Read wp:editwar. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have read it. I won't make the edit again until there is more consensus. Can you provide guidance on what the correct procedure is on Wikipedia for when a claim is directly refuted by the cited sources? Should the claim be removed or should I just remove the incorrect sources and change it to "citation needed" again?
Serowman (
talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Read
wp:or A source must explicitly refute it (in other words directly say a claim is not true).
wp:v is very clear on that. It is not enough for them just to not say it.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Both of the sources say that the NRA was very active in shaping legislation in the 1930s which does directly say that the claim that they downplayed gun control is not true. I will plan on removing them per Wikipedia’s rules once there is time for other’s to comment on the talk page.
Serowman (
talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- That is not the same as saying they did not downplay gun control, in fact, the fact they supported gun control means they did in fact down play it, this is why we have
wp:v you interpret it one way I interpret it another. Thus the source would have to say something like "They did not downplay gun control". That is what the article is saying, that before the 1970's they did not make much noise about gun rights.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I understand your logic. You’re think that saying a group is supporting gun control is the same thing as saying they downplay gun control issues? That seems patently false.
- Would you edit the page of a major gun control group like Moms Demand action or Everytown to say those groups downplay gun control issues?
- It seems obvious to me that stridently taking a side on an issue and downplaying an issue are not synonymous.
Serowman (
talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- NO, I am saying that they did not oppose gun control measures, which is what we mean.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- That’s actually not true. The NRA was constantly exhorting their members to be politically active in the 1930s and asking them to write their representatives in order to kill gun control legislation. Other times when they thought the legislation was reasonable they asked their members to support it.
- I actually don’t think that is relevant anyway. Evidence of strong support and strong opposition to gun control are both proof that they didn’t downplay gun control issues.
- We will have to see if the Wikipedia community agrees that the word downplay is synonymous with the word support. Serowman ( talk) 17:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- NO, I am saying that they did not oppose gun control measures, which is what we mean.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- That is not the same as saying they did not downplay gun control, in fact, the fact they supported gun control means they did in fact down play it, this is why we have
wp:v you interpret it one way I interpret it another. Thus the source would have to say something like "They did not downplay gun control". That is what the article is saying, that before the 1970's they did not make much noise about gun rights.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Both of the sources say that the NRA was very active in shaping legislation in the 1930s which does directly say that the claim that they downplayed gun control is not true. I will plan on removing them per Wikipedia’s rules once there is time for other’s to comment on the talk page.
Serowman (
talk) 17:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Read
wp:or A source must explicitly refute it (in other words directly say a claim is not true).
wp:v is very clear on that. It is not enough for them just to not say it.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)