Talk:Bruce Stern

Let me try to explain...
What I was trying to do, was provide the maximum information on Mr. Stern's life that I could scrape from what little sources I could find of him online. People in the online gun community have marveled over that collection for a long time and when I finally found out who it (supposedly) belonged to, I thought such a remarkable man deserved an entry on Wikipedia, and also that such an entry would give the collection more exposure.

In any case, if that collection didn't belong to the late Mr. Stern, who DID it belong to? Do you have any idea? I am going to go ahead and trust that you are who you say you are. I take it that you are basically trying to remove from my article the attribution of the fabled gun vault to Mr. Stern, but that you can't just come in and say "Actually, this vault did NOT belong to Bruce Stern" because you can't just do that on Wikipedia, you need to have evidence and a citation. So you have returned and said that there was an "interview" with a family member that revealed this fact. Whether or not this is actually true, you are attempting to use it as evidence or some kind of citation to back up your claims, which I can't fault you for because if you are truly a relative of Stern's, you're going to have to just ask that people trust you and take you at your word - if there was no external source verifying your claims.

In any case, I think you are probably more qualified to write this article than I am, because you are actually a family member of the late Mr. Stern. (By the way - my condolences for your loss...I am sure that he was a great man and meant no disrespect by writing this article, I just wanted the rest of the world to know who he was.) But the problem is, even if you know more about this man than anyone else in the world, you can't write a Wikipedia article on someone without external citations.

I admit my citations came from unstable sources. But I thought they were better than nothing at all.

In any case, you should edit the section about the gun collection attributed to him, and make it more clear that it was not actually his, if this is indeed true. You should also contact the Snopes website and tell them that they are wrong in attributing the collection to Stern.talk 012:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation
I am the family member who is doing this. So do you want me to cite that my own personal knowledge? I put "interview" in there because when I took it out originally, I was accused of vandalism. In order for that not to happen and not to see it reappear incorrectly, that is what I had to do. I lived with the collection. I know my house when I see it - and that is certainly not the place I call home. I certainly know Bruce Stern a heck of a lot better than you seem to from all your "research."

You said I made valid points, so what are you going to do about it? Now that you are in contact with his family, you can get information straight from the source to make this unnecessary page accurate. I do need to ask why you felt it necessary to post this page - especially the fact that he was Jewish and where the funeral was? How is that relevant to his collection?

Like I mentioned in my last post to the discussion, there are many avenues that have made proper mention of Bruce Stern. You could have cited all of those. THAT is research. I am in the journalism industry and know how to conduct proper research. And I also know how to spot citations that are not legitimate.Dontmessaround (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but this goes both ways
You make some good points, here, but I have to take exception to something. The article was altered to include: "An interview with a family member stated that even the re-attribution of the Heston Collection to Mr. Stern is incorrect." I don't know if it was you who did that, or someone else, but where in the hell is the citation for it? At least I gave citations, even if they came from blogs. The comment that was added doesn't have any damn citation at all, and I find that to be a greater violation of research ethics than anything that I did. Unless whoever made that revision can offer a citation backing up their claim, it should not be in the article. I'm not going to remove it - I'll give its author the benefit of the doubt, hope that he reads this, and changes it to include a citation for his claim.Golden hound talk 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Vandalism
The reason the information was removed is because it is not factual. If you took a lot of time to gather the information, you should have made sure it was correct. Bruce Stern's collection was indeed one of the foremost collections in the world. But before you post, please be sure to have the most accurate description. You mention that removing the information was petty and pointless. What is the reason for actually posting something about Mr. Stern without checking with his family for either permission or facts? That doesn't seem very hard to do. Referencing blogs does not make information legitimate. If a true journalist was to do that, that person would no longer have a job. While I think doing postings like this is unnecessary, if it is going to be done, it should be done properly. While Mr. Stern's collection included some of the items in the pictures, there are other collectors who have the same pieces. You make a tremendous generalization.

As for your last line "I'm not sure what you would have me do that would provide more concrete evidence..." There are a few things you can do. They are:

1. Conduct proper research 2. If you are unsure of something, don't post it 3.  Do not waste your time posting things like this

"Whoever you are that did this..." can be flipped in your direction as well. What credentials do you have to post? That is one problem of sites like this. They are great, but are left open for inaccuracies. The personal history you used was just culled from obituaries. I know, because I wrote the first one - the one which was submitted to those asking for information on Mr. Stern's life. If it took you a long time to gather and write up, I don't know why. It sure did not take me that long to write and send as a response to inquiries.

And I take exception when you say "it is very thoughtless." In fact, editoriam put a lot of thought into making this unnecessary post factual. Writers of articles written in magazines such as American Rifleman, America's First Freedom and others did their due diligence in reporting about the life and collection of Mr. Stern as well as his tireless efforts to ensure our rights as Americans are not infringed upon. I hope when people need information on this remarkable person, they turn to legitimate sources instead of basically anonymous posts like this one.Dontmessaround (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Several users have removed a great deal of information, which I had to take a lot of time to gather and write up, on Stern's gun collection. Now the entire sub-section about the collection is gone. For your information, the main thing that makes Bruce Stern notable to gun enthusiasts is his collection of military weapons. Removing this information was totally petty and pointless. The fact that it appeared only on blogs and websites doesn't make the information invalid. I realize that blogs and other self published materials are listed as a questionable source, however, I referenced three or four blogs which all linked to the same photoset. This set of photos is not available on any standalone website that is not a forum, however, items which can be clearly seen in the photos are indeed listed on the website of a reputable auction house, which I referenced. As for the gun collection itself, the individual weapons depicted in the photos are quite evident to anyone who knows about the history of military firearms. I'm not sure what you would have me do that would provide more concrete evidence than what I already did. Whoever you are that did this - it was very thoughtless. Golden hound talk 08:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move
Whoever changed the title from "Bruce stern" to "Bruce Stern," thanks. I tried to capitalize that last name but couldn't figure out how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden hound (talk • contribs) 23:09 21 June 2008
 * Posting on user's talk page. Scottydude talk 03:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumored collection
Work on other pages brought me here today, and I decided to stay long enough to clean it up a bit. I can find nothing to reliably support the information about this man's rumored collection. Some of these links no longer work, and some are obviously not V, RS. Lightbreather (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Stern was perhaps best known for having a very large gun collection, which grossed a record-breaking $12.7 million at auction after his death. This auction also included items from other esteemed collectors

Rumored collection
Bruce Stern's massive collection of firearms is well known to the online gun community. Photographs of a collection supposedly belonging to Stern have been widely mislabeled as belonging to Charlton Heston. This mis-attribution has been written about on Snopes which also displays the photographs of the gun vault. An interview with a family member stated that even the re-attribution of the Heston Collection to Stern is incorrect. The collection includes a wide variety of military rifles, including a number of rare military semi-automatics (the Pedersen rifle and Mexican Mondragón) and many early sniper rifles such as the Mauser M88. In addition, he also owned a large number of antique machine guns, such as the MG42, the Vickers machine gun, and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. The bulk of the collection was sold at two auctions in 2008 by the James D. Julia auctionhouse, and grossed a recordbreaking $12.7 million.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actual collection
I found some info on Stern's collection:

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)