Talk:Josh Sugarmann

Edits

• article by Josh and gives his job as excutive director

VfD result

This article was previously nominated for VfD. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Josh Sugarmann for the result. JYolkowski // talk 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's odd how little information the article contains about Sugarman himself. It wouldn't have been much of a loss if it had been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Originator of term Assault weapon

The term Assault weapon was in use at least in a minor way in the early 80's among a few gun enthusiasts, as it appeared in some ads in gun publications. Josh Sugarmann simply co-opted the term in the late 80's. I've added a citation template after this reference in the article. Please prove me wrong. Gregmg 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User VIOPOL was gracious enough to fill the void and provide a reference for uses of "Assault Weapon" that predate Josh Sugarmann's 1988 study. I removed the aforementioned citation request. Gregmg 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A 2014 press report associates Sugarmann's study and the Stockton, CA mass shooting with the rise of use of this term, giving credit to Sugarmann for popularizing it. It is cited.Parkwells (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sugarmann.jpg

Image:Sugarmann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke

4. However, this is a distinction without a difference in terms of killing power. Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire.

8. "Spray-firing" from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society. Although assault weapon advocates claim that "spray-firing" and shooting from the hip with such weapons is never done, numerous sources (including photographs and diagrams) show how the functional design features of assault weapons are used specifically for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.241.100 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Holy shit, did he write this shit HIMSELF?! The neutrality of this page is utterly non-existent. Get someone who ISN'T trying to swallow his load or whatever to rewrite this into something OTHER than press release.

True. This article tells us a lot about that which Sugarman advocates, but very little about Sugarman himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Josh Sugarmann. 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/20120415054206/http://www.ipgv.org/FMpriceoffreedom.html to http://www.ipgv.org/FMpriceoffreedom.html

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} 02:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

FFL document

A document, ostensibly an FFL application with supporting correspondence (as well as an entire leasing agreement, which has no apparent relevance), was added to the article to establish that "Sugarmann has an FFL". The problem is that it's just a random google doc - not a reliable source. You have to show provenance for the document. I'm not suggesting that it has been doctored: the problem is, there's no way to establish objectively that these are genuine. (They also constitute primary sources, which require corroborating documentation, in this case). As well, it doesn't belong in the lede, as there's no further discussion of it in the article. I was accused of being "afraid" of it being published. Please assume good faith. Please provide the source of the document - The actual FOIA request would help immensely, although that would likely fall under Original Research. We don't just add stuff that we think is relevant - we have to establish relevance from reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about alleged FFL application

Most of the details of my concerns are in the section immediately preceding this RfC, but I'll reiterate:

To my eye, the scanned document certainly appears genuine, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that Sugarmann would get an FFL in order to do 'research' as the document suggests. The problem is, 'appearing to be genuine' is not the threshold we need to meet. We don't know whose Google document account this is - nor is a Google docs page a verifiable source. The FOIA that unearthed the document is not provided and thus unverifiable. The document only shows that Sugarmann may have had an FFL in the early 2000's - it does not establish that he currently has one, as the edit suggests. Likewise, the edit claims that they are rare in Washington D.C. - also something that wouldn't generate any surprise from me, but we need a reliable source for that, not the author's feelings. And lastly, it doesn't belong in the lede unless and until the details I am questioning are fleshed out within the body of the article. I'd appreciate if others could weigh in. We had a mini-revert war going, but no discussion is taking place. I'm not willing to risk censure over this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree that references to the FFL do not belong in the Lede, and question whether it belongs in the article at all. No source for documenting that having one is "rare" in DC. But more importantly, what bearing does it have on Sugarmann's work with the VPC? That is not demonstrated, in addition to questions about verifying whether he has a current license. He's exec director, not gunslinger, or so it would seem. Parkwells (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Only one FFL provides transfers to the general public in a city of ~681,000 that covers ~68 square miles and that's not rare? lol. The rest of your argument is unsubstantiated opinion. Daedalus46

• Exclude. We should not be relying on any document posted on Google Docs, as there is no way to know whether they were published by a reputable party, as required by our reliable sources guideline. I also agree that inclusion in the lead section would be undue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• summoned by FRS Exclude. This falls afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY and is absolutely inappropriate for inclusion in a BLP. Layzner (Talk) 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I agree it should be excluded on that basis as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude Wikipedia is not a primary source, reporting on its own observations. However, what in the world is an FFL? Largoplazo (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude - I agree that this is a pretty opaquely worded RfC, and it would be very helpful to define these acronyms and the content they're supposed to support. But regardless, if we are trying to us a primary source on google docs to support content on a BLP, then we are wrong, plain and simple. If it's important enough to put in the article, it is important enough to have secondary sources review this primary source and write about it. If it ain't, then it ain't.

I would also add that this RfC itself is almost certainly out of order. I don't see anything resembling substantive prior discussion or disagreement. If you took issue with content based on your understanding of policy, then fix it, and if someone disagrees then discuss it with them. But we don't need an RfC to anoint a good faith edit that one seems to disagree with at all. That's not what this process is for and it's a waste of time for volunteer who respond. TimothyJosephWood 11:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing for tone

I've made changes to try to bring this article in line with neutral, factual tone.Parkwells (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)