Misplaced Pages

Talk:Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:28, 10 March 2016 editFelsic2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,178 edits →Gimme a break: r← Previous edit Revision as of 13:58, 10 March 2016 edit undoGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Gimme a break: rNext edit →
Line 34: Line 34:
That ain't what the source says. C'mon guys, at least try to be neutral. ] (]) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC) That ain't what the source says. C'mon guys, at least try to be neutral. ] (]) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
::Here's the offender: . Really, really bad editing. ] (]) 05:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC) ::Here's the offender: . Really, really bad editing. ] (]) 05:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This was 6 months ago, so things are a bit hazy, but based on some quick searching, it appears I was inspired in that wording largely from . In retrospect, I agree the wording was too slanted. I note that in my edit summary for that opening sentence, I specifically said it could probably use some NPOV help. In the 6 months since, it has gotten ]. I have no objection to improving the wording now. ] (]) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:58, 10 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconFirearms Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Interpretation of importance

I deleted "showing that many Democrats were able to abandon (at least temporarily) their party's traditional support of anti-gun legislation in favor of this bill" because that interpretation is subjective and open to debate. We should leave it to the reader to determine what bipartisan support for the law means.

--151.203.24.205 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

sources

Here are some sources I plan on using to expand this article (some are not RS, they are just used as reminders or because they contain tidbits I want to try and source) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the NRA a reliable source or best available source for gun control articles? How about Mother Jones? The Brady Campaign? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Gimme a break

After years of mixed success in their efforts enact gun control via legislation, gun control advocates attempted to coerce gun manufacturers and dealers into implementing measures to avoid lawsuits that could put them out of business. That ain't what the source says. C'mon guys, at least try to be neutral. Felsic2 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the offender: . Really, really bad editing. Felsic2 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This was 6 months ago, so things are a bit hazy, but based on some quick searching, it appears I was inspired in that wording largely from . In retrospect, I agree the wording was too slanted. I note that in my edit summary for that opening sentence, I specifically said it could probably use some NPOV help. In the 6 months since, it has gotten WP:SILENCE. I have no objection to improving the wording now. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. Munoz, S. Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity? Media Matters, December 19, 2012.
Categories:
Talk:Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Difference between revisions Add topic