Talk:Massad Ayoob

Sources

• Most info from this page
• http://www.recguns.com/Sources/XI2.html
• amazon.com for some book info

Tualha 21:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Material critical of living persons

This sentence critical of this living person has been deleted until citation can be provided: "Some controversy exists as to the various legal opinions and advice given by Ayoob. Critics point out that many of his assertions have no basis in law and that Ayoob himself is not a licensed attorney."

To quote WP:BLP : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion..."

If you really feel this sentence belongs here, then do the legwork and give a citation to back up your assertion. Otherwise, leave it out. The simple fact that someone has critics is neither surprising nor worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

Those reinserting this critical sentence without proper citation will be referred to BLP:noticeboard for clarification by an administrator. NDM (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm WP:AGFing here, but the removal of such an innocuous sentence really seems like POV-pushing. In order to remove poorly sourced material, two unmet conditions must be met:

1. It must be biographical. The assertion that Ayoob has critics, and that his opinions might have no basis in law, are not biographical statements.
2. It must be controversial. The assertion that Ayoob is not a lawyer is biographical, but non-contentious. Unless you're asserting that he has, in fact, been admitted to the bar in some state or another?

I will cite it, but it DOES NOT need to be cited to remain in the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with your position here. Citations MUST be present. The burden of proof and verifiability clearly rests on the editor undeleting material,according to WP:BLP: ...the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.

Stating that Ayoob is NOT a lawyer is an unsubstantiated statement in the absence of any sourcing, and by denying a professional qualification would indeed be considered legally defamatory if he were in fact admitted to the bar. Without a source either way, you cannot make such a statement. My removal of unsubstantiated, unsourced, contentious and potentially defamatory material is fully supported by WP:BLP, and I stand behind my original edit. I do appreciate your addition of citations supporting your assertions. Certainly these criticism may now legitimately remain in this article, as you have now met the burden of proof, and so you do not appear to be POV-pushing yourself.

Using some of the sources that you cited and adding several of my own, I have taken this opportunity to expand this article a bit.NDM (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Harm is a necessary element of defamation. Since Ayoob has never claimed to be a lawyer, even an untrue allegation regarding his status as an attorney would not cause him professional harm. Were an editor to claim he was never a sworn police officer, that would be quite another matter entirely, because he relies upon those credentials in his books, articles, videos, and teaching.

I see you've added more text that emphasizes Ayoob's achievements. Fair enough. Let's see if we can find some more material critical of him to balance it out, shall we? Out of curiosity, have you ever met the man? I have. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ayoob is, in the finest tradition of the First Amendment, a very colorful, opinionated, and vocal American, and I have had the opportunity to meet him on several occasions. I think including additional information in this article from his critics and detractors would be a most welcome addition. It would certainly be an interesting exercise to examine the rationale of his detractors. Such an expansion of the scope of this article is especially topical now that Ayoob, who for decades has advocated the fundamental (and, in some circles, extremely unpopular) position that private citizens have a right guaranteed by the US Constitution to use firearms and lethal force in lawful self-defense against criminal aggression, has been affirmed and joined in his assertions by five other highly respected and influential Americans. (see DC_v_Heller )NDM (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Critics of Ayoob

To demonstrate good faith, I'm going to stick some sources here for discussion first. Ayoob has some pretty vocal critics, and without their side being told, the article is incomplete and unencyclopedic. But, I expect these to be somewhat controversial, so they go here first:

• Shawn Dodson
• An interesting set of forum posts This won't pass WP:V or WP:N, but this is a broad cross-section of reactions to the man. It's definitely not SPS, and I'm not sure there's anything in there that can be used directly, but it points the way to several other issues that won't show up in his own press.

Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dodson has written very little that would pass muster with Wikipedia verifiability standards. Dodson exercises editorial control over the Firearmstactical.com web site, so material there should be considered self-published.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you imply a conflict of interest to my editing in the tag that you have placed upon this page. I have therefore carefully reviewed WP:COI and can state unequivocally that I have no COI in this case.

I never said you had a COI. At present, the article reads like a resume, and appears to lack balance in that it is uncritically flattering of Ayoob. I have so tagged it. If you were Ayoob, a close relative, or his paid representative, that would be a COI.

I do however have the strongest conviction that placing an unsubstantiated, unsourced comment on any BLP that states or insinuates that the person acts or has acted as an accomplice before the fact to murder is an extremely serious violation of WP:BLP ( "Critics of Ayoob, such as John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence accuse him of preparing potential killers to be more lethal." [revision of 15:45 06/23/08, emphasis added]. May I suggest a careful reading of WP:libel and slander_and_libel to more fully understand my obvious concerns? I submit that including statements of this nature in any article without the most careful adherence to WP:V not only violates official WP policy but places WP and the editor in a VERY tenuous legal position.

If you feel that the statement inaccurately characterizes Rosenthal's position, feel free to substitute better phrasing. However, it's quite a different matter to call it libelous. Under no reasonable interpretation is my paraphrasing of Rosenthal's quote accusing Ayoob of a crime. Your argument on that point is without merit; please consult other BLPs of contentious people to see how other Wikipedia articles handle such controversy. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you that since Ayoob appears in fact not to be an attorney, no harm has likely been inflicted by such comments. However, such comments were originally made without attribution or substantiation, making them automatically suspect and thereby justifying their removal, until such time as they can be properly sourced/substantiated. At the very least this represents negligent editing, which itself is a violation of WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space" (see also above my comment in "Material critical of living persons" ) NDM (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 10:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Ayoob that meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability can obviously be included by editors wishing to do so and providing the appropriate references. However, simply claiming bias or COI without any evidence is unwarranted. There are a lot of criticisms of Ayoob on the internet that fail to meet verifiability standards. Not including them is simple adherence to wiki standards.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the tags on the article, COI was never asserted. The editor who complained about misunderstood the tags that are placed on the article. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The "like a resume" tag claim links to the COI page, and the "unbalanced" claim links to NPOV, so it certainly appears that NPOV and COI are the assertions being made in the tag. The article is rather positive; however, in the absence of negative viewpoints that meet Wiki standards for verifiability, a positive viewpoint would be expected. To my knowledge, none of the negative viewpoints that have been mentioned on the talk page to suggest an absence of NPOV meet Wiki standards for verifiability. Editors who think the article is too positive have the burden of providing reverences that provide the desired balance and meet Wiki standards for verifiability and for biographies of living persons. Referencing unverifiable information and re-asserting COI and NPOV issues without any credible references falls short. The last paragraph before the "books" section does provide verifiable references to credible sources of disagreement, but (to my knowledge) there just isn't a whole lot out there on Ayoob that is not positive and meets Wiki standards for inclusion.Michael Courtney (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it 1) reads like a resume, and 2) doesn't provide a balanced perspective on Ayoob are sufficient reason to keep the tags there. They alert other editors to the fact that balance and encyclopedic view are necessary. Just because we don't have any RS'es that address these concerns right now doesn't mean that the concerns are invalid, and removing the tags does nothing more than eliminate the notification that cleanup is needed. Per WP:BLP, sub-par references must be excluded. We're agreed on that. The best course of action is to keep the tags, and keep looking for sources. Templates don't remove any information that's already there, and as such don't penalize the article for having more positive RS'es than negative ones. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In this context, it seems that both tags are really complaints about the dearth of negative information to balance the positive information presented. This makes them redundant. In addition, the claim of "unbalanced" is nothing more than an assertion of lacking NPOV. Wiki guidelines on NPOV are explicit: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. Claiming "unbalanced" without any reliable sources is unreasonable. The "unbalanced" tag has been there for four months. It is time to put up or shut up regarding suggestions of significant alternate viewpoints in reliable sources. Regarding the claim of resumes, every resume I've ever seen lists degrees and dates of graduation, as well as dates of publication for all books, and a list of awards. Furthermore, resumes almost never mention negative criticism, as this article does. Decent biographies contain reference to notable positions a person has held, and in the case of authors, books they have written. The resume tag also suggests COI, and there simply isn't evidence for that here. I don't think article tags are appropriate that have unverified negative implications and are placed in hopes of someone digging up some dirt. Ayoob's full curriculum vitae is a matter of public record, and reads much differently from the biographical article. Sure, more notable details would be valuable in a good, encyclopedic biography, but apparently additional details are not available from reliable sources, and inclusion would most likely represent original research or unnotable minutia. As a result of these considerations, I will again removed the likeresume and unbalanced tags. The motive clearly seems an attmpt to dig up some dirt rather than legitimate improvement of the article.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

Is the burden article cleanup tagging on: 1) The editor who believe a tag applies, or 2) The editor who believes a tag does NOT apply? Jclemens (talk)

It depends on how obvious the tag is. Most verification and style issues are pretty obvious for experienced wiki editors. POV and COI issues are not so obvious, and the absence of a significant amount of negative perspective cannot be taken as COI or lack of NPOV. Four months is a long time for a lack of NPOV claim to be left hanging. Odds are if reliable sources offering negative perspectives cannot be found in four months, they probably will not be found among materials currently available. Tags with negative connotations should be supported by editors making a case for their inclusion. We can presume good faith (no COI) on the part of the editors who originally wrote the article, and we can presume good faith by later contributing editors. In other words, we should presume that any negative information meeting reliability standards would have already been included to provide balance.Michael Courtney (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael, that's the summary question for a Third Opinion to weigh in on. Since you and I disagree, I've asked for a neutral third party to review our arguments and weigh in on the proper course of action. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in addition to being anonymous, your appeal for additional input contains a faulty generalization/package-deal type of logical fallacy by trying to infer a particular outcome to specific cases (tags making claims of COI and NPOV) from outcome of "cleanup" tags in general. "Cleanup" usually refers to matters of style in regards to Wiki quality standards. The real issue here seems to be more the content standards, and whether appeals to dig up more dirt belong at the top of an article without any reasonable expectation that reliable sources actually exist that contain the negative information desired to "balance" the positive material presented.Michael Courtney (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The 3O post is supposed to be unsigned; I neglected to sign the above text--signing retroactively now. I disagree that it's a fallacy, I think it's an accurate statement of the disagreement, else I wouldn't have written it. You can feel free to include your own description of the issue, but this section is supposed to be succinct to avoid WP:TLDR issues for 3O providers. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is ready for 3-O this yet, not because of flaws in the 3-O request but because I'm too lazy to look through and figure out what you're referring to. Please be more specific? (I don't mean present new arguments, I mean point out more clearly what the arguments are about.) arimareiji (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this article should have {{likeresume}}

and {{unbalanced}} because it presents a view of Ayoob that's overly positive. I do not believe the failure to find RS'es with which to add balancing material is cause to remove the templates.

• Michael Courtney believes that, since no reliable sources have been found with which to expand the article (that fact is not under dispute) that the tags do not belong. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and the civility with which you guys are conducting this. ^_^

As it stands, I'm afraid I have to agree that it needs a {{likeresume}}. It could arguably use the {{unbalanced}} as well, but to me that seems unduly pejorative and somewhat repetitious. You're right that there's no reason to assume anything but good faith in writing the article so far - it's not you guys' fault that nothing has been found yet to counter this. But it does need the tag to call the attention of future editors to the need for more info. I know tags tend to take on a life of their own, but it shouldn't take much more info before the tag can be removed. arimareiji (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources with which to expand the article, but to my knowledge, all the available information is positive or neutral, thus failing to provide "balance." In addition, one can argue whether or not the additional information is sufficiently notable to be included. Is adding verifiable trivia an appropriate answer to a biography which reads too much like a resume? Is Ayoob himself suffiently notable that his biography should contain much more detail than it already does? In other words, is Ayoob sufficiently notable to justify a biography that is much longer than it already is? Perhaps he is, he is very well known in the shooting, law enforcement, and RKBA communities and he does have a lot of publications to his credit and has been treated by a lot of secondary sources.Michael Courtney (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, right now it reads like a list of accomplishments for the most part. Some of them border on trivial, and almost all of them "glow" somewhat. To counteract this, you might try trimming the list, and changing the focus to what is actually involved rather than why it's positive. For one easy example, what was he being quoted on in relation to DC v Heller, which work was being quoted, and what position did he take in his amicus brief?

Don't feel too bad that it needs a {{likeresume}} for now... it could be worse, the page of one of my favorite seiryuu is accurately tagged as looking too much like a fansite. I really do need to go about fixing that, but instead I spend time butting into other people's conversations. ;-) arimareiji (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

Anyone have an opinion on whether adding the ISBN's for Ayoobs books would be a good task to undertake? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be an excellent contribution if anyone gets a chance to do it. — ¾-10 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a bunch, but in the process of locating them, I found that several of the "books" listed are actually video tapes/DVD's. Should we remove them? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, e.g. the LFI Handgun Safety video is extremely valuable (whatever you think of the man, it's likely to teach you some useful things), and the material is best presented in video. Stressfire III (Rifle) is only available in video form.

Is there any reason not to just extend the Books table into e.g. a Publications table? Hga (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I am not disparaging the value of the videos in any way. I'm talking about removing them from a list of books. If you want to change the table to publications or a seperate table for videos and other media, I'd fully support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits made per above. Publications > Books, Videos. — ¾-10 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Massad Ayoob. 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/20070818131605/http://envisagenow.com:80/press_ayoob.asp to http://www.envisagenow.com/press_ayoob.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 23:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Massad Ayoob. 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/20101215001818/http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=165 to http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=165
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525180445/http://www.granthamnh.net/police_department.htm to http://www.granthamnh.net/police_department.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)