Talk:Joyce Foundation

message: *Unnamed contributor with IP 24.145.225.95 has essentially rewritten the article to favor the Joyce Foundation.  The Criticisms section now does not have any criticism whatsoever !! I am going to revert the edits until they stay.Kevinp2 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: I have made a request for mediation. Kevinp2 19:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

message: Have reverted a large deletion without discussion of the validity of each of the (many) references.  Yaf 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh look, he called in his pov warrior friends. How cute. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting vandalism

message: *I cleaned up the references since someone or something had marked up the dates in a way that caused the references to break.
*I cleaned up the list of external references and reduced them to those relevant to the article.Kevinp2 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing edits 

message: Please tell us where in WP:EL does it ban the links you are challenging? Homefill 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. WP:EL states that "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority," are not permitted. One of the sites that I have been unable to remove and thus I have tagged as not appropriate was http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/antigun_groups/index.php, which is described as "Arms and the Law Blog commentary." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Untill you confirm you are l0b0t, I will not discuss discover the networks with you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grow up.  How can I confirm something that is not true?  Do you have any evidence to suggest that I am the same person as this lobot (isn't that a guy from Star Wars?)?  How is a group that reports on activist funding not an expert on activist funding?  If you were unable to remove that link, does that not speak to the fact that your removal of material is unwarranted and unwelcome?  Why did you not finish the mediation process that you started?  If you had finished mediation and it went your way, then there would be no issue here.  If you had finished mediation and it did not go your way, there would be no issue here.  Instead, you walked away from the mediation (leading to its closure) and now you want to "end run" around the process by coming out of "retirement" and reverting editors that do not agree with you.  If you have legimate issues with this article, then let's hear them.  If all you have to offer are accusations and tit-for-tat reverting and trolling on other pages, then kindly return to CV and leave Wikipedia to editors willing to discuss things and reach consensus. Homefill 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seek consensus for your changes and they will go through, l0b0t. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus was reached when you "retired" and walked away from your mediation request.  Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? Homefill 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you continue to be disruptive, you will be blocked. That is all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How am I being disruptive?  I'm trying to have an adult discussion with you, but you seem unwilling to allow that to happen.  Fair enough, seek consensus before you remove material from the encyclopedia. Homefill 16:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed no material. I have included tags disputing the inclusion of some links. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe either is a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Personal attacks removed" - that is hilarious, coming from you of all people.  Why is neither of these sites a reliable source?  Can you state a specific reason or reasons why either of them are unreliable?  Kevinp2 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Hipocrite has retired for the umpteenth time. You can put back the links if you want.Kevinp2 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hipocrite

message: Opening this for discussion, subject of the recent edit:  To me at least, the publication of the John Birch Society titled "The New American" doesn't really look to meet the standards of "reliable source" as defined by the policy around here.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disinformation from Glenn Beck that Seven Springs Middle School English teacher Raven Clabough posted on the John Birch Society's New American website is not reliably sourced. Newross (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: John Birch Society a reliable source?

message: The LIVE broadcast was seen by many and is now under independent investigation. President Obama as well as many other politicians and private parties of interests were named in the alleged scandal. 
I do not support the views of Glenn Beck or Fox news and it's affiliates, I post the link merely because it is being swept under the rug by mainstream media source and this is the best recount of the activities that has been produced as of date.
this is the first video in the series.
1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMEnNdDJNIw&feature=related
We the people of the United States of America challenge Wikipedia and it's viewers to discredit these allegations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.7.75 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently named in scandal on Fox News 

message: I removed a dead link to the SARC and added a line about it expiring.  The source may be considered biased, but the information seems to be correct if for no other reason than the website is down. Hildenja (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Amendment Research Center 

message: *Joyce Foundation funding in several areas related to gun control is available in the form of a mind map.  Click on the picture to view it in full size.
This diagram was created from scratch by a Wikipedia editor with no basis in secondary sources. It's just there to prove some point about the supposed bias of this group. I haven't seen anything like it on other Wikipedia articles. This should go on someone's blog, not on an encyclopedia page. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this blanking edit.  This diagram has been here on this page for over ten years.  kevinp2 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute - the fact that it's been on the page for 10 years is irrelevant, and doesn't respond to the concerns raised above. What sources were used to create the mind map? Are editor-generated mind maps appropriate for think tank articles? Should we create and place these more widely? MastCell Talk 17:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a clear case of WP:OR to me. The only cited source is the foundation's own website. I don't see any secondary references that establish the notability of any of these donors in particular, or in general. I advocate removing the "mind map." I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources that talk about the foundation's funding, but this map seems seems off to me on content and aesthetic grounds. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:OR does not apply to original images created by a Wikipedian.  See WP:OI.  There is no novel or original research in the diagram.  It all comes from the Joyce Foundation's own grant information, simply put onto a diagram for ease of understanding.  This is very routine for Wikipedia pages.  For just one example, see the graphics on the page .223 Remington for not one but FOUR similar diagrams that illustrate the topic in question.  If you examine the graphics there, they were all created by Wikipedians and one of them is extremely elaborate.    I am reverting the edit.  Thanks.  kevinp2 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you cite WP:OI, that policy makes clear that original images may not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Moreover, WP:NOR applies to all content, including images, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are exempt. Moreover, this graphic deals directly with living people and is thus subject to WP:BLP. I do not see any easy way to verify the information presented, so it would be a start if you could link to where you obtained it. Even if the information is properly sourced, I think this sort of funding flowchart likely violates WP:NOR (and WP:OI, which is a subset of that policy). As an aside, please do not keep restoring the picture; several editors have expressed concerns, and it's reasonable to remove it until we reach some sort of understanding, especially in light of the WP:BLP implications. 
MastCell Talk 01:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please articulate exactly what are the "unpublished ideas or arguments"?  There are none.  The diagram was constructed from the Joyce Foundation's own grant information on its own website in 2007.  The links are now stale, and I can work on seeing if they can be re-sourced, but there are no unpublished ideas or arguments in the diagram, sorry. kevinp2 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  Also, can you please articulate why the diagram on this page is different from the FOUR user-contributed diagrams on the page .223 Remington  By the logic you are using, they should be removed too.  I can ask those editors to weigh in if you like. kevinp2 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that the first diagram is indisputable fact. The second picture appears to accurately represent the two calibers, for all I know. The lines in this image are neither indisputable fact nor an accurate representation of the relationships between parties - given the editorial dispute now present, you should provide sources for the facts in question. Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL.  There is no difference in the verifiability of these diagrams, and you know it.  kevinp2 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: In 2007, all entities that were funded under the Joyce Foundations own category of Gun Violence prevention were included.  None were excluded.  Not that this matters to you anyway, since you will not accept anything that contradicts your stand kevinp2 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Who decided which arrows to draw from which entity to other entities? Who selected the categorizations?" Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who decided to draw the arrows in this diagram?  Who selected the comparisons in this diagram? You are setting up that page for blanking deletions too, right? kevinp2 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Let's keep the mind map out until there's consensus to include it. I'm skeptical that consensus for this particular image will be achieved, so I'd recommend instead trying to integrate some of that material into the article in another way. Apart from the policy issues outlined above, I find the mind map to be difficult to look at. Surely there's a better, more user-friendly way we can present funding info (perhaps a simple list). Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the sensible recommendation.  I am restoring the mind map and will rework it to better include current information.  I don't mind a list, but lists can also be hard to read and can become user-unfriendly too.  User-contributed images and diagrams have their place in Wikipedia for a good reason.  Please give me some time to rework the mind map. kevinp2 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I followed the archived link. It goes to a 2007 version of their website, so it's out of date. I could only see one page of a six page listing. Even so, it included grantees which I don't see in this diagram, such as George Washington University and American College of Preventive Medicine, or cities Alexandria, VA and Washington, DC. I question where the peripheral groups and people, and the little arrows, come from. This diagram fails the verifiability test. It also fails the WP:WEIGHT test. Gun control is only one of their funding priorities, but it gets all the space. There's no difference shown between big recipients and little ones. Meanwhile, the same editor who created it deleted material on the foundation's research and presentations. Had to make room for the great big mind map? It's false to say there've never been any complaints about this in the past ten years. This diagram violates all three core content policies - V, NOR, and NPOV. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The mind map image was created in 2007 and the links were up to date at that point in time.  Is it seriously your argument that all Wikipedia diagrams should be removed when their source information dies due to link rot?  And is it possible for you to use a named account instead of an IP address and stand behind your blanking editing? kevinp2 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  I complained about this ridiculous mind map (and this pathetic excuse for a hit-piece article) in 2007. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes... looking higher up the talkpage, and at the article history, certainly raises some concerns about agenda-driven editing and casts this disagreement in a different light. MastCell Talk 17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The concerns were addressed at that point in time to the satisfaction of everyone except Hipocrite who is never satisfied with anyone who disagrees with him.  kevinp2 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, are you really reaching to personal attacks this early? Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Personal attacks", LOL, coming from you, that is rich.   You are well known as one of the nastier and more confrontational personalities on Wikipedia.  Any person can just read through your own comments on this talk page to feel the rage.  Anyway, don't worry, I will systematically get the diagram back up in spite of your blanking vandalism. kevinp2 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your consistent personalizing of this dispute is problematic. Please stop. Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As problematic as quotes from you on this very page? "Oh look, he called in his pov warrior friends. How cute." ; "Point by point why this article is trash"; "If you continue to be disruptive, you will be blocked. That is all. ".  You are a confrontational editor, Hipocrite, and you yourself personalize dispute.  If you calmed down, and acknowledged others points of view, and attempted to resolve them in good faith, people might consider you to be a serious editor. kevinp2 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for any behavior from 2007 that may have offended you. It's 8 years later now. Hipocrite (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, I will admit I was taken by surprise by this and I do appreciate your saying so.  Work with me constructively and you will find that I will listen.  Thanks.  kevinp2 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: There are new concerns by new editors and they have yet to be addressed. The mind map is violating multiple Wikipedia policies, as discussed above. The fact that it's been on the page for a long time has no bearing on its validity or compliance with WP policies. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no violations of any Wikipedia policies.  Please see my reply to MastCell which refers to "unpublished ideas or arguments".  Thanks. kevinp2 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific people are named in the mind map (i.e. Jens Ludwig and Roseanne Ander). These people are not to be found, by my searching, on the accompanying source. That's a WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP issue, and that's why this is also WP:OR. How do we know these named individuals have anything to do with the Joyce Foundation or gun control funding? We don't, because there's no source that says so. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for responding with a clear and specific objection.  These two individuals were in fact listed on the Joyce Foundation's grants in 2007, which is why they were added to the diagram.  Now, after several years, there is link rot.  So the diagram cannot be substantiated, an interesting problem that does not bode well for the thousands of diagrams on Wikipedia that were correctly sourced once upon a time.  I can see two possible solutions: (a) Find the grant information again and re-establish the relationship.  (b) If (a) is not possible, remove these individuals from the diagram.  That should clear up all three issues, right?  kevinp2 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jens Ludwig is on page 57 of the 2000 Annual Report.  Roseanne Ander is on page 65 of the 2003 Annual Report.  I found all the Annual Reports here (which include all grantees and staff), so I can re-source the diagram.  Yay! However:  In 2022, Hipocrite and I may be arguing about this again (smiley face).  What is a long term solution to this problem of link rot? I am looking for solutions here and any constructive suggestions are appreciated. kevinp2 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the definition of OR. Digging through primary sources to make connections not made by any other sources is not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should take up this complaint with the evil editors of .223 Remington and their evil OR diagrams. kevinp2 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  Another terrible OR article: .  It appears to have been sourced completely from a primary reference:  The Official Site of the United States cabinet! kevinp2 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  Here is another OR article and diagram: .  The chart of the UN organization is user-created and completely unsourced!  kevinp2 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  I didn't see them in the archived sources. Could you point them out? Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The 2007 website is available here , and it does not appear to me to verify the majority of the information included on the mind map. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to clarify:  The diagram was constructed in 2007 from grantees in that year and all previous years.  It was not restricted to only the 2007 grantees - in fact, that would have become another objection from Hipocrite about OR. kevinp2 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral, original research diagram 

message: In 2013, the foundation approved $35,587,994 in grants. Of that, $4,559,376 was related to gun violence prevention - that's about 13% (Source: http://ar2013.joycefdn.org/grant/index.html). Gun violence prevention is the only category called out in our article - and that is not based on the weight of reliable, third party secondary sources - our section on gun violence prevention cites 7 primary sources and a blog. Why is this section so heavily weighted, exactly?  Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Primarily because The Joyce Foundation is the elephant in the room for funding gun violence prevention. In an arena where the total amount spent on gun violence prevention is not much bigger than what The Joyce Foundation personally invests, and this one organization is responsible for funding a majority of gun violence prevention programs and research worldwide, why wouldn't we want to acknowledge the good that the Joyce Foundation is doing?  I don't see the problem.  Meanwhile, are they attracting some criticisms from the NRA and similar organizations?  Sure.  But, what is wrong with acknowledging the good they are doing?  I don't consider this to be undue weight.  I consider it to be credit where credit is due.  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King!  The Joyce Foundation is trying to do good.  They should get the credit for this in this article!  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are there any reliable secondary sources that detail this? Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  Tons.  All the Government funding in gun violence prevention pretty much got stripped out some years ago.  Check out this link.  The $64,000 quote is also in this same link: “The CDC was not alone in avoiding firearm studies. The National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, funded 32 gun-related studies from 1993 to 1999, but none from 2009-2013, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Private nonprofits, with some notable exceptions such as the Joyce Foundation, skipped over gun-related research proposals.”  The Joyce Foundation has largely been the sole participant in this arena for funding gun violence prevention for about the last 15 years! They clearly deserve credit for this! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tons would be helpful. The only think you verified with a secondary source there was "The Joyce Foundation is one of the few private foundations that accepts gun-related research proposals." Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look closer.  There is a link buried in the article here.  It shows the magnitude of the funding cuts across the board.  Now, we can't use this, directly, as it is a primary source, but it does show the magnitude of funding relative to the quoted amounts in this WP article essentially dried up.  The Joyce Foundation's funding became one of the few funding sources still funding gun violence prevention.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see that detailing the magnitude of private funding. Where are you looking? Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   It details the magnitude of all Government funding, which previously had been the bulk of the funding in this area, falling to a few percent of what it previously had been.  Another link is here, which makes the case that President Obama is who personally pushed the funding for the most aggressive self-described gun control movement, The Joyce Foundation, through being a director of the foundation.  There are clearly a number of references that support giving the gun violence prevention aspect of The Joyce Foundation coverage in this WP article.  It is not undue to give credit where credit is due.  Agreed?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should reflect what is written by reliable sources. You have provided reliable sources for one sentence, and then an opinion piece from the National Review about Obama that says nothing substantive about the Foundation (aside from funding figures, again). Could you please provide reliable sources that discuss the Joyce Foundation, please? Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Funding figures are important, though.  You mean something like this article.  This describes The Joyce Foundation as "in it for the long haul" relative to gun violence prevention.  (It also ties in with the other, parallel, discussion that is going on relative to this article, too, to some extent.)  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. That provides the base for a reasonable paragraph. I'll write it and get rid of the baggage later. Hipocrite (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is another smaller private foundation that is also involved in gun violence prevention: the David Bohnett Foundation.  They often work with The Joyce Foundation, to support gun violence prevention.  But, they are new to this arena. They do not have the long history that The Joyce Foundation has. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article looks the way this article should look. Hipocrite (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  But, it is much smaller than The Joyce Foundation. I would not expect it to have the prominence relative to the amount of gun violence prevention in that WP article.   Check out this article.  It identifies The Joyce Foundation as being the anti-NRA. There are some good quotes available here, too. It wouldn't make sense to not discuss guns in writing in the WP article on the NRA.  It similarly doesn't make sense to eliminate discussion of prevention of gun violence and guns in The Joyce Foundation article.  Agreed?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Miguel, sounds like you're arguing for adding a lot of criticism from the people at Joyce to the NRA article. Or does this only work in one direction? Felsic (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  Not necessarily a lot.  But, certainly criticism that is commensurate with cited sources would be fine.  (But, seriously, I think it may already be there; some of the criticisms come from individuals who are members of both The Joyce Foundation and other gun violence prevention organizations.  It gets hard to differentiate just who is represented in the criticisms, at time.)  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree that undue weight has been put on gun control in this article. So they spent $4.5 million to help gun violence research? How much has the NRA spent to stop research? It spent $28 million on the 2014 federal election cycle alone. Is that total  mentioned in the NRA article? Is it broken down into details about who that helped to elect or defeat? Lightbreather (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to guns 

message: All around Wikipedia there's articles like this, where editors get so fixated on some detail that they never read the damn thing. Hasn't anyone noticed that "Programs" and "Past and present grantees" cover the same ground? Too busy creating "mind maps" to write a good article. Felsic (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical crap