Talk:1999 Missouri Proposition B

message: Any comments, suggestions, grammatical errors discovered; are welcomed here. 
Thanks for any courtesy's.  
ArmedCitizen 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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  This article should either be withdrawn or very highly edited.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)
thread_title:  This page is clearly biased. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crock1701  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restoring NPOV tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why the Problem? 

message: Some couple of examples of biased statements are: - "by those within Missouri that were law-abiding citizens that perceived a need for self-protection" - "John Ross made his tireless attempts" - "Then came the Ballot Language to mislead the uninformed voters" In general, the article is clearly written from the POV of someone who supports the aims of the measure. Individuals who also supported the measure are characterised favorably, and those who opposed the measure are characterised negatively. I am not disputing the factual accuracy of the statements, but how they are worked clearly expresses a biased POV. 
I did a quick search for Murder Capital here at Wiki.  Didn't find one article.  I did find #3 listing; "Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965".  Something tells me that the patronage articles presented in Wiki lean very hard (bias) to the 'left' or 'blue' States.  Shall I add a POV to their articles?
*"by those within Missouri that were law-abiding citizens that perceived a need for self-protection" 
OK, did anyone look/watch the image provided as conceal carry grew across this Nation?  I guess images are ignored.
**What started as 30 in 1998 and grew to 48 States that were indeed watched not only in the Murder Capital of St. Louis but by those that feared travel into larger urban areas.  St. Louis was listed twice in the top 10.  Do I need to produce links for verification?  Nope, produce links that prove me wrong.  
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00.html
Go ahead and rephrase the above to indicate law-abiding citizens in fear.
*"John Ross made his tireless attempts"
**Guilty - the term "tireless" will be removed.  Have any suggestions to describe the money and hours dedicated to lobbying politicians with (2) very hostile Governors?
*"Then came the Ballot Language to mislead the uninformed voters"
**Show me a link that carries the before and after language of the 1999 Prop B.  I'll quote it. and copy their PC sensitive narratives.
63.19.20.47 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenj0418 

message: ; Overview: Jim Crow laws may not be in your book but its practiced within the City of St. Louis that added their own 'rules' to the Missouri Law. (ie., MUST be a registered voter to purchase a firearm.)
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/sheriff/gunpurchase.html
**RSMo 571.090. 2. Applications shall be made to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides. An application shall be filed in writing, signed and verified by the applicant, and shall state only the following: the name, Social Security number, occupation, age, height, color of eyes and hair, residence and business addresses of the applicant, the reason for desiring the permit, and whether the applicant complies with each of the requirements specified in subsection 1 of this section. 
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5710000090.HTM
Do you see anything in Missouri Law that requires that a person MUST be a registered voter, declare their Race, and Sex, before they can purchase a firearm?
*That adds up to spin on Jim Crow laws and a violation of civil rights as well as a violation of Missouri Law.
ArmedCitizen 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Crow - Crock1701 

message: I've complied with every issue.
Can the POV be removed now? ArmedCitizen 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV removal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reversion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV tag back 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: And I'd like to add that I'm also quite pleased with how the article's been developing. Sorry about the abrupt introduction to so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines earlier on, AC. Glad it seems to be working out more smoothly now though. Bryan 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MarcusGraly 2 

message: There has been no further input about the merge.
Can that flag be dropped/removed?
GrumpyAC 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't care all that much one way or the other myself; I was hoping that the other participants would chime in. However, as 1999 Proposition B in Missouri Participants currently stands I expect that eventually someone's going to put it up for deletion and I expect it'll probably pass. Hillary Clinton is a highly notable person in her own right but the people listed in this "participants" sub-article aren't nearly so much. I'd recommend going ahead and merging the material to prevent its eventual deletion, frankly. Bryan 05:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Any suggestions to where to plant the listed items into this article?
After the Results?
GrumpyAC 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to merge 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  merge tags 

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

text: I didn't either.  :)  But that's where the "show preview" button comes in handy. -Phoenixrod 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political favoritism: priceless

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wishing the facts would vanish eh Italiavivi? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How to steal an election link? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109013453/http://www.wmsa.net/Rally2003/jamison_update.htm to http://www.wmsa.net/Rally2003/jamison_update.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907070526/http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/StbySt/MO.html to http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/StbySt/MO.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120718193944/http://wetinkpro.com/john/site/about.php to http://wetinkpro.com/john/site/about.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214015052/http://www.mcgheetraining.com/index.html to http://www.mcgheetraining.com/index.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20041013011112/http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/ap5_6_99.cfm to http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/ap5_6_99.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628235300/http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=MO to http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=MO
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513130631/http://www.john-ross.net/race%26rtc.htm to http://www.john-ross.net/race%26rtc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816051641/http://www.john-ross.net/ccw03.htm to http://www.john-ross.net/ccw03.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20030621025237/http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/2000/110800/N9.Carnahan.html to http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/2000/110800/N9.Carnahan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821174555/http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C571.HTM to http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C571.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913205252/http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=ccwfaq to http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=ccwfaq
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060913212922/http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/index.php?pagename=history to http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/index.php?pagename=history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928060815/http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=896 to http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=896
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)