notable in the news then it should be noted. For instance they might say the Brady campaign are misusing the terms because of x y and z. Reporting the criticism and the x y z is perfectly correct. What should be avoided though is any non-trivial extension beyond that. There is no need and one should not in fact start explaining what the article is about in ones own terms. There is a little leeway for sense and readability but if someone is complaining about the Brady campaign conflating two terms then they will say something like 'The Brady campaingn are trying to mislead you by using these two terms in the same breath, They are not. A is widget and B is a wodget" Then the article can say they have been criticised for trying to mislead by saying A and B are the same whereas A is a widget an B is a wodget.(citation 1) The Brady campaign have responded saying a B is really another form of widget (citation 2). The critics and the Brady campaign have said what they wanted to say, it isn't up to us to stick words in their mouths or explain them. And it is a particular redflag if one does as that may not be the original meaning of what they meant at all but someone shading in their POV. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to expand, if there aren't reliable sources outside the Brady campaign talking about the difference in the context of the Brady Campaign there is no need to cite the Brady Campaign website talking about the difference either. The website can be used in relation to items which made the news outside but should not be used otherwise except to give corporate type details. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are articles that do that, and some of them are already referenced in that paragraph. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's good. People putting in their own explanations can be a signal that an original source isn't actually saying something. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They are, but I'm wondering if leaving in the in-text patenthetical explanation for convenience purposes balances against the NPOV issues brought up by putting the facts so near the Brady Campaign's statements. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to be careful, I'm not keen on domino theories but it does seem to be that POV pushers will exploit any sort of leeway on Wikipedia. Give an inch and they take a mile. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph about Brady Bill

Earlier today, I removed the following paragraph from the History section, and it was later restored by Dmcq:

In 1993, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or "Brady Bill" into law. The culmination of a seven-year effort on the part of HCI, the Brady Bill required a five-day waiting period and background check on handgun purchases.[3] The five-day waiting period for handgun purchases expired on November 30, 1998.

The reason I removed it (this was stated clearly in the edit comment) was that the paragraph is about the Brady Bill. It say absolutely nothing about the Brady Campaign, so the paragraph is inappropriate. Yes, HGI supported the Brady Bill, but that is covered in the Efforts and actions section, so it should not be repeated here.

Would you please explain why you think it belongs here?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple, it doesn't. You were right, there is no reason to repeat it. Rapier (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Handgun Control Inc became the Brady Campaign according to the next sentence so the Brady Campaign is a continuation of it. HCI redirects to this article and therefore should be mentioned in connection with the bill. I didn't spot the other reference and yes they could be amalgamated, the other one should have the reference to HCI put in. I think it probably is an important part of the history so it would be best to have a short reference to it in the History. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that HCI and the Brady Campaign are the same entity, but I do not understand what that has to do with it. The History section covers the organization and naming of the group, while the Efforts and actions section details the efforts the group has undertaken. It seems clear to me that the Brady Bill belongs under Efforts and actions.

I agree that it is a very important part of the group's history, and thus it might deserve a mention in the lead section, but including it under History makes no sense to me.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying - I had just reverted the change because the edit comment said the Brady Bill had nothing to do with the Brady Campaign whereas it was campaigned for by the Brady Campaign under its former name. The Efforts an actions bit should be fixed to say it was HCI the Brady Campaign's predecessor that did the campaigning. I haven't strong feeling about it except I though mention of the relationship was being removed as irrelevant which it isn't. Dmcq (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what the edit comment said. It said "delete paragraph - about Brady bill, not Brady Campaign". In other words, the paragraph was about the Brady Bill, not about the Brady Campaign. That is not the same as saying that "the Brady Bill had nothing to do with the Brady Campaign".

It seems perfectly reasonable that this article would have some mention of the Brady Bill; it should describe how the Brady Bill is related to the Brady Campaign. But this paragraph does not say anything about the Brady Campaign; it just describes the Brady Bill. And while a brief description of the bill seems appropriate in this article, the part about Bill Clinton signing it is out of place - that is in the Brady Bill article and the reader can click on the link if he wants those details about the bill. The part about it expiring is also out of place, although it would make sense in the context of describing the Brady Campaign's efforts to extend it.

— (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant bit in the paragraph: "The culmination of a seven-year effort on the part of HCI". Dmcq (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But iuts an effect of thier actions, they did not pass the bill.As such I agree it should be in the Efforts and actions section.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically you think if an organization spends most of its time for seven years petitioning to get year month day instead of month day year in their correspondence and the government then passed a bill about it and the organization is reliably sourced as a major impetus, then that effort is not part of the organizations history because they are not part of the government passing the bill? I'm not saying Efforts and actions shouldn't have the specifics about the bill itself in. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but all of its actions are. So are you sugesting that we move all of the material from the Efforts and actions section to the history section. I am happy to support thar. But if we have a history section and an effects section then surley its effects go in one and its hsitory (which I assume given there is a section for eeffects is about the history of the organsiation, not its impact)? It does not need to be in the articel twice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before I have no strong feeling about the subject. I came here in response to people writing 'hate group' without a citation. I reverted the removal in the history section because the edit comment said it had nothing to do with the Brady Campaign whereas it did have a lot to do with the Brady Campaign under a previous name. If the edit comment had said the information was duplicated I wouldn't have done anything about the removal. I did not notice the duplication. The bit in the efforts and actions still doesn't mention HCI. I felt it was relevant to mention in the history a seven year major effort leading to such a bill but if you don't think so fine by me. Does this maker things clear? Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with JPMcGrath that it belongs in the "efforts" section, but possibly deserves a mention in the lead as well. It's obviously very important, but it doesn't mesh well with the rest of the "History" section Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BBB report

Obviously it raises NPOV issues, but it's not like the BBB isn't a reliable source. However, I looked its report over. For some of its standards, they don't really apply to a lobbying group as much as they do to say, a "normal" charity, like the Red Cross. On others, they missed the check mark on a single point, or even on a percentage point of their board members that are directly compensated. I'd say it should be removed, since the standards here don't really apply in a meaningful way. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd take it as reliable, certainly, for statements of fact, and I tend to agree otherwise. It's just a barebones comparison of the campaign to a template of standards, with no actual analysis of what that might mean. I'd agree with removing the statement as it currently appears. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

————

I think you are conflating the Brady Center with the Brady Campaign. The BBB report is about the Brady Center, which is a 501(c)(3), and thus is not allowed to engage in lobbying. The Brady Campaign, a 501(c)(4), is the group that does the lobbying. Contributions to the Brady Center are tax-deductable, while those to the Brady Campaign are not. — JPMcGrath (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well fuck me. Now I'm just confused. Faceless Enemy (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Look up the rules for the various kinds of tax-exempt entities. As long as you can understand IRS-speak, you can learn a lot about how this kind of thing works (I'm a member of a 501(c)4, and also the President of a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)7...it took me awhile too) Rapier (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So the info referencing the BBB report is no good? Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Stated Mission"

With the mission statement in the into, does this section have any purpose? The notation about AHSA seems out of place and irrelevant also. Cooldavid (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"cast doubt" v "struck down"

there seems to be some confusion on the McDonald case this rulling "struck down" not "cast doubt on" Chicago gun ban

see

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243565/one-month-after-i-mcdonald-i-david-rittgers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37972148/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3402&Itemid=165

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Hate campaign

Please see Talk:Brady Campaign/Archive 2#"If we vote, we can make the article's subject whatever we want!" about this idea that putting in stuff saying something that is not said in any WP:Reliable source about the Brady Campaign. See WP:5P for a summary of the main principles behind Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Brady Law

I would take care of this myself, but I'm not sure how: a search for "brady law" should redirect to the article for the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, not this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.44 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the page Brady law (with a lower-case 'l') redirected to Brady Campaign; I have changed it to redirect to Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The page Brady Law (with a capital 'L') already redirected to Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Rivertorch (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Biases

There seems to be a bias against the organization in Terminology, History, and the Efforts and Actions sections. Is there anyone who is truly neutral on gun policy politics who could clean up these sections and make this article more complete?

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Good luck with that... This organization has been the laughingstock of Americans since it's inception. 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.226.247 (talk)

I have reviewed the Terminology section and see no evidence of bias. Pointing out someones mistakes is not bias. Please cite what specifically is biased and how it is biased. Walterwoj (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Clips vs Magazines

A common criticism (google it) of the Brady Campaign is they are constantly referring to firearm magazines as 'clips.' These terms are not at all interchangeable and are evidence of a remarkable unfamiliarity with firearms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.20.140 (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not an especially valid criticism. Got any sources for it other than "Google"? I mean a real source (not some blog or forum post) that actually talks about it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How about every firearm manual ever written? Would that suffice? 23:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.226.247 (talk)

Here is a quote and source from the NRA Glossary

"CLIP: A device for holding a group of cartridges. Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for "detachable magazine." For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military." According to the NRA's own glossary... are you saying both Brady and the NRA are wrong? Cooldavid (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooldavid, you did not fully quote from your source. I am happy to complete it for you: "There is no argument that it can also mean a separate device for holding and transferring a group of cartridges to a fixed or detachable magazine or as a device inserted with cartridges into the mechanism of a firearm becoming, in effect, part of that mechanism." The difference here may be that the NRA recognizes that a clip can refer to a interim storage device that does not necessarily feed cartridges in a chamber. Much like a "magazine" can also have a variable meaning if we are talking about a storage structure or space as opposed to a repeating firearms supply device. The Brady Center may not be recognizing such things. Both the NRA and the Brady Center could be wrong, if they are not recognizing functional differences in favor of the purely semantic. Woerkilt (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd think someone who's invested heavily in a subject would take some time to learn and study it, instead of not doing that, and basing their campaign on assumptions. But maybe that's just me. 95.109.102.252 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC

Why should they be interested in the different makes and the minutiae of guns and their construction? Do they care whether it is a clip or a magazine when somebody is killed? Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because using incorrect terminology shows they lack knowledge about what they are talking about. They are a lobby group, they should know what they are talking about. Nobody cares if little timmy from down the road uses incorrect terminology, but this is a lobby group trying to make changes to legislation. 202.161.20.70 (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The NRA firearms glossary says 'For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military'. I'd have thought they should know if anyone does. However if people feel this is common or important there should be some wp:reliable source saying they have been so criticized and then perhaps it can go in. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a valid criticism. For example: http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons/highcapacity uses the word 'clip' 16 times when they are actually referring to 'magazines'. Also the first paragraph of the article Clip states 'The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, though this usage is technically incorrect. In the correct usage, a clip is used to feed a magazine or revolving cylinder, while a magazine or a belt is used to load cartridges into the chamber of a firearm.' this is further properly cited within the article.

Also I think the proper use of terminology by an organization that claims expertise enough in an area to recommend legal policy changes is important. In order to advise on policy one should be an 'expert' and it reflects poorly on an expert to use incorrect terminology.

I recommend that several level 2 headings be added to the section called 'Criticism'. Specifically ones called 'Assault Weapon', 'Plastic Guns' and 'Clips vs. Magazines'. Proposed text below:

The Brady Campaign appears to use the words 'clips' and 'magazines' interchangeably. This is inappropriate for an advocacy group that advises on policy changes as groups that do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the topic of their advocacy are considered less credible.

I will give this a week or two to stew before I post it so please weigh in if you have a well reasoned opinion.

Walterwoj (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Your personal opinion of the Brady Campaign is not appropriate content for the article. See Wikipedia:No original research. The people who bring up this complaint have been repeatedly asked for reliable sources discussing the Brady Campaign's misuse of the term, and none have been provided. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but that's not suitable text for Wikipedia. Who says the distinction is important? In what way is it a criticism? Is it like pointing out that someone has a typo on their website, and concluding that the website's message must be wrong? I understand that the Brady campaign irritates a lot of people, but this is not the place to argue the case, and absolutely no one expects them to properly understand gun terminology—they favor certain restrictions but do not care about using correct terminology. If an independent and reliable source states there is a problem with the campaign's terminology then it might be suitable to post a paraphrased and brief summary as an attributed opinion ("X says that ..."). Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Critisisms - Terminology - Missuse of the word 'Assault'

I'm not quite sure how to write it for wikipedia but it would appear that the misuse of the word 'assault' is an intentional action aimed at provoking a sense that specific items (eg, assault weapon, assault paperclip) have an inherent evil purpose (IE, for assaulting people).

At the moment this is OR and I have not verifiable sources to support this position but I felt it could be put here in case someone else has the missing pieces. No actual text currently suggested. Walterwoj (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I have slightly modified your above message to demonstrate how messages are normally formatted. It is the reply which has a colon in front (and two colons for a reply to a reply). Also, the signature goes after a space on the end of the last line. Re your comment, fine, but please see the above replies to your earlier suggestion (dated 21 June). Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Brady uses the term, albeit incorrectly (just as much of the legislation on the matter does). We can't control the fact that they don't know what they (or legislators) know what they are talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess anyone can enter this game of using their own words and saying everyone else is wrong. We've got the business above about 'clip' of the NRA using one word and saying they are right and the military and manufacturers use it for something different. And here we have a crowd saying assault weapon means one thing and the legislators are wrong. As in the clip case if a reliable source can be found saying the Brady Campaign use the words wrong then perhaps it might merit a short note otherwise no that's just the criticism some editor on Wikipedia has. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• You don't think I'm supporting this whole "they're using it wrong" game, do you? Yes, they are wrong, but they are still using it that way, so the article should reflect that they use it (even if incorrect). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What I said in effect was that I saw no reason to suppose the NRA used words correctly and the army and manufacturers and legislature used words wrongly. As far as I'm concerned they all have their own jargon. Dmcq (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

Edit type to: Non-profit lobbying group; hate group

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society (gun owners)

Thrandurne (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your request is denied. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So what was the reason for denial? - Sausboss (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusing lead

I came to this article to learn more about the organisation and immediately got lost in the lead. I almost complained about a repeated paragraph before I made sense of it. Could the parts introducing respective mission statements be varied slightly, so they can be better differentiated? The names of the organisations and their mission statements look very similar, could at least the accompanying wording be not identical?

The mission statement of X is Y. X is a Z organisation.

I hope I made myself clear— Marvin ^talk 17:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC

Criticisms

Shouldn't opposition to Civil Rights be added under criticisms? It would be if it was a page on any other group in opposition to Civil Rights of a group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.27.119 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, news organizations) that plainly discuss opposition to civil rights, then it can be added to the article. Likewise for anything else that you wish to add to the article. Otherwise, it is not allowable according to Wikipedia policies. Also, please be mindful of WP:SYNTH. - MrX 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.opposingviews.com/i/brady-campaign-uses-lethal-logic-on-dc-v-heller-anniversary

  Triggered by \bopposingviews\.com\b on the global blacklist

• http://www.opposingviews.com/p/brady-campaign-explains-difference-between-automatic-weapons

  Triggered by \bopposingviews\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Gonna do some clean-up on this thing

Gonna do some clean-up on this article... since it's been tagged for clean-up for nearly six years now (since October 2008). Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the clean-up tag because I think I've cleaned it up pretty darn well. I updated a lot of citations to WP:CS1 standards; updated some of the URLs; and added archive URLs and dates where needed. The article could still use some development and updating, which I'll probably continue to do, but I thought I'd stop for a minute to follow-up on the clean-up notice. Lightbreather (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms section looks a bit thin.

Considering the sheer number of Americans that dislike these people, the criticisms section looks rather thin.

When someone has the time, they should make it a little more thorough. Sparse information isn't supposed to be one of Wikipedia's hallmarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.211 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

These groups have paid shills who operate on wiki spreading their lies, hate and racism. They will just revert you and move to have you blocked, comrade.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Misquote of Shields

I subscribed to The New Yorker just so I could check out the Shields quote that was in the article. It was wrong.

This is the quote from the section in question:

... Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporing clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of POV material

I took out two chunks of text which don't belong in this article.

In July 1976, Shields estimated that it would take seven to ten years for NCCH to reach the goal of "total control of handguns in the United States." He said:

"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."

A spokesman for the California State Rifle and Pistol Association called the law's details "arbitrary," and gun rights author Dave Kopel called the law "symbolic." The ban expired in September 2004.

Both of these violate NPOV. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The first one dredges up a quote from before the guy joined the organization. Would it be acceptable to go through the sayings of the directors of the NRA from before they joined that group? Of course not, but if you disagree then say so on that page. The second one is one-sided criticism of the Brady Bill, which isn't the topic of this article. Either include balanced criticism or just leave it out. Since there's a whole article on the topic it isn't needed here. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you say the quote was from before he joined the organization? He was part of its creation in 1975. The quote is from 1976. http://articles.philly.com/1993-01-26/news/25960774_1_handgun-control-sarah-brady-plastic-handguns Anastrophe (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right - I'm wrong. Mea culpa. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The article could be clearer about the timeline of his involvement. Under 'history' it explains that he joined as chairman in 1975, then 'leadership' lists his becoming chair in 1978 based on the NYT article. The sources are a little grey on the name of the role he had early on - one says 'executive director'. But he was a founder of the group at bare minimum, in '75. Anastrophe (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brady Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111005120608/http://www.bradycenter.org/about/bio/helmke to http://www.bradycenter.org/about/bio/helmke

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)