Talk:National Rifle Association

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Rifle Association. 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/20130602041042/http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=103 to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=103
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109120402/http://meetthenra.org/board-list to http://meetthenra.org/board-list
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210160640/http://thegunzone.com/shot/bimbos.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/shot/bimbos.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325125903/http://nrablog.com/post/2012/12/12/Missouri-hosts-last-Friends-of-NRA-event-of-2012-this-Friday.aspx to http://www.nrablog.com/post/2012/12/12/Missouri-hosts-last-Friends-of-NRA-event-of-2012-this-Friday.aspx

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) 06:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

Dear Wikipedia i believe your information is false and inaccurate Sincerely Hector #freescubasteve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.174.253.76 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)  Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PackMecEng (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Change This: Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington DC.[10][11] Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.

To: Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington DC.[10][11] Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates. The NRA has used its financial might to invest in scholarship and research to reframe the intent of the 2nd Amendment from protecting the rights of states to protecting the rights of individuals, despite the clear intent of the Constitution's authors. This reinterpretation, which the American people have fallen for, is now commonly accepted and is the greatest barrier to reasonable gun control legislation. The NRA has convinced Americans that the constitution protects their right to not just own an assault weapon, but to own multiple assault weapons and sufficient ammunition to enable the slaughter of their fellow Americans. When the second amendment was written, an 'arm' was a musket. Not an AR-15.

″The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.″ – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice TheTruthWillBeTold (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. 331dot (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This article looks highly biased in favor of NRA

Its officers. It's safety program. It's legislative efforts. Etc. Etc. A person reading this who has not been following the news recently might think all is well and rosy with the good 'ole NRA when the truth is that there is terrific anger following these mass shootings, like maybe more than half of the US population. That is, anger among the people still living who haven't yet been shot. Maybe a POV tag is needed at the top.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a Criticism section. Things can always be improved, but this can't be turned into a hit piece against the NRA either. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the criticism section is safely buried deep in the article text. Of course we need to be fair, but the way this article reads right now is like a pink party dress covering up Charles Manson.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So if the page doesn't say the NRA is a tool of Satan, if not, indeed, Satan, you won't be satisfied? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of these exaggerations are going to help. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- I share the concerns expressed by the OP. Let's work on making the article more neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think "more neutral" is something that will require more detail. While there are a lot of accusations leveled against the organization it's not clear how many of those are based on sound reasoning vs emotion. This is a politically charged topic. It's possible we will have people who agree the article is biased but in opposite directions! Anyway, it may be true but specifics are needed here. Springee (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A couple of issues that should probably be addressed with greater thoroughness: (1) NRA $$$ going to candidates and politicians -- will these donations have a negative effect on their reelection prospects? (2) will NRA positions change because of these shootings? (3) money flows coming into the NRA -- from where, from who (gun manufacturers? hunters? etc), how much? how will these change after these shootings? (4) how will the NRA react to increased public anger following the mass shootings? These are a few issues; there are many more; right now, the article looks like it was written by NRA public relations people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• All of those questions require predictions and, I'm not certain they're even appropriate for the NRA article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Then same issues, but use past tense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Except we keep trying to force the Douglas High incident into it. You can't talk about it being long-term, then focus on the most recent event. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Example

I’ve been asked to be more specific above. This could be such an example; please see this diff [1] which removed a sentence from the lead, with the edit summary: “…This is a short-term ‘issue’ over the course of the history of the org”. The sentence removed was:

• The organization has become the focus of intense criticism in the wake of repeated mass shootings.

References

I don’t see its inclusion being WP:RECENTISM; it’s not a passing topic and seems highly relevant. See for example: "NRA CEO says legislation regulating guns won't prevent mass shootings: In rare interview, Wayne LaPierre decries effort to 'politicize' the Las Vegas shooting", Politico:

• House and Senate Democrats have renewed efforts to put legislation expanding background checks, among other things, to a vote in Congress in response to the Nevada shooting that left at least 59 dead and more than 500 injured — the deadliest of its kind in modern U.S. history. LaPierre said the backlash compelled his organization to make the announcement on Thursday. “The other side has been so outright trying to politicize this tragedy that we did feel the need to speak out today on this whole bump stock issue,” he said.

So even the NRA is acknowledging the backlash. This content is pertinent in the lead and summarises the body of the article, which includes a discussion of this topic. I plan to restore the edit; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. One well-referenced sentence in a lede section packed with pro-NRA stuff is only a first step in trying to remove the POV in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources listed above are:

1 - USA Today

2 - Hindustan Times

3 - AJC

ref names with no links were a bit confusing. But all those sources are specifically Emma Gonzalez not the sources themselves. They all also just focus on this shooting, no mention of repeated mass shootings. I would probably dump the Hindustan Times as not a very strong source. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"It's not a passing topic" It is when you use it as a stick to beat the NRA with only days after it happened. If you were trying to put in a reference to, frex, Columbine, you might get less resistance--if you hadn't decided to do it now; now, it's just an excuse. And "removing the POV" looks a lot like introducing your own anti-NRA, anti-gun POV, which is the typical attitude on highly-polarizing pages like this one: true neutrality isn't the goal, an opposing POV is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of real neutrality. What I'm saying is the article in its current state is highly skewed to be pro-NRA. Criticism is buried. The lede paragraph doesn't even mention that there's any criticism when arguably more than half of the country is upset with the NRA following these school shootings. This article makes Wikipedia look amateurish, like a propaganda machine. Further, I truly believe this article hurt the NRA supporters who, if they read this, and didn't read anything else, would think all is well and good, and in the real world, will find out how much real anger is directed at them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Another thing missing from the lede section is identifying the organization's real supporters are. Is it gun-owning citizens who truly believe that every person should own a gun? Or is it the gun manufacturers who don't mind gun deaths if it leads to more sales? My sense is the gun-makers are largely absent from the lede, and their support of the NRA, even in light of repeated mass shootings, needs to be in there, along with the fact that a majority of the public wants better gun control regulations, and the NRA opposes it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

♠"following these school shootings" That's recentism, & as a result, it doesn't belong in the lead. This isn't the New York Times, & even less is it an anti-NRA platform. Using the latest shootings as an excuse to beat up the NRA is POV, no matter how popular a sport it might be just now (or ever).

♠"[gun makers] who don't mind gun deaths if it leads to more sales" You say that, & then claim you want neutrality? Your definition evidently fits what I expected before: a screed against the NRA as fascist & bloodthirsty. Since gun makers aren't NRA members, their notional desires are irrelevant. So are your views on their objectives, which, I daresay, are sharply skewed from the reality. You're blaming the gun makers for the actions of the shooter. I defy you to show a causal connection. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Recentism? Maybe Parkland happened last week, but what about Sandy Hook? Columbine? What about Las Vegas? These happened months, years back, and aren't so "recent". Further, I'm not blaming anybody for anything -- rather, what is missing from this article in a large way is the sources of the NRA's funding. Along with the fact that huge swaths of the nation are coming to see the NRA as complicit in all of these deaths, with commentators referring to it as a terrorist organization. What needs to be represented in this article is the depth of anger directed at the NRA. Like it calls itself a "civil rights" organization, omitting the fact that its policies result in the substantive curtailment of the ultimate "civil right" of letting people live.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The NRA had nothing to do with any of those shootings. The closest the NRA has had something to do with shootings at all is Sutherland Springs church shooting when a NRA instructor stopped the shooter. Also calling one of the oldest civil rights organisations in the country a terrorist organization is rather odd. If you have some RS with the anger and terrorist stuff lets see them and we can go from there. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs. GMG^talk 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but it is a vehicle for fixing up biased articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"It's not a passing topic" It is when you use it as a stick to beat the NRA with only days after it happened -- the piece from Politico that I listed was from October 2017. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I do get the feeling that it has been edited to almost "praise" the NRA. It seems to say that the NRA promotes gun safety. In Britain, we found that the best way to ensure gun safety is to have next to no guns. And yet this article seems to be promoting the NRA's goals to arm effectively everyone. Lamb104 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion about bias

(continuing thread) If we step back a bit, and try to look at this article from nonpartisan eyes, let's suppose that the people here, who are arguing for the article's status quo, are good people, who believe in gun rights, who think the NRA is a good organization serving a useful purpose, and so forth. I ask: are they really helping the NRA? Or are they actually undermining it here, by surrounding it in a bubble of public relations cruft? The real world is the real world, and frankly most of the country is angry about the repeated shootings (Parkland, Columbine, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech etc etc), and they do blame the NRA as complicit in murder, by advocating policies which make it easy to purchase guns, by working against things like background checks, and so forth. Now, does it really help pro-NRA people, reading this article, to shield them from the reality of public opinion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The correct approach is not to assume that just because you're approaching things from a fairly obviously politically motivated standpoint (and this isn't the first time I've called you out personally for doing exactly that), that everyone else must also be approaching things from some other equally but opposed politically motivated standpoint. Believe it or not, most of us are actually here to build an encyclopedia and nothing else. GMG^talk 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Everyone here has biases. You do. I do. Everybody. But my point is this article in its present state is HEAVILY biased to favor the NRA.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

♠Yes, you do. The problem is, you want to impose your bias on the page & call it "neutrality", which is pretty much what I suspected to begin with. You'll continue to claim "bias" until the page is slanted to your POV, even if it's not actually neutral. That isn't going to happen.

♠Should the issues you raise be discussed on the page? Yes. Claiming the NRA is complicit in mass murder does you no favors. And making out editors who disagree with you are dupes, or shills, is one step from attacks on our integrity, IMO. Does it not cross your mind anybody who disagrees with you might have legitmate doubts about the efficacy of the "solutions"? Or legitmate complaints about media characterizations of gun owners or the NRA? Or legitimate arguments about why "universal" background checks won't happen (& it's not because NRA opposes them, either)? No, you can't see past your certitude NRA is a Satanic organization & everyone who agrees with them is a heretic deserving of being burned at the stake. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in Satan or heresy or any of that, so I don't know why I am being accused of anything along those lines. My sense is this article is owned by pro-NRA people, and nobody seems to be even listening to my very reasonable suggestions, about providing both points of view, so guess what, people, you win, I won't edit it any more. Bye bye.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, User:Trekphiler, you really need to watch it with the personal attacks. "Your definition evidently fits what I expected before: a screed against the NRA as fascist & bloodthirsty.", "No, you can't see past your certitude NRA is a Satanic organization & everyone who agrees with them is a heretic deserving of being burned at the stake." Even if Tomwsulcer is clearly not a fan of the NRA, you've made it fairly obvious that you're not a neutral party in this either. Don't accuse others of having a battleground mentality when you're doing the very same thing yourself. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to change the page to reflect my own bias. I'm happy to leave it alone, & let other editors tinker with the details. I'm not willing to let somebody with an obvious anti-NRA POV have control of it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer was reverted and challenged by others who were a lot more civil. Criticizing an organization is one thing, but WP:NPA is policy. I get it, it's sensitive stuff, but I don't think what he said warrants all the references to Satanism, the inquisition and fascism. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, everyone's criticism of him was highly warranted. Right on target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.53 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content without any substantive reason

Two users have removed a NYT description of the NRA's actions under the Trump presidency.[2] The users, whose sole history on this page has revolved around whitewashing any and all content that reflects poorly on the NRA, removed it strictly because they disagree with the NYT's description of the NRA. There is not even the pretense of policy-based reasoning. These are the edit summaries by the users:

• "Readers can read the article. Why are we giving almost an entire paragraph to the opinion of 2 writers just because they happen to work at the NYT? This isn't fact, it's their take on it."
• "I tend to agree that this seems like quotes taken to smear rather than inform. The quotes are the accusation but not the evidence. This should move to talk before restoring again" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and their stated rational. Niteshift36 commented " Readers can read the article. Why are we giving almost an entire paragraph to the opinion of 2 writers just because they happen to work at the NYT? This isn't fact, it's their take on it." Which I agree with and Springee said "I tend to agree that this seems like quotes taken to smear rather than inform. The quotes are the accusation but not the evidence. This should move to talk before restoring again" which is also correct. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I re-removed the material. It reads as an opinion article. As such it has less WP:WEIGHT. It's also an article from yesterday which draws a question about WP:RECENT. Springee (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"News reporting I disagree with" =/= op-eds. It's a summary of the actions that the NRA has taken under the Trump presidency to align with him. There is literally nothing that's less WP:RECENT than that: it's an overview by a high-quality RS of the last 14 months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• When you start off with calling my concerns "bullshit" and making allegations of "whitewashing", it makes it hard to believe you are acting in good faith. Just because it's "attributed" doesn't mean we include lengthy quotes. What you have are two non-notable reporters with an opinion. They gave it at length and you act like it's news. It's not that they reported something factual that was unfavorable to the NRA (like they bribed someone), they rendered an opinion. What was factual was left there. The opinion part from 2 people who happen to work there, attributed or not, was removed. For a lengthy quote to be included, it should be something more relevant than the opinion of 2 random reporters. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please identify the parts that are not factual in the NYT quote: "They attack the enemies he attacks, condemning the news media as “dishonest” and “failing.” They have questioned the credibility of the F.BI... And they often side with Mr. Trump in divisive cultural disputes — some of which have potent racial undercurrents — like his feuding with Black Lives Matter activists and the professional football players who knelt during the national anthem... Stories that circulate throughout right-wing news media often find their way to NRATV, which has devoted numerous segments to portraying anti-Trump demonstrators as paid shills, violent extremists and evangelists for Shariah law in the United States." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• They link Trump's positions on other issues. They cherry pick different topics, all negative, to support their POV, add in some "potential undercurrents", wrap them into a nice little package and present it as news. Once again, why do these two non-notables merit such extensive coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and add RS content that conflicts with this RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Find some other article that doesn't engage in a bunch of synth to make a point? And this whole thing is based on your claim that there's no substanative reason, yet 3 editors see one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard anyone claim that a RS engages in WP:SYNTH and should therefore be excluded... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not using the Wikipedia policy. I used it as shorthand. If you need to me explain it in longer terms, then I'm giving you more credit than you deserve. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of op-eds in the criticism section

Three op-eds published in ProPublica, the LA Times and Bloomberg were removed from the criticism section with the edit summary "We can do without the partisan blog sources".[3] The three op-eds all made the same arguments about the NRA's alleged partisanship and substantiated the two sentences in the Wikipedia article. As is the pattern on this Wikipedia page, any and all criticism must be wiped out, even from a criticism section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I left the other source and all the text attributed to it. How is that wiping out criticism to not rely on opinion pieces WHILE still leaving all the text you wrote? PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• First off.... When your first response is to tell me my concern is "bullshit", you have thrown good faith out the window. Try being civil. Second, just because someone said it doesn't mean it gets put in here. Third, just because it "has a source" doesn't give it an express ticket to inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the material was added with prose that was not neutral in tone. It also was problematic it makes accusations but doesn't actually investigate the accusations. Earlier today some material about the NRA hobbling the ATF was added. The prose seem to condemn the NRA for this but didn't ask why the NRA might want to do this? I added a few sentences at least starting to hint at reasons. These are the NRA's distrust of the ATF (quite a few case examples of the ATF screwing up). The new text was clearly condemning the NRA for refusing to let the ATF have a computer database of gun sales. The NRA opposes this because they are against gun registries in general which a rapidly searchable database would become. When talking about politics we should keep in mind that it cost real money to do this sort of lobbying. The NRA's funds aren't unlimited so their opposition is likely based on some goal that fits within their larger goal of protecting 2nd Amendment rights. Even if we don't agree with the goals, we do readers of the article no favors if we refuse to include that sort of relevant information. Springee (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Trump photo

This should probably be discussed, or not ;) --Malerooster (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Probably a good call to remove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be discussed. Why was it removed? Is it not notable that the president of the United States is perhaps the most famous and significant member of the NRA? --GHcool (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, isn't that what we are doing now? It was removed per BRD. Yes. --Malerooster (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The photo is unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why the photo is not worthy of the article? Methinks that the photo was removed not per BRD, but per what BRD is not. --GHcool (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

NRA award to Ajit Pai is not WP:UNDUE

Fresh off removing a New England Journal of Medicine study for some undisclosed problems he had with the methodology, the user Springee has now removed all mention that the NRA gave an award to Ajit Pai. This follows a pattern of removing any and all information, no matter how reliably sourced, if it could in any way be seen as controversial. The NRA award was extensively covered by RS, including CNN, Politico, the Hill etc. Wikipedia pages frequently mention the awards that organizations give out and the rationales for those awards. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

MANY things are covered in the many articles about the NRA. However, you have to ask, does this have sufficient weight in context of the broader topic? This is meant to be an encyclopedic article rather than a dumping ground for any controversies we can find. Springee (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Claim that 74% of NRA members support universal background checks

A sourced paragraph has been added to the article which cites a perspective paper from Johns Hopkins, published in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming that 74% of NRA members support universal background checks. While this paper has been widely quoted, primarily in articles arguing for more gun control, it's results are disputed and conflict with other studies. The material added to teh NRA article lacks balance first because there was no need for the block quote, second because it doesn't mention the NRA's or other organizations' responses to the study, that is was conducted in the aftermath of Sandyhook, that the study was conducted by research group funded by Blomberg (see below) nor that it conflicts with a Pew study. I'm not opposed to inclusion but we shouldn't include a controversial study without adding other information.

The first response to the article on the NEJM link is telling and illustrates the issue with the paper. Note that anyone who is able to post a response is likely to the just the sort who could have been asked to review such a paper. Here is the response

Bias in Johns Hopkins Press Release

Unlike the press release from Bloomberg would have us believe, the survey results reveal a strong difference of opinion between gun owners, non-gun owners, and NRA members when it comes to some of the provisions of the legislation sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein.

For example, 77.4% of non-gun-owners supported the banning of these types of firearms compared to only 45.7% of gun-owners and a mere 14.9% of NRA members surveyed.

Given this level of disagreement among non-gunowners, gun-owners, and NRA members, why did the Bloomberg press release only focus on the agreement found in background checks and restrictions on criminal possession? To be objective, one should also expect to see where the disagreement was especially when such disagreement relates to pending legislation. One of the authors, Vernick, even stated, “This consensus should propel forward comprehensive legislation aimed at saving lives.”

What consensus? The main provisions of Senator Feinstein's bill are opposed by gun-owners and NRA members by their own survey data.

I can only conclude that Bloomberg has a bias against firearms and lacks objectivity.

Val W. Finnell, MD, MPH

ABPM certified

Here is the Pew article [[4]]. About half way down the article notes that 53% of NRA members who are Republicans support universal background checks. Earlier in the article it noted that 77% of NRA members are Republicans. So at best, if we assume 100% of the non-Republican NRA members, 23%, were for universal background checks, then at best 64% of members would be for UBCs. That casts the 74% number into real question. The NRA has also replied noting that their member rolls are private so it's unlikely the JH study was able to get a reliable sample of NRA members. The NRA also states why they are against UBCs. That should be included if we are going to imply the organization is out of touch with their members. For example the NRA states that it's survey shows that 92% of members oppose banning of sales between private parties. [[5]]. While WP:SYNTH limits drawing a direct comparison between some of the NRA questions and those from the JH group, they are certainly related. If we are going to indicate NRA members support X then we should include more information. Springee (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in this text above is valid criticism except the fact that a Pew poll from 2017 had different results. NRA is not a RS. If one legitimate poll (Pew) finds a different result, then the obvious thing to do is to add that poll too. In fact, this PolitiFact overview of the NEJM study (which backs it up) contains the results of two other polls on the same subject, which we should add too[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely legitimate to mention that the original paper was out of a research center funded by Blomberg and that the results were criticized in the comment section of the NEJM. It is also reasonable to add the results from the Pew and NRA poles. Yes, we can suspect bias in the NRA pole but it represents the organization's response to the JH paper. You will have to explain how you can use the PF article to add two more poles. As far as I can tell all it did was show that only 169 NRA members were poled by JH to get the 74% number. That doesn't seem like many. The CBS pole was conducted right after Sandyhook (several articles showed that caused a short term spike in attitudes towards gun restrictions. We have two Pew poles. A 2013 one that shows more support and the more recent one that shows less support. I think the more recent one should trump in this case. I'm trying to find an article I read that talked about why these poles are often contradictory. Sometimes people simply don't fully understand the ramifications of a concept thus the NRA's opposition wasn't because they were going against members but because they actually did understand the devils in the details. That said, I can't locate that article so it's not going in. Springee (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

the original paper was out of a research center funded by Blomberg and that the results were criticized in the comment section of the NEJM... -- sorry, but this does not seem like a strong argument against the source, which appears to meet WP:RS criteria. If there's 3rd party criticism of the poll results, then it would be useful to look at, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a criticism published with the paper on the NEJM website. I can find articles that talk about this issue but then they are no longer about the NRA. My reason for mentioning that isn't to put it in the article but to explain why we shouldn't just include that one source without including statements made by others about the source. Springee (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• The criticism comes from a nn individual ("Val W. Finnell, MD, MPH") commenting on a website. He says: "I can only conclude that Bloomberg has a bias against firearms and lacks objectivity" (emphasis mine). The critique needs to be stronger than that to remove an otherwise reliable source: a news source quoting an expert; a journal article, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think we should remove the source. I think we should instead post it as well as the response to the pole and the more recent Pew pole. We should also remove the block quote and integrate the information into the rest of the text. Springee (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The later poll, yes, I can see that. But when it comes to the "response to the poll" -- from whom? The MD? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, who is the person writing in to object to the poll in the NEJM? What is their qualification? It cannot carry the same weight as the actual paper, which has a detailed listing of the methodology. That doesn't have to be counter weighted by "and some rando writing into the NEJM disagreed". If there are other polls, which have the same rigourous methodology can be found then we can list them alongside that one but random Fox News polls disagreeing don't count, and the idea that a newer poll somehow justifies the removal of that poll does not work. You can't change an article because a new poll comes out. Add to it, don't delete. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The ATF and Senate confirmations

I have questions about this edit.

• The NRA's distrust of the ATF and a general shift away from support of gun control originated in 1971 when Ken Ballew was shot and paralyzed during an clumsy ATF raid.

References

I'm not sure if this is the correct paraphrasing of the source, which includes:

• But it was a 1971 raid in Silver Spring, Md., by the Treasury Department's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division that galvanized the nascent gun-rights movement. Police broke through the door of Kenyon Ballew, suspecting he had a stash of illegal guns and grenades. Ballew brandished an 1847 Colt revolver, and a police bullet to the head left him disabled for life. "It took hold in the firearms community," said Jeff Knox, head of the Arizona-based Firearms Coalition, whose late father, Neal Knox, was instrumental in turning the NRA into a sharp-edged political organization. "There was a sense of outrage, 'It could have been you or me.' "

A cascade of horror stories followed, many involving ATF agents "clad in ninja blacks" bursting through doors of law-abiding gun owners, often for nothing more than possessing weapons in technical violation of gun laws. ATF officials dismissed these cases as aberrations and said the bureau had taken corrective action against the few instances of excess. But after a militant wing took over the NRA in the "Cincinnati revolt" at the group's 1977 convention, Neal Knox emerged as the group's chief lobbyist and "declared war" on ATF.

Nothing about "distrust", etc, but instead a discussion of a messaging campaign of "horror stories" that followed. Likewise, I have concerns about this addition:

• This opposition is based on the NRA's view that such a searchable system would create a defacto national firearms database which is both illegal under the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act and, when combined with universal background checks would result in a national gun registry.

References

This is cited in part to NRA, which in this case is WP:BIASED source as to how NRA is justifying its opposition to the searchable system. Why is the NRA source needed here? Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm totally happy with the prose but the text does two things. First, it makes it clear that the NRA and ATF have had a rocky relationship starting when the NRA saw what the ATF was willing to do. There are many other examples of the NRA criticizing the ATF but this one seemed to be the origin point. Second, reason the NRA opposes electronic searches is highly relevant to the topic. The NRA is opposed because they see it as a back door to a gun registry. Again, it gets to the point that just presenting the case as if the NRA irrationally picks thing to spend political capital on isn't doing our readers any good. I'm open to help with this section but I think the important point that the NRA isn't doing this just to be spiteful or something needs to remain in the section. BTW, citing to the NRA is reasonable as a source of the NRA's stated view on a subject. Springee (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The paraphrasing does not seem to be accurate. ...when the NRA saw what the ATF was willing to do... (with the raids?) -- does not seem to be supported by the source. Re: NRA source, it's appropriate about what the NRA says about itself WP:ABOUTSELF, but not suitable for statements in Wiki-voice: "This opposition is based on the NRA's view that such a searchable system..." Etc.

Separately, are you sure about clumsy" is directly from the source article? I search the article for "clumsy" but did not locate this word. Perhaps I'm missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was reading I think two or three sources so I might have missed which one it came from. This is the source with the word. [[7]] Since I didn't cite that source I'll remove the word. Springee (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This SFGate article might be a good one to use. [[8]] Towards the end of the article it quotes an NRA lobbyist. That might be a good quote/paraphrase to include. Springee (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I restored the prior version for now; the content is not ready for "prime time". It appears to be OR as worded and not supported by the source. I read the Timeline source, and here's what it has to say:

• What proved even more consequential for United States politics was the way in which this clumsy and near-deadly raid was taken up by gun owners, the National Rifle Association, and concerned members of Congress. The furor came but a few years after the Gun Control Act of 1968, a bipartisan piece of legislation made possible by a few shared horrors, including the knowledge that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president with an NRA-promoted, mail-order gun, and that open-carry laws make for frightening displays when demonstrated by black activists.
• The raid was especially useful to the NRA. The NRA’s magazine published a six-page article under the headline, “Gun Law Enforcers Shoot Surprised Citizen, Claim Self-Defense,” writing of a “Boy Scout leader who displayed an American flag in his window,” who was found “merely holding” a replica cap-and-ball pistol. They published certain falsehoods, like that the woman in Ballew’s apartment was his wife, and that he was bathing when the raid began (further investigation confirmed the bathtub was last used to clean Ballew’s fish tank). The paralyzed Ballew was later brought out at NRA events in his wheelchair, wearing a sign that read “Victim of the Gun Control Act.”

So it could be argued that NRA used the raid as a pretext, which seems consistent with both sources. I also object to using the NRA source for the statements in Wiki-voice. NRA may have its reasons, but I believe that a secondary source is preferred here, as the matter is contentious. I'm preserving this material here by providing this link, so that it could be worked on further. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree and I think the restored material is a step back because of WP:NPOV. It was not WP:OR. I will add the SFGate material as a source as well as the reasons against the electronic record. That shouldn't' be removed because it's critical for understanding the NRA's opposition. I will be sure to make it clear what is NRA voice. I agree the NRA's view shouldn't be in Wiki voice but it should be included. Springee (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but the new material was generally not optimal. For example, "the NRA has lobbied against a number of Senate confirmations and some ATF regulations and reforms" (emphasis mine) -- that's wp:weasel. The current version is both factual and neutral; compare:

• The NRA has for decades sought to limit the ability of the ATF to regulate firearms by blocking nominees and lobbying against reforms that would ease the ability of the ATF to track gun crimes.

References

NPOV does not require that the article reflect the position of the subject as expressed in the subject's own writings. Since this material is contentious, it's better to use a secondary, expert source. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a little confused by the blocking nominees part. Since that is not in the source or ability of the NRA. PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I'm open to some other way to phrase that. I don't think the current opening sentence, "The NRA has for decades sought to limit the ability of the ATF to regulate firearms by blocking nominees and lobbying against reforms that would ease the ability of the ATF to track gun crimes" is neutral. "has for decades sought" seems more like a wp:weasel to me. What I was attempting to capture is that the NRA has opposed some of each (confirmation and ATF regulations). They haven't opposed all nor none. Should we just say "some" for both? Off the top of my head I can't think of a rule that requires us to give the NRA's side of the story but it would be a poor encyclopedia to not do it. Furthermore, the NRA's POV is coming both from the NRA and articles on the subject. When we are saying "the NRA claims" it is OK to go to the primary source. Springee (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I would consider NRA in this case to be a WP:BIASED, WP:PRIMARY source. The page should not really be a repository for NRA's claims, but instead, be based on secondary sources. It also appears clear from the sources that you provided that the 1971 raid was used as a pretext by NRA to go after ATF, not a cause for genuine "distrust". If the raid is brought up, the content should reflect the source(s). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the NRA is biased and a primary source. That doesn't explain why we shouldn't provide their statements on the issue. I don't agree that this page shouldn't have the NRA's position on issues. If we are going to include the opinions of others regarding what the NRA is doing and their motives then it's absolutely OK to include the NRA's POV so long as we are clear what the source is. I can see what you mean about the "pretext" vs cause. I think the sources we have say this was a cause vs pretext. Springee (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to the prior version; the content is still non-neutral, original research, and / or not supported by the sources provided: diff. Please see discussion above and the general on below. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the material related to the ATF. First, the background relationship between the ATF and NRA is sourced to WO:RS, not to the NRA. It's relevent to the discussion of the ATF. Second, the material related to the electronic records has two sources, one is The Trace, a pro-gun control news source funded by Blomberg, the other is the NRA's statements on the issue. Given the NRA is the subject of the article, the NRA's statements with respect to a topic are absolutely germane to the article. Springee (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you have several editors telling you that we should avoid using the NRA as a source, which you seem to be disregarding. You have also reinserted material without obtaining consensus.- MrX 🖋 04:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We have three editors and per WP:RS the material can be used as reliable statements of the NRA's position. The material was removed based on the statement that it was sourced to primary sources. In fact most of the material was sourced to secondary, WP:RSs. The material stating why the NRA is against electronic records was sourced both to The Trace and to the NRA (the NRA provided additional detail). I've removed the NRA specific link even though, per policy it should be OK. Again, I think we need more eyes here. Springee (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, the NRA is not a reliable source for self-serving statements. If the material meets WP:DUEWEIGHT, you can find third-party sources and obtain consensus for including it. Please don't insert it again until a consensus is formed.- MrX 🖋 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @MrX: reverted my edit before I could per my agreement here [[9]]. Next we need to get more eyes to figure this out. Springee (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you for self-reverting. The edit is generally poor, IMO, as I commented on above. It's non-neutrally worded and does not match the sources, such as the statement about NRA's "distrust". The 1971 raid was more of a pretext, as I already mentioned.

I suggest coming up with a neutrally worded version on this Talk page so that we can discuss. I don't even think an edit such as the diff we are discussing would be suitable for raising at NPOVN or RSN as there are too many issues with it right now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a go. Since I've already made my first suggestion (the removed material) can you offer either an altered text or suggestions that I can try to work around more specifically? Also, what do you think is a neutral way to get more eyes on this subject? Springee (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

For purposes of discussion, here is the text you proposed:

"The NRA states this opposition is based on the view that such a searchable system would create a de facto national firearms database which is illegal under the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act and, when combined with universal background checks, would result in a national gun registry.
— The Trace

The problem is, The Trace doesn't support this text of the NRA's position (and it's not an especially good source anyway). Here are some sources that do discuss the NRA's position:[10][11][12]. I'm sure that are others available.- MrX 🖋 14:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Springee: Here’s some useful material on the attitude of the NRA towards ATF:

• Shorts in the Dark, by William Vizzard credentials
• Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control by Osha Gray Davidson

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, Thanks! Let me ask, do you think this material should go where I originally put it or someplace else in the article? Springee (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better in National_Rifle_Association#Political_expansion, since the original section is titled "ATF confirmations". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic discussion on neutrality

Yes, the page should discuss NRA's position on the issues -- as reflected by WP:RS. Is NRA a reliable source for its positions on the issues? Unlikely, as with any advocacy group. It's not limited to NRA -- any charity, corporation, sports team, state, etc is doing the same. That's why we don't just "provide their statements on the issue"; that's public relations, not an encyclopedia. If people want to find NRA's positions on the issues, as formulated by NRA itself, that's what the NRA website is for. If this page uncritically reproduces NRA's positions based on NRA sources, it's WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I would say the NRA's statements are the best source for their stated objectives, objections, etc. Now, I would agree that sometimes what say the NRA states and what they might actually want aren't going to be the same. However if the NRA says "law X is bad because of A B and C" then we can and should put that information in if a new source says "the NRA is against X". This is not advocacy because we are presenting both (or more) sides to the discussion.

To create an example, lets say we have a statement that the NRA is against say "using law X to close the gun show loophole". We have a new source that says how bad it is that the NRA doesn't want to use X close this loophole. Now I have say two dozen sources that say why X is a crazy bad law the we shouldn't want it... but none say "and that is why the NRA is opposed to it". Well then we can't actually post in the article, "here is why the NRA opposes this law". But what if we have a statement from the NRA that says we oppose X because A B and C? Well why wouldn't we include the NRA's stated reasons for opposition. Yes, the NRA might actually oppose it for D E and F but we can still reliably report that the NRA says they oppose it because of... Springee (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Because that may be giving WP:UNDUE weight to NRA's position -- as stated by itself, for its own benefit. Their stated reason can be inaccurate, misleading, or self-serving -- we just don't know. It's not an intellectually independent source. The encyclopedia is required to be neutral, not serve as a publishing platform for any org's public relations materials. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We can use some judgment but when the NRA is responding to an article and stating their reasons we are not being undue. This is especially true if say the article has a statement that said something like "the NRA denied ..." or "The NRA opposed...". If the source doesn't provide the full response then we certainly can. Being neutral means we do make sure we report the NRA's position on controversial issues accurately. If an article says the NRA is wrong for opposing universal background checks we absolutely should put in, if available, the NRA's stated view on UBCs. Yes, it's even better if the NRA has a statement that is a direct response to our news article but their public statements related to controversial issues for which they have received criticism should absolutely be included. Weight comes in when we decide which topics/issues should make it to the article. It doesn't mean we can't provide the NRA's replies/positions because article's critical to the NRA's positions don't provide their readers with a complete statement. Springee (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am following: If the source doesn't provide the full [NRA] response then we certainly can. (...) Yes, it's even better if the NRA has a statement that is a direct response to our news article.... Are you suggesting that, if no other source is reporting NRA's position in "full", then Wikipedia does this instead, based on NRAs statement [on its web site]? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading you wrong Springee, but the only time we should use the NRA's response to criticism is when it has been picked up by reliable, independent sources. On top of that, the material needs to be covered in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources, not in parity which would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't have special content rules the NRA.- MrX 🖋 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think in most cases we can find articles that say the NRA disagreed but often they don't provide the full statement. If that statement is available we should provide it. KEC, yes, I am saying that we should provide a link and possibly summarize/quote a response from the NRA. Remember that the subject wp:weight (say the % of NRA members who want universal background checks) was established by other sources. If the NRA just brings up the subject out of the blue we generally shouldn't include it. I see it as a NPOV issue if we let the critics talk but decide that the NRA's statement isn't a RS. This is similar to how a biography might use quotes from a person's blog to establish that person't view on a particular subject. If the NRA says they are against universal background checks for XYZ why wouldn't that be included, especially if we have a source that says the NRA is wrong for not wanting them. What is our objective here? We are trying to inform our readers. Are our readers going to be better or worse informed with regards to this subject if we don't cover the NRA's position on contended issues? If nothing else this would be a great case for WP:IGNORE. Springee (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for the NRA to rebut criticism. We have to stick to independent sources and write material that represents what those sources say, in proper proportion. There is no provision in WP:NPOV that gives a subject of criticism special privileges in Wikipedia, as I have already pointed out. Self-serving material published by the subject of an article is not reliable. For example, citing the NRA for a claim that "the NRA protect the rights of citizens" is self-serving. Citing the NRA for basic, uncontested facts is OK, provided that the article is not overly-dependent on such material (which it was just a few hours ago). The NRA's positions are already thoroughly covered in the article.- MrX 🖋 04:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is certainly allowed to quote primary sources. We do a disservice to publish the criticism but refuse to publish the NRA's replies. Self serving doesn't mean the material can't be included. We remove self serving material when it serves no encyclopedic value. Saying that, for instance, an annual NRA membership costs $X and can be applied for at this weblink (NRA.Give$....) is self serving and should not be included. Conversely, if the Brady Campaign gets press for saying, "The NRA is wrong about X", it's reasonably to summarize the NRA's reply. How does it hurt the article to let the reader view the NRA's stated reason for objecting to a claim/policy/etc? If WP:WEIGHT says the other side's statements should be included so should the replies even if they are direct. A link to an NRA policy position on say background checks is an uncontested statement of the NRA's position on the subject and within WP:RS guidelines. The facts, argument, etc presented their may or may not be true but unless we think the NRA's servers were hacked it is a reliable statement of the NRA's opinion. I don't agree that the NRA's positions are already throughly covered in the article, at least not in the ATF area I recently edited. Springee (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used for basic facts. Sources published by the subject of an article can be used for facts that are not unduly self-serving per WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:DUEWEIGHT also applies. If the NRA's policy positions and opinions are noteworthy, they will be reported in independent reliable sources. The good news is, we don't have to spend a lot of time interpreting policies, because we also require consensus for material to be included, per WP:ONUS.- MrX 🖋 13:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources

Related to the above, the article indeed suffers from over-reliance on primary sources, some from NRA. Sample:

• The National Rifle Association has worked with Pink Pistols through Pink Pistols submitting amicus briefs in different Supreme Court cases relating to guns such as DC v. Heller. The NRA has also worked with the American Civil Liberties Union in opposing gun registration.

References

I propose that these be reduced. Is it really that relevant that NRA supports Pink Pistols as cited to Pink Pistols themselves? ACLU blog? The Daily Caller which is a "news and opinion website". ACLU & NRA supporting the same issues is probably notable, but can be done without the WP:NOTNEWS presentation. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

In a similar vein, does this information deserve its own subsection?

Affiliates

The NRA allows clubs and businesses to affiliate with it.

The NRA has an official state association in every state and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It is reasonable to use the NRA's responses to common issues/polices/etc in response to various topics. This is particularly true when it comes to stated policies, goals, aims, programs etc. It's also true when the NRA is responding to an article, accusation etc. Where it's problematic is if we use the NRA's subjective assessments in Wiki voice or as anything other than an attributed statement/opinion. This statement doesn't imply that I feel there are or are not sourcing issues, just that we can source things to the NRA and still comply with RS guidelines Springee (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the above content, it's more of a case of excessive intricate detail: "The NRA allows clubs and businesses to affiliate with it" -- there's nothing encyclopedically relevant about this information. If ppl want to learn that it allows clubs to affiliate with it, they can visit NRA's website. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that statements like "the NRA allows..." is promotional and should be limited or eliminated. The other one I'm less sure about. I do see your concern but I think I would balance the sources against the reliability of the statements. I don't think anyone would suggest that aligned statements between the NRA and ACLU are not reliable for the uncontroversial statements they make. I'm not sure if the statement has sufficient WEIGHT for inclusion. Submitting material as part of the Heller case is significant but it would be better to get a 3rd party source if possible. Springee (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Some reductions in this diff + some tags. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• More reductions in this diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• More reductions here: diff. I would invite anyone interested to have a look; there's more that could probably be culled. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of this material should be restored, and likely can be with a quick search for secondary sources. For example, the Gotez material is substantiated by this NYT story [[13]]. Some of the material was worth removing (operational in nature) but other stuff should have been retained. I'll try to replace some of the material with updated sourcing. Springee (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please see diff for further reduction. Some content was uncited / unsupported by the source provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please see diff; removed as self-cited & promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Please see diff; removed as self-cited and / or promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• diff; my rationale was "Self-cited & promotional". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think at least some of that material should remain per WP:ABOUTSELF. The claims about where the NRA money goes probably don't qualify per aboutself but it could be included as an attributed claim in a 3rd party RSed section about funding. The material related to the NRA has the following programs is ABOUTSELF type material. What do you think?

cut ties

Businesses cutting ties is becoming a thing [14] Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is.[15][16][17][18][19] I'm curious if it will have any momentum.- MrX 🖋 13:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a sentence about that to the article yesterday, here and here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

CNN reported Delta and another airline cut ties this AM. Calling it a trend. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

NRA put up a statement about loosing partnerships and discounts. [20] first thing you see going to their website. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac, MrX, and Mudwater: ICYMI, there is now a dedicated article: 2018 NRA boycott.--DarTar (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I merged the affiliate section with the material that was previously added in the mass shooting section. I split the affiliate material off from the LV shooting, added the link to the child article, cut the names of companies (all in the child article in great detail) and cleaned up some of the language for weasel words. Springee (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Excessive list of past presidents and other staff

I'm not from the USA, but the NRA are often cited in the news here in the UK - most recently for the list of companies disassociating themselves with the NRA - FedEx, Avis etc, many of which are known here in the UK. I am sure a lot of the other companies disassociating themselves with the NRA will not be reported here in the UK, as most people will not know them.

I looked at the Wikipedia page, and a couple of things come across to me

1) It is very pro-NRA.

2) There seems an excessive list of past presidents and other staff. I don't see such a list in other Wikipedia pages about companies, charities or other organizations. If they do exist, they are normally split off to a separate page. I guess this is just really a symptom of my point #1.

To take just one example, Alexander Shaler (March 19, 1827 – December 28, 1911) was apparently president of the NRA in 1876.

On my PC, the list of presidents and directors, most of whom are probably dead, is taking up more screen space than the criticism section! I don't know what the Wikipedia term is, but it seems undue weight is given to something of minor significance in the 21st century, and very little weight given to things of much greater significance.

I can see the point of listing the people that started up the NRA, and current senior staff, but the huge list seems a bit excessive to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.72.170 (talk • contribs)

• I removed the non-notable presidents for now; preserving here by providing this link diff. I'd be open to pruning this area further as excessive intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing WRT the list of presidents and directors. Perhaps it can be spun off into a list. Some of the material in the article is laudatory, which is not surprising given that it's sourced to organization itself. I've trimmed some of this material and still more could probably be trimmed.- MrX 🖋 19:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved the list of personnel to the bottom of the page for now diff. I think a WP:SPINOUT is a good idea for the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

rigtoy or wrongly, nearly all past presidents and all listed directors have articles, so they are notable. The last one with an artocle has some pretty "interesting" ideas that were not covered until I added a section to his page. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed there's already a list of NRA presidents at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Presidents_of_the_National_Rifle_Association If someone can remove the big list, and link to that page instead, it would make more sense.

I would have thought the list of previous directors to be of marginal interest, and does not warrant the amount of space it takes up in the article. But as a non-American, maybe I have a different view to the target audience. Drkirkby (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Dec 2012 press conference

The sources discussed NRA's press conference in the wake of Sandy Hook shooting. I've removed NRA's self-citations and revised per WaPo & USA Today sources; please see diff. The paragraph is not really about legislation; so I'm not sure what it's doing there, but at least it's now conforming with the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved the content into Sandy Hook section, as it was not about the legislation, but about the press conference: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

FBI investigation

How to deal with the widely reported FBI investigation of how russian money may have been funnelled thru the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign? Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about this. Could you provide some sources?- MrX 🖋 23:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, I would exclude for now. This is a WP:RECENT issue and currently the accusations are vague. If nothing becomes of this will people care in 5 years? Springee (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[21], [22], [23] breaking election laws and cooperating in Russian interfearance... would matter5 years from now. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This is speculation. Currently this isn't proven so we shouldn't include it. Your first link is of unknown reliability. Your second link doesn't work. The third link gets to the point I'm making. Currently the FBI is looking into this. We don't know if the NRA did anything wrong or really anything at all. Reading the CNBC article it appears that what it happening is the FBI is looking at basically all dark money sources. Since the NRA is one it would make sense they would be investigated presumably along with others. Note that a Democrat from Oregon is pushing the investigation. What if in the end the FBI finds that the NRA acted as an unwilling conduit and broke no laws in the process? Would we still keep this information in? Until we have ANY solid evidence of wrong doing on the part of the NRA this is a VERY questionable addition and should be removed. Springee (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

First link is The McClatchy Company - "a publicly traded American publishing company based in Sacramento, California. It operates 29 daily newspapers in 14 states and has an average weekday circulation of 1.6 million and Sunday circulation of 2.4 million"[24] which makes them quite reliable. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[25] Newsweek story

A push for a National Election Commission investigation and a conirmed Senate investigation [26] Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I still couldn't get your link to work. I've found a few others on Newsweek but they are older (first week of Feb or older). Based on what you said in the sentence it sounds like we still have nothing that says the NRA did anything wrong. Springee (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess Newsweek can't even keep their servers running, but this is rather interesting:

"But when it comes to funding, the NRA may have finally gone too far: the FBI recently launched an investigation to determine whether a Russian central banker, and Putin ally, illegally funneled money through the organization to help the Trump campaign.

These allegations have prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission and an effort by Sen. Ron Wyden to obtain documents from the Treasury Department and the NRA. As shocking as other Russia-related revelations have been — attempts to hack voting machines, vast Internet propaganda, leaking of stolen campaign information — this allegation illustrates a problem of even broader scope."
— CNBC

Other sources are covering it too: [27][28]. There should at least be a brief mention in the article of the investigations. It doesn't really matter if the NRA broke the law or not. They are being investigated at the highest levels of government.- MrX 🖋 04:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just being investigated by the FBI doesn't mean it's the "highest levels of the government". When someoen makes a complaint, they investigate. When there are actual charges, it's more relevant. Right now, it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Newsweek links will not work. I habe to strip out the Google preface like always. Anyway a search for "Russia NRA FBI" or similar will bring up plenty of mainstream media coverage. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the quote above. That was the part I was reading previously. Note that it doesn't say the NRA has done anything wrong. They are investigating. Until they actually find something wrong (or clear/compelling evidence) this is WP:RECENT. We just don't know if in a few years it will be found the NRA was actively complicit or did nothing wrong. Springee (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We put recent material in Wikipedia all the time about airplane crashes, football games, YouTube stars, elections, and mass shootings. This material is obviously relevant, and an investigation of this magnitude is obviously significant. No one can know if it will be significant from the perspective of the future. If not, it can removed then. I think if we can have an entire poorly-sourced paragraph about the NRA museum or mind-numbing minutiae about their nominating committee, we can certainly include a couple of sentences about two concurrent investigations of international scope, that includes a complaint to the FEC.- MrX 🖋 04:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Airplane crashes are historical fact the moment they are complete. This is a preliminary investigation associated with a highly politicized issue that might amount to nothing. It should wait until their is actually substance (or not). Springee (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• We're talking about an ALLEGATION that, thus far, hasn't been substantiated by any government agency or court. If and when it is substantiated, this discussion becomes much different. However, since all the allegations seem to involve living people, we may be drifting into BLP issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What matters is the extent of coverage in sources, not what stage the investigation is in. I'm OK with waiting to see if more sources cover this before adding adding some content, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stage absolutely matters. Public figures and groups are routinely investigated for one thing or another. We don't list every time it happens. We list it when there is something substantial to it. There are certain types of charges that are even required to be investigated, even if there's no direct evidence. Right now, there's an allegation. If there are actual charges, the conversation could change. If there's an actual conviction, the conversation could change. Right now, there's nothing substantiated. Inclusion now is actually much more UNDUE than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• The CNBC piece is an opinion piece written by an activist group. The McClatchy source says that there's supposed to be an investigation, but the NRA says they haven't been asked anything. The newsweek source says that McClatchy reported it and that some other group plans to make a complaint and admists "No public evidence that the NRA took Russian money has emerged". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun safety training

Interesting ref for both the museums and their gun safety training [29] Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be an ironic inclusion :D Springee (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that is ironic!- MrX 🖋 17:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge Political Victory Fund with this article?

The other article was created a few days ago. Seems like a content fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have a look. Separately, I've come across Friends of NRA which was mostly promo 'cruft, which I cut. It's perhaps worth redirecting to this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Lack of advocacy for black gun-owners

The user Niteshift36 removed one subsection entitled 'Lack of advocacy for black gun owners' and another subsection entitled 'Historical racism'[30]. The user falsely claimed, "the Rfc did not support this inclusion. If you want to discuss a shorter version, the wording should be discussed." The only conclusion of the RfC was that a vastly longer version did not have support[31], but the closer of the RfC noted that "a condensed version may be appropriate, and that is a separate editorial decision". The subsection that Niteshift36 just removed was a condensed version. For what it's worth, this is the text that was removed from the 'Lack of advocacy for black gun-owners':

• The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans.[215][216] Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners.[215] The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias.[215] The shooting of black motorist Philando Castile during a traffic stop touched off a wave of NRA criticism.[217] A counter argument is that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement and that the NRA has often failed to support Caucasian members in similar circumstances.[216]

Here is the text that was removed from the sub-section 'Historical racism' (I'd like to note that I don't think this should be a separate sub-section and that the text here should be under the previous sub-section - another user created this sub-section):

• Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, noting that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities.[218]

Does Niteshift36 want to elaborate on why he removed this text? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As I argued from the RFC I still feel the same. It is a largely undue minor viewpoint in the NRAs history. PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Adding ping for original revert. Also the section title "Historical racism" is to charged and misleading. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Try again sport. I've about had enough of your immediate "false" this and "bullshit" that. Start assuming some good faith or we can start discussing that someplace else. A random admin gave an interpretation. He closed the RFC as "no consensus to add the subsection suggested by Snooganssnoogans asked to include." He mentioned that there wasn't necessarily a prohibition of the material, but quite clearly said that including it in other forms was a separate editorial decision. That should be a strong indicator to you that you need consensus before merely rewording your original crusade (again as a separate section I might add) and then pretending like there was never a RFC. 15 editors opposed it. 10 supported it. a few said length was an issue. Once again, there should have been a strong indicator to you that you need consensus before merely rewording your original crusade. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"then pretending like there was never a RFC"... this was my edit summary: "created a subsection on "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners". this is a condensed version of a larger text which did not receive approval in a RfC, but which numerous commenters expressed support for a briefer version.)" Are you going to retract what you just said? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Right after you retract all your bad faith allegations and characterizations of reasons. being "bullshit". Not holding my breath for you to suddenly act civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we just have another RfC or a straw poll to resolve this without the hair pulling? I have not looking into this particular material, so I have no opinion one way or the other at this point.- MrX 🖋 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The sourced section seems fine. You don't have to go past last week to see the suggestion of racism at the NRA. [32] Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that the text under dispute here doesn't even accuse the NRA of racism (even though RS frequently covers such criticism - here's the NYT last week: "they often side with Mr. Trump in divisive cultural disputes — some of which have potent racial undercurrents — like his feuding with Black Lives Matter activists and the professional football players who knelt during the national anthem... [NRATV's] Its guests and hosts are not shy of trading in racially charged language and imagery."). The text only notes that the NRA has been accused of being reluctant in advocating gun rights for black gun owners. It is so uncontroversial yet it's being vetoed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's the same passage you tried to force in last week under other pretenses. Can you at least pretend like you don't have an agenda?Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the NRA in the 1900-1930 era but given Jim Cow, Confederate Monument erection, KKK and voter supression efforts in that era the prof's statement appears undoubtedly true. No votes, no rights, no guns... Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Niteshift36, would you please not attack the motives of editors and would you please properly indent your comments? Thanks.- MrX 🖋 20:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I did indent and, given the context, the context isn't a personal attack. Odd that I don't see you policing his incivility. Must have slipped under your radar.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I struck through it for you. Maybe you can try policing both sides for a change. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- what is the basis for the objection to this material? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• The same basis as the failed RFC to include this material. Simply shortening it because a random admin suggested it doesn't mean the consensus wasn't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• This material looks OK to me. Not sure what the objection is. Neutrality^talk 13:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Meh. The content could be improved. I don't like citing anonymous "critics" without some kind of in text attribution for why we should care about these particular opinions. Wording like "touched off a wave" is overly colloquial and figurative, and I tend to think the Castile sentence could be moved to a footnote, and we should prefer sources that summarize the big picture rather than referring to particular events, especially when those sources are especially close to the event chronologically so that they have to themselves be treated with a grain of recentism salt.

Having said that, both you guys need to calm the down about four notches, and if you can't discuss content instead of contributor on this subject you should both consider editing something else for a while. (Also consider that you shouldn't be surprised if your own comments and edit summaries manage to pop up on an RS somewhere when we're editing an article that is this this high profile and politically topical.) GMG^talk 13:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The main objection would be an argument of undue and leading section title. The same stuff discussed at the RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that the title could be more neutrally worded. GMG^talk 13:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• I restored the material with this edit. It's a well-sourced, brief, and WP:DUE content. I don't see a policy-based reason to exclude this materials. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy based reasons cited above are largely undue. Also leading section title, issues in the writing, and sources. I have undone your addition of content without consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Are statements by the NRA WP:RS for views/opinions of the NRA

I've started a WP:RSN discussion on the topic here [[33]] Springee (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Boycott

For whatever it's worth MrX, re this, I have a hard time believing that we couldn't just as well get by with something like two shortish paragraphs (instead of four) and point to the main, especially leaning more heavily toward summarizing the content rather than discussing individual people, companies and quotes. GMG^talk 13:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, if we have a whole article dedicated to this recent development. One or two paragraphs would be more than enough. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I kept MrX's edits to the subheading title and the previous paragraphs but removed the new ones. The information that was added and much of the linked article come across as advocacy for emphasising the parts of the story where a company hasn't caved (FedEx) or where politicians have responded (GA senator and Delta). It's disappointing to see material like that added readily but material that offers the NRAs POV on a topic is removed as self serving. Springee (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to condensing the material some, but Springee's edit went too far. The key points relevant to this article are the following:

• All major affiliate companies cut ties, except FedEx
• The Georgia legislature revoked tax cuts in a pending bill in response to Delta cutting ties with he NRA. The Lt. Governor's coercive tweet is also noteworthy, but that's negotiable.

As it reads now, there was no impact to the boycott no hint that major companies abandoned the NRA. This is misleading to our readers. Let's see if we can reach a consensus for including these two major points, without a full-blown RfC.- MrX 🖋 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Consider the concept of WP:recent. Is this going to be encyclopedic in 10 years? The general boycott, maybe yes. The details that FedEx said no? What if next month they say yes? That would make calling out the one company a great example of why we should be careful about recent and changing news. The same for the GA material. A statement that a number of companies acquiesced to the public pressure is sufficient. Remember, there is a primary article so this needs only to be a summary which it currently is. Springee (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say we could cover X's bullet points in probably one additional sentence. I would recommend excluding the tweet. I would expect that the addition of a sentence would strike most as a fairly good compromise. GMG^talk 15:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it will be encyclopedic in 10 years; much more so than the NRA's trifling lawsuits in California. It is certainly encyclopedic now, and WP:DUEWEIGHT requires that we cover it to a reasonable extent in this article. We don't have a waiting period on information. ← See what I did there?- MrX 🖋 15:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

While Wikipedia tries not to be a newspaper, it seems to me that sometimes it slightly overlaps with the function of a newspaper, and this cannot be helped. Ultimately, after a year or so when the overall effects of this boycott are more clearly known, perhaps one of us will come back here and rewrite the article in a more "encyclopedic fashion." One passer by (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I will attempt to condense this content to summarize the essential points, taking into account the comments here. Obviously this has grown beyond just the discount affiliates, so it needs to be updated anyway.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sentence with problematic cites removed

In the "Mass shootings" section, I just removed a sentence with incorrectly formatted cites in this edit. I see no problem with the information, I only removed it due to the bad formatting of the cites, which didn't read correctly in the refs section.

Thanks,

One passer by (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Propose new article section covering NRA position on touchstone issues

I would like to propose adding a new article section covering the NRA's position on a number of firearms issues/policies. This would be a place in the article where topics like the NRA's position on universal background check, assault weapon's bans, waiting periods, etc can be covered. I would propose that items are listed here if there are reliable sources indicating that a particular policy of the NRA is notable due to controversy or other coverage. This section would cite NRA statements/sources but only as statements attributed to the NRA. All other material including coverage of actions taken by the NRA to effect these positions would have to come from 3rd party sources. This section should include claims/sources that refute any NRA position as well as links to the controversy section as appropriate. Are there any thoughts/concerns before I start working on this? Unless someone else takes the lead I will likely create the initial content off line then upload it. Springee (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If we were to do this, we would need to disperse most of the subsections under criticism into this new section, which could be an overall improvement to the article structure per WP:CSECTION. Per my comments on this page and at WP:RSN, I am opposed to citing NRA statements directly from the NRA, as they tend to be unduly self-promotional, and generally not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Any content deemed noteworthy for inclusion should generally emanate from independent, third-party sources (i.e. not Guns and Ammo, not Everytown for Gun Safety, and definitely not the NRA, except in rare instances). We should not try to establish a false parity of viewpoints, as that would run afoul of WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 03:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Guns and Ammo is completely independent of the NRA. They're probably more neutral than Everytown is in many cases. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this can incorporate related controversy material. I disagree with respect to citing NRA statements as to why the organization supports, opposes etc. For example if the organization says it's against universal background checks for A B and C we should paraphrase and link to the NRA source. That doesn't mean extensive quotes but the objective here is to say why in the NRA's statements and in the statements of 3rd party RSs, the NRA holds a particular policy position etc. That 'why' needs to be supported. Springee (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In the case of universal background checks, wouldn't there be sufficient third party sources that would explain the NRA's position? I'm having a hard time imagining what objective material would not be covered by an independent source, that would be covered by the NRA.- MrX 🖋 04:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If we can find 3rd party material that supports it we should use that. However, as was discussed in the RSN thread, the statements from the NRA are the going to be the most direct statements from the NRA. This is a particular case where we should be linking to them to get their policy statements vs the interpretations of others. The 3rd party sources can be used to add how the NRA is or isn't supporting those positions etc. Springee (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I think your favoring the comments at WP:RSN that support your own views of how things should work, while disregarding others. We really need to look at a specific example. Do you have one in mind where third-party sources cannot be found to summarize the NRA's position on an issue?- MrX 🖋 04:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have one in mind (I will post one here before in the article) but I don't think it matters. When it comes to the NRA's stated position which source would be more accurate than statements from the NRA directly? Why wouldn't we include them? Springee (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the NRA's actions under the Trump presidency

Should the following text be added to the "political involvement" sub-section (which is in the "Criticism" section)?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

After Donald Trump's election to the presidency, the NRA closely aligned with Trump.[34] According to The New York Times, the NRA "attack the enemies he attacks", including the media (which the NRA has described as "dishonest" and "failing"), the F.B.I., Black Lives Matter activists, and NFL players who kneel during the national anthem. The New York Times noted, "stories that circulate throughout right-wing news media often find their way to NRATV, which has devoted numerous segments to portraying anti-Trump demonstrators as paid shills, violent extremists and evangelists for Shariah law in the United States."[35]

Survey

• Support - The text provides an overview of the NRA's political involvement under the Trump presidency, and is therefore of long-term encyclopedic value. The New York Times is a reliable source. The text is short and sweet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This isn't Trumppedia even though it feels that way some times, WP:RECENTISM. The section under "Elections" is also overly long (in relation to 2008 and 1980 - who each receive a line or so, while 2016 gets 4.5. Mentioning they aligned with Trump is enough. The NRA has been deeply involved in politics for ages - they have been criticized for ages for quite a few different people they support - which is what this article should cover and not be yet another place to cover Trump.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's not at all clear why we should devote ~100 words to Trump based on a single NYT article of no apparent individual importance. I would also note that the proposed paragraph consists of 41 words worth of direct quote, more in direct quote alone than we have about the Obama administration in the same section in total. Having said that, the the passage in the same section on Obama also singles out a single NYT piece to lean on rather than summarizing... really anything at all.

For whatever it's worth, pretty much the whole political involvement section seems an awful lot like a catchall for whatever it is certain individuals wanted to put in the article but didn't fit anywhere else, and I would be completely fine moving the content on Bush 2 to the membership section (since his resignation is fairly undoubtedly worth mentioning) and then removing the entire rest of the section all together. I don't see that it makes much sense to have a political involvement subsection when half the article is about political involvement. GMG^talk 14:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. A random, non-notable reporter decides to link different events and do a little synthesis of his own (no, not the Wikipedia policy of synth) to paint a picture he desires. This isn't an article on Trump, it's the NRA. This takes the most recent issue and gives it more attention than it merits. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not realize that sources were not supposed to engage in synthesis... maybe this "random, non-notable reporter" missed the day at journalism school where they covered "synthesis". It must be a mistake that all those household names who work as reporters at the NYT don't make... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• As I told you before, I'm not talking about the Wikipedia definition of the term, so please, stop acting like I am. I'll ignore the rest of your sacractic nonsense, lest your teammate Mr. X get all self-righteous again and act like I'm the only person in this conversation who isn't being all sweetness and light. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you clarify for us why it's problematic for a source such as the NYT to engage in synthesis (not the Wikipedia definition of the term)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've found that trying to explain it to you is usually a waste of time. My !vote is there. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Trump's relationship with the NRA is well-established. There are quite a few sources that cover the NRA's unusually high spend to help get Trump elected, their nearly-lockstep alignment on issues, the recent meeting between Trump and the NRA that didn't make it to the published schedule, and now potential contributions from Russia with love to the NRA and Russia to help get Trump elected. I think the material may need some wordsmithing, and is probably too short, but for now this is a good start, per WP:DUE.- MrX 🖋 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• If we look only at recent news cycles, issues can seem bigger than if we look at the longer-term view. Something about forests and trees..... Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's relationship with the NRA have been covered extensively for at least two years. That's not what I would consider recent news cycles.- MrX 🖋 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Has it really? And this passage isn't talking about his pre-office days. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - At this point WP:UNDUE and to WP:RECENT. Also looks fairly WP:POV to push a insignificant viewpoint. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose but. The proposed paragraph technically fails verification and is a bit misleading. The source doesn't say the NRA has aligned closely with Trump, nor does it say it "attacks the enemies he attacks." That language is about NRATV, not the NRA. Moreover the specific calling out of BLM and the NFL issues seems undue. That being said, there is noteworthy material from this source, specifically: Critics of the N.R.A. say that they have observed a shift in the organization’s tone since Mr. Trump was elected that is much more pugilistic, and that NRATV is where the most outrageous commentary occurs. This change, they say, seems to reflect the fact that like many organizations on the right, the N.R.A. believes it has to guard against complacency among its members with a friendly president in the White House. The NRA's positioning since the 2016 election is highly significant and has received a lot of coverage. It merits a full paragraph, preferably drawing on more than just that NYT source. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as is DrFleischman and PackMecEng hit or both of my concerns. As is the material is Undue coming from a single source that is as much editorial as anything. However, the relationship between the NRA and a presidential administration is Due and in that capacity such material may have merit but not as written. Springee (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose don't see what is said in source. What we really need is to stop using news articles as sources.--Moxy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support – relevant to the topic, taking suggestions by DrFleishmann into account. NRA has become a media company, in addition to being an advocacy group. BTW, sources are *expected* to engage in synthesis, i.e. analyze the subject matter in question. Otherwise, we’d have nothing but recitations of facts with no analysis.

On the topic of NRA’s role in today’s popular culture, there’s a book that addresses this: Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War by Scott Melzer. Credentials, with the following blurb: “His first book (Gun Crusaders, NYU Press, 2009) analyzes the National Rifle Association's transformation from a recreational firearms interest group into a conservative social movement organization.”

In general, this new facet of NRA should be addressed in the article, and this addition is a good start. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - that's about the election, not really about the NRA or important about it ... seems a bit of soapboxing sideshow. Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support There is an established relationship between trump and NRA. References and notability support inclusion. ContentEditman (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Rewrite Summoned by a bot. I don't necessarily oppose including something along these lines (Trump's connections to the NRA), but shortening and rewriting this to be less specific seems necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE. Comatmebro (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, although possibly with some rewrites and expansion. The sources are good, and the basic elements here are good and need to go in somehow as part of the description of their political activity under Trump; however, I would probably rework it into part of our broader coverage of how their political activity has extended away from guns and into culture-war issues (which seems to be what these sources are saying.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include a paragraph or two about investigations into the possibility that Russia contributed to the NRA to help elect Trump?

There has been increasing coverage in news sources about investigations into the possibility that Russia contributed to the NRA to help get Donald Trump elected. See #FBI investigation above for the previous discussion.

Sources:

• Something stinks about the NRA's Russia story - The Week
• NRA, Russia and Trump: How 'dark money' is poisoning American democracy - CNBC
• FBI ‘investigating whether Russian money went to NRA’s campaign to help elect Donald Trump - Independent
• NRA denies receiving foreign money for US elections - ABC News
• What’s the Truth About the NRA’s Man in Moscow? - Daily Beast
• Trump-russia Investigation: Senator Calls For Probe Into Whether Kremlin Used The NRA To Help Elect President - Newsweek
• Senator seeks documents on Russia money links to the NRA - PBS
• What do the gun violence debate and 2016 election have in common? - CNN
• The NRA Should Disclose Any Russian Ties - Bloomberg
• Did the Kremlin Give Money to the National Rifle Association to Help Trump? - Snopes
• Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties - The New York Times

Should the article include a paragraph or two about investigations into the possibility that Russia contributed to the NRA to help elect Donald Trump? MrX 🖋 15:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. In previous discussions, some editors have argued that we ought not mention this because the investigation has not been concluded and has not resulted in verdicts of criminal wrong-doing. But that's irrelevant. What matters is that the investigation is the subject of extensive RS coverage. Wikipedia would, for instance, not keep out text on Hillary Clinton's email scandal, and the sexual harassment investigations re: Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein and Roy Moore, just because these investigations are on-going and have not resulted in criminal verdicts... what matters is that they were extensively covered by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• A very short paragraph. This has been getting coverage. However, per WP:RECENTISM (we're not Trumppredia or TrumpGatePedia), it should be limited.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• No. Not yet. At this point, there is an investigation begun. Investigations are begun as a result of a complaint all the time. In this case, an advocacy groups (who actually presented no evidence) made a complaint. The job of the FBI is to investigate. If there are charges that result from the investigation, the conversation may be very different. If there are convictions or penalties, this conversation may be very different. But at this point, the mere fact that an investigation started, is not that notable (except the pile on the F the NRA bandwagon). I'm not saying it will never be here, but we need there to be an actual determination of something before we start making the implication. Remember, almost everyone involed here is a living person. In addition, we all know that once it's in here, it will never get removed, even if the investigation shows no wrong-doing. There will be shrieks and howls about "whitewashing", "censoring" and "it was already decided". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do if the investigation shows no wrong-doing is to add text that says precisely that, just as we would add similar text to every major investigation that concluded without an indictment or verdict (e.g. Clinton emails scandal). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• The Clinton email scandal involved not just an FBI investigation, but House hearings, State Dept investigations, IG's, Senate committees and more. That's much, much different than "opened an investigation". Your answer shows exactly what the problem is: We react to merely opening an investigation and you plan on it staying forever, even if it goes absolutely nowhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: indictments and verdicts are no longer the threshold that you set for inclusion? We can suddenly include investigations even if we know for a certainty that they concluded with no evidence of criminal wrong-doing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's not what I said. You know it. Stop pretending I did. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes but very short. Some of the sources listed in this RfC are unreliable opinion sources and don't really speak to the issue. However the FBI investigation, which was first reported on by McClatchy, has received heavy media attention. I disagree with Niteshift36 that some sort of "actual determination" be made before we include anything in our article; that would go directly against core policies and require us to remove massive amounts of our current events content across the encyclopedia. That being said, this is a recent investigation that may lead to nothing, and there are lots of of more noteworthy things about the NRA, so I think it would be undue to have more than, say, 2 sentences at this point. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• It would not go against our core. BLP does apply here. We don't list every time some notable person has the police come to their house to investigate a noise complaint or some other crime, even though numerous reliable sources will cover it. As the OP has demonstrated above, the intention is to leave it forever, even if there is no evidence of wrong-doing. There are certain types of complaints that are required to be investigated, even if there's no evidence. Right now, you only have evidence that someone made a complaint and it's being looked at. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• The doctor is correct. WP:NPOV requires that we cover material in proportion to how it's covered in reliable sources. There is no Wikipedia policy that relates content to the stage of an investigation. This material is especially relevant in the larger context of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, and the Pro-Gun Russian bots.- MrX 🖋 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• You keep saying the NPOV requires us to cover but that's not entirely true. No, there isn't a wikipedia policy that relates to stage of investigation specifically. There also isn't a wikipedia policy for a lot of things. We adapt what is there. Once again, your teammate has already shown his intent to have the material there forever and merely add a line at the end if nothing is found. This whole thing smacks of RECENTISM and borders on being news coverage. Rather than wait a few weeks to see if there even is something, you insist that it be now, which is a non-encyclopedic view. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - A few sentences in the history section are warranted based on a number of excellent sources that have covered this. The material can be expanded if the investigation yields tangible results.- MrX 🖋 17:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Possibly - I could see something short and to the point with it. But it really depends on the exact text and sources. Some of the sources listed above are certainly not useable for this. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Weight because this article spans an organization that is over 100 years old and has been involved in many politically charged debates. The Russian investigation is casting a very wide net. No doubt that, like the McCarthy days, a number of people/organizations will get caught up even if they did nothing wrong. Currently there are no specific charges and if nothing comes of it then this certainly doesn't pass a test of weight given the scope of the organization. We also need to consider WP:Recent. Yes there have been some stories but how many are doing something other that repeating the same limited information? Thanks to the web it doesn't take much to put out a regurgitated story. Wikipedia wants encyclopedic articles and tells us to think about what will be relevant in a decade. As is the story doesn't pass that test. Some have said,"what of it does?". That violates WP:Chrystal. Springee (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the Wikipedia articles for figures and organizations who were victims of McCarthyism do cover the persecutions and investigations that they had to suffer, so it's a bizarre comparison to make. Had NRA been under investigation by the FBI for working on behalf of the Soviet Union or for its alleged communist beliefs, it would undoubtedly be in this Wikipedia article. That's kind of the point. Whether the investigation is ill-founded or not is irrelevant to whether it bears mentioning. Do you believe that we should remove text in Clinton Foundation and Jane O'Meara Sanders that notes that these subjects are currently under investigation by the FBI? Why is the NRA so unique? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How many are 147 years old and been involved in countless debates, discussions, controversies etc? Springee (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How in the world do eleven reliable source not establish due weight? The age of the subject is irrelevant to this discussion, since we are not writing a "History of the NRA" essay. If the standard for this article is that eleven sources is an inadequate threshold for inclusion, then there is large amount of material that needs to be culled from the article. Please let's please use consistent content standards.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral but don't support anything until there is specific wording proposed. In my experience, these type of RfC's about whether something in principle should be in an article tend to be interpreted later as "my version in particular should be in the article per that RfC". We ought not be in the business of allocating two paragraphs worth of real estate for whatever gets put there like we're the city zoning commission. GMG^talk 19:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support, but only a couple of sentences, which I think would be sufficient. I'd rather see more coverage of NRA-TV, or even a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - That's about Russian Interference in the elections, not really about the NRA, so a bit WP:OFFTOPIC. And it is already at the there so it does not need to go here. (It's also a cite in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections). Though there really isn't much news there at the moment -- just one source claims he's told FBI is (or was) investigating. Seems kind of obvious FBI would investigate for such possibilities as routine part of the task. Also seems much ado about nothing at the moment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  Umm... Did you happen to notice that 10 of 11 sources have NRA in the titles of the articles, and the one that doesn't actually mentions the NRA 10 times? Of course this is about the NRA!- MrX 🖋 12:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  user:MrX -- It was more noticeable that articles said "Russia" more than "NRA", and "Trump" more than either. Again, at the moment we have only reports of looking for a Russian money trail thru possible a third parties, an expectable thing FBI could look for at any/all Trump donors -- but not any actual event let alone something speaking about the NRA organization or history or impact at the NRA or anything focused to the article topic of the NRA. So just not much here and it's more about where the Russian investigation is looking than about NRA. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  p.s. So in WP terms, this is WP:OFFTOPIC as not about the WP:ORG. Also seems more than a bit wispy at the moment, so is running up against WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTRUMOR. While a news website chasing ratings be fine with mentioning routine checks as if they were special or speculate on potential things, an encyclopedia should not go here. Markbassett (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a paragraph, but we can wait a week. More sources and more info will be available. Start preparing what you'd like to include and start a section here for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it looks like more material has come available on this. See, e.g., This article published today: "Congressional investigators have learned that a longtime attorney for the National Rifle Association expressed concerns about the group’s ties to Russia and possible involvement in channeling Russian money into the 2016 elections to help Donald Trump." This is significant. Neutrality^talk 00:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• I have the same take as BullRangifer, above: Draft something here, work on it as sourcing develops, and only include it when we're more sure we should do so. There may be something here, but this is too speculative at this point. It's all primary sourcing and pseudo-secondary sourcing – i.e. usually secondary sources simply parroting what primary sources are saying (sometimes themselves doing likewise, e.g.: unnamed "congressional investigators" saying someone from the NRA "expressed concerns" about alleged ties and involvement. This is what is known as the telephone game. See the 1–10 list of sources and their nature and their own sources near the top of the "Extended discussion" section below. It's all either opinion or its cannibalization of a single "source" which doesn't itself do anything but repeat what unidentified parties said someone else said. This is not nearly good enough. Yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support a brief mention somewhere in the political activity section. It's a well-cited aspect of its recent political activity that is treated as significant in the sources, so it should probably be brought up somewhere in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Question: Which reliable source actually confirmed the investigation? I keep seeing references back to the McClatchy piece, which cites unnamed sources "familiar" with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at what the sources actually say. Almost all of this derives from the original McClatchy article. The claim that there is an investigation was published in January 2018 based on "two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy". Two unnamed sources. People with actual names from the NRA have denied ever being contacted.

1. ABC News source: Based on McClatchy report
2. Daily Beast: Based on McClatchy report
3. Newsweek: Based on McClatchy report
4. PBS: says "reports said".
5. CNN: "is reportedly"
6. The Week: Based on McClatchy report
7. Bloomberg: Based on McClatchy report
8. NYT: Never specifically says the FBI is investigating this
9. Snopes: Not a RS
10. CNBC: An op-ed piece by people from an advocacy group.

In the end, the only source who actually says it, bases it on 2 anonymous people and the others just repeat that McClatchy said so. People with actual names from the NRA have denied ever being contacted. Yet we keep acting like it's a confirmed fact and that many sources have reported it. Many sources have reported that one source said it.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Snopes is generally considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purpose. It doesn't matter if the material originates with the McClatchy Report. If anything, the fact that these reliable sources cites the McClatchy Report means that it's deemed at least somewhat reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Investigation of this magnitude don't generally happen without there being some evidence of wrongdoing.- MrX 🖋 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since we're not trying to identify a RS, USEDBYOTHERS isn't really relevant here. Usedbyothers also means "we didn't say it, they did". Investigations of what magnitude? We have 2 anonymous people "familiar" with the matter that say there is an investigation. There is no actual, verifiable evidence that it exists except everyone saying "those guys reported....". And if you think that investigations happen without actual evidence, you clearly don't know the justice system. For example, if the FBI gets a complaint about a violation of civil rights under color of authority, they must investigate it. Even if there isn't one shred of evidence, merely a complaint filed. 2 months have gone by and you haven't shown a single source that goes beyond "some dudes told us" Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

None of that matters. If you want to analyze evidence and know the identities of anonymous sources, you can become a journalist, join the FBI, or start a blog. We write what is verifiable in our sources.- MrX 🖋 20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• It does matter and I strongly suspect it would matter to you if it weren't supporting your personal POV. What is verfifiable? That two people said it, one source reported it and everyone else said "McClatchy said it". In relaity, we have a single source actually making the claim. The other sources point back at them. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We must still keep in mind WP:NOTRUMOUR, as it says Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The McClatchy Company DC office does some excellent reporting. It takes work to cultivate sources and report the news. Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• They do good work. Nobody is rejecting them as a RS. But when we look, they are the sole source, based on 2 anonymous sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

NPR has an extensive piece on Kremlin ties to the NRA today: "Depth Of Russian Politician's Cultivation Of NRA Ties Revealed"[36]. NYT had a piece in Dec 2017: "Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties"[37]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• And neither of those sources claim to know there is a FBI investigation, except by virtue of what the original single source reported. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that all these sources are making this information up?- MrX 🖋 19:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• How on earth do you get that conclusion. I'm saying none of the sources are taking responsibility for the information except McClatchy, based on 2 anonymous sources. All the other sources report that someone else said it. Protects them from being wrong later, having to correct anything or even having to report on a conclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow Snoogs that's a bombshell, thanks for the link. It puts the McClatchy-reported investigation into a broader context that I think should be reflected in our content. FWIW it looks like the first outlet to connect the Russia-Torshin-NRA dots was ThinkProgress. I don't consider them a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes but it's an interesting read especially in light of the fact that it way preceded the current investigation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• But you're missing the point. That "bombshell" doesn't say there is an FBI investigation, which is the topic here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to note that investigation is not confirmed by the in-depth researchers or the usual leak venues (e.g. NY Times and Washington Post), and it is equally WP:OR to put it next to there being some ties to Russia as if supporting investigation happened. That the FBI does investigation of many possible money trails seems plausible to the Russia investigation -- but the report of such or the fact of such does not mean any special reason to do so let alone finding anything. And is a bit of WP:OFFTOPIC spamming the item to put into the article that is supposed to focused to the NRA. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 Not that the topic belongs in this article, but single sourcing should be reflected in article text by leading with the source name, such as "McClatchy reported" or "According to McClatchy", similar to how the other reporters signal that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I find it difficult to believe that the bigger sources can confirm any of it themselves. Everyone relying on a single source publishing 2 anonymous sources should be troubling to us....well, not to some given the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Since this RfC was started 12 days ago, there has been continuing coverage of the Russia-NRA-Trump connections:

• "The gun-rights group has denied receiving any foreign money for the elections, but in a letter sent to the NRA on Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, doubled down on his probe of the NRA’s political spending."
  — ABC News

• "A prominent Kremlin-linked Russian politician has methodically cultivated ties with leaders of the National Rifle Association and documented efforts in real time over six years to leverage those connections and gain deeper access into American politics, NPR has learned.
  
  Russian politician Alexander Torshin said his ties to the NRA provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election."
  — NPR

• "A Russian politician with links to the Kremlin is claiming that his connections to the National Rifle Association (NRA) have given him access to President Trump, NPR reported Thursday."
  — The Hill

• "Alexander Torshin is a deputy governor of the Bank of Russia, a former Russian senator, and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Police in Spain believe Torshin directs financial transactions for the Russian mob, and McClatchy reported in January that the FBI is investigating whether he illegally funneled money to the NRA in order to help President Trump's campaign. Torshin joined Twitter in 2011, and since then, NPR says, he has used his verified account to tweet about how he used his NRA connections to meet Trump in 2015 and serve as a foreign election observer in Tennessee in 2012."
  — The Week

• "The National Rifle Association is fielding a growing number of questions about its ties to Alexander Torshin, a prominent Kremlin-allied Russian banker, politician, and gun-rights activist. Torshin, who has been described as "President Putin's emissary" in the US, said in 2015 that he knew President Donald Trump through the NRA."
  — Business Insider

• "For more than a year now, reports have trickled out about deepening ties among prominent members of the National Rifle Association, conservative Republicans, a budding gun-rights movement in Russia—and their convergence in the Trump campaign."
  — Mother Jones

That makes 17 available sources for this content.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's wonderful. Which of those sources is stating that there is an FBI investigation and basing the statement on something other than the report from McClatchy and their 2 anonymous sources that are "familiar" with the investigation? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Such remarks are not reflective of any Wikipedia policy, and their repeated use on this page is starting to resemble tendentiousness.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, they do reflect policy and your repeated attempts to sound like you're in a position of authority resemble a lack of good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Since this RfC was started 18 days ago, there has been continuing coverage of the Russia-NRA-Trump connections:

• FEC reviewing whether NRA accepted illegal Russian donations in 2016: report - The Hill
• FEC probes whether NRA got illegal Russian donations - Politico
• FEC Reportedly Investigating Whether Russia Used NRA to Funnel Money to Trump - Slate
• Report: FEC Investigating Whether NRA Got Illegal Russian Donations - Daily Beast
• Report: NRA Lawyer Expressed Concerns About Russia Ties - Daily Beast
• Report: FEC Probing Whether NRA Took Russian Funds For Trump Campaign - Huffington Post
• Lawyer who worked for NRA said to have had concerns about group’s Russia ties - McClatchy

• "The FBI is reportedly looking at another question that involves Trump Jr. We learned last year that Alexander Torshin, a deputy governor of Russia’s central bank, repeatedly sought to be connected to the Trumps using connections he’d made at the NRA. The FBI is reportedly investigating whether the NRA took money from Russian interests that was then used to boost Trump’s campaign. Torshin himself leveraged his relationships to reach out to the Trumps, seeking, at one point, to set up a dinner between Trump and Putin. At some point that same month, Trump Jr. and Torshin met briefly at an NRA-related event in Kentucky."
  — The Washington Post

There are more sources, but for purposes of this RfP and adhering to WP:NPOV, this brings the total to 25 sources.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Side note=

For what it's worth, participants in this RfC may be interested in contributing to Paul Erickson (activist), or perhaps starting a closely related page, Maria Butina. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Side side note. This is a related thing that happened. As per usual with John Oliver, I assume this will be followed by a deluge of media coverage. GMG^talk 11:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes but very short. (for reasons already mentioned by others)until the investigation is complete. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Membership

User:Miguel Escopeta removed the first part of "According to the NRA, membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013." yesterday with the edit summary "the cite is all that is needed here for readers to determine veracity". I tried to verify it and it doesn't appear to be that simple. The source used only attributes the claim to NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre. When I looked online, I found the following information in a Washington Post article from last monday:

But nobody really knows exactly how many dues-paying members the NRA has, because it doesn't publish annual membership figures beyond periodic allusions to “five million members” — see, for instance, the quote from NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre prominently displayed above the group's 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference booth in the photo at the top of this page.

So with that new one from last week and the one from 2017 used in the infobox, we now have three claims of 5 million members made by LaPierre over the last 5 years. While that's certainly possible, it highlights the fact that the number is neither official nor probably very precise. The article also notes that the NRA home page said it had "nearly 5 million" in February (it currently says "more than 5 million"). And from yesterday's Time:

NRA executive Wayne LaPierre announced [in May 2013] that the organization’s membership had reached 5 million, although that claim is impossible to independently verify since membership rolls and figures are not publicly released.

One interesting article on Mother Jones shows how volatile reports of their membership were in a graph from 1993 to 2013. "After the late ’90s, reports of its size start to spread out like buckshot from a sawed-off bird gun." Since there appears to be a lot of confusion regarding the exact numbers and they appear to fluctuate heavily (there are already mentions of a spike since the last shooting), what do we do with this? PS: I can't access any of the NRA-affiliated websites. DDoS? Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I restored the attribution as per the source provided: original diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Here's a similar one - Washington Post as well, but again notes inflating the numbers. Washington Post

Two other things.. here is a link to previous archive from discussion in 2013 on membership (if useful for reference) here

And I was also poking a bit and wonder if the board membership and turnover deserves more due attention? Few things noted here is that the board member list is not publicly released and the turnover of board members is around 25 of the 76 board seats turn over each year. link

Note that GQ link I wouldn't suggest adding for since it seems to be a fluffy opiniony-like piece, but regardless brings up a few fair points. Shaded0 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Language calling NRA “the oldest continuously operating civil rights organizations.”

This is a distortion of the language in the cited reference. I came to this page after seeing this claim being made on fox and friends weekend edition.

The quote from the source, Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues calls it “the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization.” Civil rights concern equal treatment under the law of parties that may be different b/c of race, gender, disability, etc., while civil liberties are those rights guaranteed by (in the case of the United States) the Constitution. This is a distortion of the facts and should be changed. Vautrinjr (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)— Vautrinjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree, but some adopt a broader definition of civil rights. However, since this appears to be WP:UNDUE, let's just take it out.- MrX 🖋 14:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Let's just take it out? What that says is "let's ignore all the other conversations about this topic". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

the NRA is definitely a civil liberties or civil rights organization - and it does claim to be the oldest operating... This Salon piece contests this on the basis that while the NRA was founded in 1871, it didn't begin lobbying until 1934, and thus the NAACP (1909) and NAD (1880) pre-date it. Since the NRA is claiming this (and the claim is being repeated by various sources) - we probably should cover the merits of the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a little dubious of the Salon article, since it is a reprint of this Media Matters blog post and should not be used for statements of fact. PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

My contention is that civil rights and civil liberties have different, distinct meanings. The language used on the page does not agree with the citation. As a IRS 501(c)4 organization, it is exempt from taxes b/c It is a “social welfare organization.” And while some would question this allowance by the IRS, it also does not mean civil rights. Vautrinjr (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)— Vautrinjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I don't care who would question the IRS, the NRA protects a civil right. Whether you like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is a civil right. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw an interview on TV. I decided to fact check using Wikipedia. The language that the interviewer used was on the Wikipedia page, even though that is not found on the NRA’s website. And the citation does not confirm the fact presented. Vautrinjr (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)— Vautrinjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It looks like the recommendation to remove language I am disputing entered by user MrX has been stricken from this talk thread as have some of the entries I made regarding the citaion [6] and the language used, which is not something cited by NRA website and appears to be erroneous. Calling the NRA a civil rights organization appears to be a fabrication without documented basis. Maybe this talk page is not th eappropriate forum to raise issues about validity of information being presented on Wikipedia. But why that unsupported claim remains on the page seems to be a deliberate misleading of the public. Vautrinjr (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)— Vautrinjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This was covered in a recent discussion. If there is new dispute about the topic the old thread should be revived and the involved parties pinged. I think the consensus was that the "oldest" claim had weight sufficient for inclusion so long as it was attributed to the NRA. Springee (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The first words after the name in the NRA site are "America's longest-standing civil rights organization". I disagree gun ownership is a "civil right" in the sense we normally think of it and that they are the oldest organization. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.[38] It is an individual civil right, just as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. My own state even disagrees with you. If a convicted felon wants to own a firearm, they have to apply to the Office of Executive Clemency to have their....wait for it....civil rights restored. [39] "A Pardon or Restoration of Civil Rights with no restrictions on firearms must be issued by the state where the conviction occurred."

On a simple factual basis the claim is false. The Howard League for Penal Reform dates back to 1866. The Reform Club dates back to 1836 but isn't really political any more.©Geni (talk)

The NRA is referring to American civil rights organizations, Howard League for Penal Reform and Reform Club are both based in the UK. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

however the sentence in the opening paragraph is making a global claim not a US claim.©Geni (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that should be corrected to be more clear that it is a American civil rights group. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since this is about an American org and even hatnotes that fact, the presumption is that it's speaking about the US. But we can add something like "the nation's..." in front of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Lots of topic drift in this conversation. The lede misquotes a source, substituting "civil rights" for "civil liberties." If you think those terms mean the same thing, then by all means have that discussion in the talk pages for the civil rights and civil liberties articles. In any event, I corrected the misquotation. (I'm curious if anyone will actually object to that.) Cinteotl (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Like where it says "Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights"? or the article Civil liberties in the United States that starts with: "Civil liberties in the United States are certain unalienable rights retained by (as opposed to privileges granted to) citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted and clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States and lower federal courts. Civil liberties are simply defined as individual legal and constitutional protections from entities more powerful than an individual, for example, parts of the government, other individuals, or corporations. The liberties explicitly defined, make up the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy"? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The question is really about whether sources commonly and consistently refer to the NRA as a "civil rights organisation", to justify a mention of this in the lead, per WP:WEIGHT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm curious whether the NRA's charter characterizes it as a "civil rights organization?" Cinteotl (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can anyone provide a few strong sources (not original research, editor opinions, and conjecture) that say that "the NRA is the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization"? If not, this needs to be removed post haste per WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 14:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from the 2 RS's already in the article? I wonder what percentage of your responses use either DUE or NPOV as reasoning? It sure seems like a lot. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• If two sources are enough to put something like this in the lead, why are there objections to including content in the article when they have 11, 10, and 17 sources respectively? - MrX 🖋 17:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• You mean the sources that start playing the "well that wasn't their original purpose" game, as if any of them were there? Dave Kopel says it as well [40]. Add that source. We also have a lot of RS's repeating the claim, attributed to the NRA. If you can count RS's repeating the claim of McClatchy reporting on 2 anonymous people, why wouldn't it count for others repeating the NRA claim? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We have four content disputes with 2, 11, 10, and 17 sources each. For some reason, the content with two sources is in the lead and the others are not even in the article. That's wrong.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• The text in the lead are attributed to the NRA. The article says the NRA claims and puts that claim in context. Springee (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is clearly WP:UNDUE in the lead (even with attribution). I would not object to it in the body so long as it is clearly attributed. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

NRATV content in news

"...NRA TV also has an entire group of shows dedicated to luring women into the gun life through things like handbags that can hold a concealed gun and gun-oriented arts and crafts where guns are monogrammed and sprayed fun colors. Shows like Armed and Fabulous are created, because according to one NRA executive speaking in a video clip, 'if you get the woman, you get the family.' Another show, Love at First Shot, helps acclimate women to using guns...."---current issue of Time

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

2601:150:100:D2A2:87E:ADBB:4E38:89C5 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC) The NRA has added a department "National School Shield" to its portfolio.

 Not done - Please present reliable sources and get consensus before submitting an edit request.- MrX 🖋 14:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Lack of advocacy for black gun owners

Should the following paragraph be added to a sub-section entitled "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners" under the "Criticism" heading?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners. The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias. Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement. The NRA came under criticism from some of its own members and other gun rights advocates in June 2017 for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile by a police officer at a traffic stop. Castile had a valid firearm permit, informed the police officer about his gun, and was subsequently fatally shot by the police officer when he allegedly attempted to retrieve his wallet. According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting. Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners, noting that the NRA promoted gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s with the intent to reduce gun ownership by racial minorities.

Sources

Survey

• Oppose. Again. You have proposed this multiple times and tried forcing the material in. I don't think that it's out of line at this point to question why you've spent so much effort to put this particular issue in. It's starting to look like a crusade. I'd also note that you didn't present this version for discussion before jumping straight to a RfC, which seems to be your weapon of choice lately. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - mainly on NPOV grounds. This cuts both ways, and bears mentioning if included, that African Americans as a voting block vote in the 90% range [41] for Democrats, and in general being critical, as a bloc, of the NRA - e.g. No group is less supportive of the NRA’s policies than black Americans, Washington Post, 8 March 2018 (and no lack of sources). Furthermore, if we were to devote such discourse to African American relations with the NRA, we would have to do so for a number of ethnic groups as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as written - The material regarding contemporary racism as it relates to recent cases is already in the article and close in text to what is proposed above. (Edit: I didn't realize it was removed. I would be OK with restoring as it was) The portion on historic racism was recently a stand alone subsection and recently removed. I'm not sure it has sufficient weight for inclusion but I'm largely indifferent either way. If consensus is include the material on historic racism I suggest we keep it as a separate section as it was here [[42]]. Springee (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Niteshift36: Actually, it is out of line for you to question why Snooganssnoogans chooses to spend so much effort on this particular issue. Cinteotl (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion. I'll give it all the consideration it deserves. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose again. Hopefully, for that last time.--RAF910 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. Do you still stand by the reasons that you presented against a similar but larger version of the sub-section?: "The fact that they give the police the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are in does not make the NRA racist. It makes the NRA cautious. Unlike most of the so called news organizations that automatically attack white police officers for shooting black suspects." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The text is reliably sourced, and the topic in question has received extensive RS coverage. I'd like to note that none of the votes above present policy-based reasons for opposing this, with one editor even going as far as to say that African-Americans are unable to take reasoned stances on the NRA, and that the content should be excluded for this reason. The editor suggests, without any evidence, that African-Americans oppose the NRA simply because they are partisan Democrats, yet when one actually reads the source that's cited[43], the African-Americans explicitly identify the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners as the source of their skepticism towards the organization. Even if African-Americans were the feeble-minded partisans that the editor suggests they are, that has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. We are not here to evaluate how right or wrong the criticism is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is basically an essay: argumentative (even though sourced), prejudicial, and inappropriate for this article about an organization. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the challenge. I think my reasons are clear: it’s an essay, argumentative, and prejudicial. I will elaborate: Basically, this is an extended, one-sided essay criticizing an organization for NOT doing enough of something the critics think it ought to be doing. That seems unencyclopedic to me, and it would need a lot more WEIGHT of coverage before we would include it. Your sources are mostly POV (I especially liked the Aljazeera source); some are op-eds; many, maybe a majority, are specifically about the Castile incident (where this criticism might be mentioned, although it currently isn’t). This article already has multiple, well sourced sections about criticism of the NRA. I don’t think this deserves to become another one. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose An article on an organization with 147 years of history/content, millions of members, and at least dozens of areas of activity. Cherry-picked constructions / talking points by political opponents are really undue. As a sidebar, the more creative type of "they are this because they didn't do this in this case" really need to be taken in that context. Particularly so because I believe that the NRA directly intervenes in only a very tiny fraction of such situations for people of any color.North8000 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Which of the reliable sources are political opponents? According to WaPo, the NRA are eager to get directly involved in cases involving white gun owners. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

One of their political opponents saying that the NRA "are eager to" is not a refutation of the fact that they only do so for a small fraction. BTW one of the two most prominent NRA-involved cases for the last century was a black person. (McDonald)North8000 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So the Washington Post is a political opponent of the NRA? Can you substantiate with RS that the NRA are prominent for their defenses of black gun owners? So far, there are 17 sources that contain critiques of the NRA for failing to do precisely that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a well cited hit piece, constructed through selectively choosing which cites are needed to build a one-sided presentation. Where are the cites for describing free classes for single mom's who happen to be black? Where are the cites for teaching newly-freed slaves gun safety and marksmanship to counter the KKK? Where are the cites for teaching LGBTQ at no charge after Pulse, many of whom were black or bi-racial or multi-racial? The NRA becomes involved in very few individual cases. The omission of involvement in one particular case proves nothing. Looks like the WP community is in agreement in not including this one-sided presentation. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please suggest some text with reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support The precise wording is not perfect and doesn't need to be, but the quantity of criticism the NRA has received for dog whistling to white nationalists could fill volumes. Not mentioning it at all would be like talking about Donald Trump or the Republican Party without acknowledging that people of color have not always been thrilled with them. The NRA only zealously aligns itself with law enforcement when it suits them; when it comes to enforcing gun laws, they are more than willing to demonize law enforcement officers and find ways to hobble police or drain their resources. If this were a BLP, we'd have to find near-perfectly neutral wording that didn't risk defaming the subject before we could go live with it, but the NRA is not a living person and if the wording is flawed, we can keep revising it in the article. Calling criticism "hit pieces" or "biased" just begs the question. That's why we call it criticism. Critics hit you; they're not your friends. All that really matters is the fact that those who criticize the NRA on race are not WP:FRINGE; they're not kooky flat-earthers. They represent a wide swath of highly notable media, pundits, academics, and activists. Summarize what they say about the NRA in a moderate tone, same as we would if this were an article about a Tranformers movie or proposed high speed rail line. Critics criticize and we summarize. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is a well-sourced and well-written description of the criticism. If there is RS coverage of the "other side" of this issue, then is should also be included in accordance with WP:WEIGHT.–dlthewave ☎ 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Fully support based on the many references and attention it has received. ContentEditman (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The text proposed here needs some refinement (I think it can also be shrunk a bit), but it this has been a consistent strain of criticism reflected in various sources over a series of years, and is therefore noteworthy. Is this the central critique of the NRA, or the most important aspect of its history or politics? No. But it is worth some mention. The proposed text also frames this all as criticism and is careful to give the organization's response. Neutrality^talk 03:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

is careful to give the organization's response. Really? The proposed paragraph says, in totality, eight words on that subject: "The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias." A vague, basically meaningless rebuttal, cited to an article which has a strong anti-NRA slant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a problem I've seen repeatedly in this article. A criticism, fair or not, of the organization is added but the details of what the NRA did and any legitimate rebuttal is not. Including the criticism is often legitimate but we fail the readers of the article if we don't offer sufficient details for people to understand and make up their own minds. I had this exact issue recently when trying to include material that explained why the NRA was against computerized sales records mandated by the ATF. Here is a rebuttal to Winkler's article. This is the sort of material that would cut down on many of the original objections since it puts things on context. [[44]] Springee (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should include a self-published 300-word blog post by a BA student, and I think it's ludicrous to demand that I add such content. Some editors think the content is too long, and should therefore be deleted in full. Other editors think the content should be shorter, and should therefore be deleted in full. I do not understand why these editors can't identify the precise sentences that should be deleted, and the precise sentences that should be added. For some reason, I'm expected to write the "perfect" paragraph according to each editor's subjective demands or else it must be deleted in full. I have honestly never experienced this before in my Wikipedia editing career (one that's full of edit disputes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Other editors think the content should be shorter, and should therefore be deleted in full. Snoogans, your understanding is wrong. When people say "oppose" they mean DELETE. They do not mean to trim the paragraph or rewrite it in a better manner. They mean that in their opinion this topic should not be in the article. At all. (My comment in this thread was not an editing suggestion; it was just to question one of User:Neutrality's arguments for inclusion.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The material was put up by a U Wisconsin Prof who has relevant credentials. Thus it gives us an idea what an expert in the field thinks. More to the point, it offers the details that the original material lacked. Springee (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As with the previous discussion and previous RFC on this same issue. This is undue and borderline fringe. MelanieN also makes some fine points as well about the section, it's placement, and sources. PackMecEng (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support -- definitely something that the NRA is known for; see also Mulford Act. For some reason, the Act article does not mention NRA's support for it, even though a source to this effect is included in the bibliography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with some minor copy editing. The material is well-sourced and easily fulfills the requirements of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The material is relevant analysis of the NRA's social/political stance. Its inclusion would benefit readers seeking to gain a fuller understanding of this organization.- MrX 🖋 19:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I would note that the argument "to gain a filler understanding..." would also apply to our late Feb conversation regarding why the NRA says they oppose electronic purchase records. Sources, including attributed statements from the NRA, saying why they oppose various laws would certainly help readers gain a better understanding of the organization. Springee (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted. I will support including any NRA statements that are referenced to 17 reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 01:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed content is well-written, and the subject has received significant mainstream coverage.

The opposing comments that attacked the motives of the OP, blamed blacks for not supporting NRA policies, and said the article already criticizes the NRA enough should be ignored. (As should those which provide no policy-based argument.) The comments that argued the subject isn’t sufficiently weighty, or is fringe, are belied by the 17 cites in the proposed content. The comments that argued the proposed content is one-sided, prejudicial, inappropriate, or uses selectively chosen or POV cites are unavailing in the absence of any evidence. Overall, among the comments that make credible policy-based arguments, the consensus is in favor of the proposed content. Cinteotl (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support in some form. The extensive sourcing shows that it's attracted enough wide-spread mainstream coverage to justify a paragraph. However, it might be worth working it into a larger section about the NRA and race - its positions on racial issues in general, its racial makeup, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of something, but not necessarily this proposed text. Some of this belongs in Shooting of Philando Castile#National Rifle Association, some of it belongs in Gun politics in the United States, and some of it belongs here. The parts specific to Philando Castile should go in that article, the parts about how gun control may have been used to restrict the rights of minorities should go to the gun politics article, and the parts that specifically criticize the NRA's involvement can be briefly summarized here and links included to those articles. At least, that's probably how I'd do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support see the news articles about wikipedia and guns linked near the top. We need to include well ref'd criticisms not just make this page an extension of the NRA website. Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful with such claims. The Verge article you reference contains a number of factual errors and grossly distorts the sequence it describes. Springee (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support but leave out details of Shooting of Philando Castile. The link to the article is sufficient. The rest of the paragraph can be included, but of course the prose can always be improved later. Ward20 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Definitely too much for here. For the size of the NRA, there should be a few subarticles in which things like these can be covered IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Haha, for what it's worth, these Wikipedia squabbles are in the "news"[45][46]. :P Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not entirely a joke that guns are anthropomorphized in some people's minds. You see the policies protecting living people being misapplied to guns as if guns themselves could be defamed or offended. Other topics too, but guns are often treated as a special case when they should be handled like any Wikipedia subject. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment None of the opposing editors have pointed to specific problems within the proposed content, nor have they suggested how it might be changed to assuage their concerns. A couple of editors have indicated that they hope this issue will go away. I wouldn't count on it. Editors may come and go, but the subject of systemic racism in the NRA is going to keep cropping up here until its addressed in the article. (This article has already hit the media. It won't take much for an activist to make it go viral.) Would you rather work to come up with a compromise/consensus now, or spend the next year going through this and every other WP dispute resolution processes (over and over and over?) Cinteotl (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's really true. What most are arguing is they don't see sufficient weight for inclusion. To paraphrase from another editor, the NRA is 147 years old and has lots of history and positions worth noting. So in that context they don't feel this information rises to the level of worth mentioning, hence weight. I'm rather neutral on that but I think it's wrong that we would include poorly supported claims of racism yet we don't include anything explaining the NRA's positions on big picture issues such as why the NRA is against universal background checks etc. Springee (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to address a couple of !votes that amount to "We can't include X unless we also include Y and Z", an argument that often appears on firearms-related talk pages. A couple of examples:

Furthermore, if we were to devote such discourse to African American relations with the NRA, we would have to do so for a number of ethnic groups as well

Where are the cites for describing free classes for single mom's who happen to be black? Where are the cites for teaching newly-freed slaves gun safety and marksmanship to counter the KKK? Where are the cites for teaching LGBTQ at no charge after Pulse, many of whom were black or bi-racial or multi-racial?

The obvious solution is to include "all of the above" if it has received adequate RS coverage. However, the burden does not fall on a single editor to ensure that their specific edit brings the article into "balance". I would encourage editors who notice that something is missing to provide sources or add the information to the article. Alternatively, the article may be added to the "todo list" at the appropriate WikiProject. Remember that if (for example) reliable sources cover perceived bias against one racial group but not another, then the article should reflect that per WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The reason the WP:BLP policy is special is that ordinarily NPOV allows for temporary bias as part of the editing process. The NPOV policy says, "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. [...]Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process." The WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM policy elaborates on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It says don't removed it based solely on the grounds that the material is biased. But it can be removed on the grounds that it is WP:UNDUE (and subsection WP:BALASP). WP:IMPARTIAL also applies to much of this. But this is such a big and controversial topic I can't imagine we could ever get everyone to agree on what material is balanced and what telling is impartial. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It can be removed if there are good reasons that there will never be a way to fix it. Where has anyone even tried? There are multiple approaches, and instead of giving any of them a go, we have an all-or-nothing fixation on giving this specific paragraph an up or down vote. Allowing the editing process to go forward and letting editors work out improvements is a robust process that will prove if it is or isn't unfixable. Investing confidence in the mere speculation that it can't ever be fixed before anyone has even tried... well, what does that say? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think the article seriously lacks balance because it doesn't cover, at a high level, the NRA's fundamental policy positions and why others disagree. Let's be honest, it's not that the NRA is in politics that's the problem, it's that, for example, the NRA is against universal back ground checks, or common sense gun laws or (fill in the blank). Much of what they do beyond that is just in support of those positions. So in the wake of the recent shooting the NRA's position on assault weapon laws has come under heavy criticizm but this article doesn't say WHY the NRA has that position in the first place. Dennis rightly mentions that if someone/I think this is a problem it's on that person/me to try to correct it. I mention this in part because I think most of our disagreements come down to weight issues. We are just having trouble agreeing on how much weight various parts of the topic should get. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So in the wake of the recent shooting the NRA's position on assault weapon laws has come under heavy criticizm but this article doesn't say WHY the NRA has that position in the first place The NRA says why they have that position every time they open their mouth: because they believe people have an absolute RIGHT to own weapons. Recently they have not been willing to allow any exceptions to that right, often citing a slippery slope argument: Ban one type of assault rifles and the next thing you know the FBI will be breaking down your door to take away your handgun. Basically, it is because they have a very literalist and absolute position on the Second Amendment. If our article doesn't already make that clear, it should. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

The section under "Criticism" labeled "Mass Shootings" is misleading and implies that the NRA could be or perceived as responsible or partially responsible for shootings in the USA. The NRA has no control of legislation as it is done by legislators and legislators are elected officials. The mass shootings section on the page is misleading and gives the readers an implied bias. FrancisCastiglione (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done the NRA is the leading lobby group against any form of US gun control and a major donor to political candidates that support their pro-gun positions. Therefore the poorly defined requested changes are not appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Media campaigns" section

Speaking of the “Criticism” section here: I think we should remove the entire “Media campaigns” subsection. It is not really about “media campaigns”; it is basically an extended quotation from ONE video advertisement, along with criticism of that ad by two people. IMO this is UNDUE excessive coverage of a single issue, masquerading as a section about a broader issue. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I would trim the quote, but keep the secondary-sourced material. The section could be easily expanded. For example, NRA-TV is not discussed in the article at this point. Here's an in-depth piece from The New Yorker:

Watching NRATV: "...the reiteration of sound bites intrinsic to this life style spills over from NRATV’s simulations of a news desk and into a flow of programming in which film of outdoor recreation, chronicles of Second World War battles, and adrenaline-pumping self-defense demos all swirl together".

--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

As is I would suggest getting rid of it. This again comes down to WP:Weight. In the scope of all the topics related to the NRA is this one thing significant? I would say no. Per K.e.coffman's comment, a section on NRATV would be a good add. Note that it shouldn't just turn into an attack article or rely to heavily on recent, negative material. I would suggest the section should start with a neutral description of what it is and why the NRA created it. Then it could follow with commentary (good and bad) about the channel and the public pressure on carriers of the channel to drop it in the last few weeks.

The subsection in question is indicative of much of what is wrong with this article. Rather than being a comprehensive telling of the situation it seems that many of the entries were dumped in over time as someone decided to put this or that, for lack of a better term, sound bite into the article. The 2008 campaign information is a great example. I'm sure there is something worth talking about there but currently the article has a single NYT op-ed bit that doesn't actually say what the NRA did or why it was wrong. It should be removed as is but I don't have other 2008 related information to put in it's place. Springee (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Any time you find yourself saying "Delete because UNDUE", please go and re-read NPOV. The policy which defines undue weight says you shouldn't delete content merely because it isn't neutral. The policy says you should fix it. It says, "here is how to recognize due and undue weight, here is what you should do about it". A little research shows that this topic was covered by many sources, not just the one or two cited. Too few sources is fixable problem, not a reason to delete all of it. Relying too much on an extended quote can be corrected. If "media campaigns" is too vague a section title, fix it by changing the title. Here's some more coverage of this ad: Washington Post, CNN, Esquire, Business Insider, Salon, Mother Jones, Newsweek[47], Washington Examiner, Time, AV Club, AIM, Moyers, Vanity Fair, Fast Company. You can find many other sources if there aren't enough to your liking here. If you don't wish to fix it yourself, you can tag it for maintenance. But delete it all? No policy is telling you that you should be doing that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Copycat media coverage all around a single point in time doesn't mean some minor aspect of the subject should be included in the article. Per WP:BALASP

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

The criticism of that add appears to be isolated to just after it happened (WP:RECENT) or a few attack articles in the last month. WP:SIZE says we should be targeting 30k-50k of article text. This article is quite long at 130k (not all is prose). Per WP:SIZE we should be considering trimming the overall length of this article and creating child articles (perhaps NRATV should be one). Again, 147 year old organization. There more significant things we could be covering here. Springee (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Copycat"? That's just your opinion. Like when all the newspapers ran stories about D-Day? Copycats? When something is covered in many, many sources, it's the sources telling you it matters, whether you like it or not. Defer to the sources.

WP:SIZE is another editing guideline, like the WP:NPOV policy, one should read carefully before citing it as a reason to delete. Maybe you want to start spinning off sub-topics, per WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Wikipedia:Recentism isn't even a guideline, let alone a policy. If this article has too much recent events coverage, then fix it by expanding the coverage of past events. Your opinion that this should be deleted is your opinion, but you can't really lean on policies and guidelines to justify it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you claim that people aren't following policy but I cited policy that doesn't support the inclusion. You've made you arguments. I've made mine. I suggest we let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy does support inclusion. It's well cited across a broad range of sources. You're not "making your augments". What you're doing is claiming policy says one thing, when in fact, as anyone can see for themselves, policy says something quite different. It's an important distinction to recognize. The words saying we should delete this are simply not there in any policy. The words in the policy pages say plainly that if the problem is NPOV, then the remedy is to fix it, not delete it. Both of you have assured us that the problem is NPOV, therefore, fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN, it is a big section for a single issue with not a ton of coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Could be the real problem (and solution) is in WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Having a garbage dump at the bottom of an article, whether nameed "Criticism" or "Pop Culture" or "Trivia" or "Miscellaneous", turns into a mess if enough time goes by. Treating this one advertisement as an event in of itself, to only cover the criticism, looks weird and loses the context. If you think about this as one part of the history of the NRA during the 2010s, it become only one facet of the push and pull of events during that time. You could say the same of the 1995 factoid about G.H.W. Bush resigning. It's pulled out of historical context. Move it up into the history section, and describe what the NRA had been doing in 1995, and it starts to read like a real encyclopedia article instead of these isolated sections where blips in the news media get a paragraph here or a sentence there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that! So much of this article reads like a context free dump of what ever someone found at the time (see the 2008 NYT Obama mention in the politics section). A higher level context and structure would really help. Springee (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for article structure

This is somewhat off topic, but I actually developed an article on an advocacy group: HIAG, which was an org in West Germany that advocated for the legal, economic, and moral rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the German SS during the Nazi era.

Here are the sections I used:

1. Formation (i.e. early history)
2. Advocacy programs
3. Historical revisionism (i.e. propaganda campaigns)
4. Transition into right-wing extremism (i.e. later history)
5. Dissolution
6. Assessment and legacy

Would an approach like this work for this article? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

While I would protest any comparison between the NRA and a neo-nazi group, the suggestion of a structure is a good start. Can you take it a bit further? What primary headings would you include? It would be great if this article were more cohesive. Do we have other advocacy organizations that might provide a template? Perhaps one of the environmental groups like Greenpeace? Springee (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No comparison to the neo-Nazi group was intended :-); it just happens to be an article that I wrote almost from scratch. But, like the NRA, HIAG was a controversial group, with an interesting evolution of its goals and tactics. They do seem similar in terms of lobbying and propaganda, though.

I'll give some thought to the subheadings. Meanwhile, I would welcome other comments / suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is probably sufficeint consensus to merge the sections of this article, per WP:STRUCTURE, WP:CRITS and WP:POVFORK. Just put it all in the order it happened. Editors disagree about everything but they can at least agree when something happened. That's good enough.

The most simple minded section names could be ==1870s==, ==1880s==, ==1890s==, etc. Or whatever time period you like. Or you could name the eras ==19th century=, ==1900 to WWI==, ==Depression to WWII==, ==Postwar==, ==Swinging 60s==. Whatever. The point is to put everything in chronological order. I would predict with confidence that if we kept every cited fact in this article, but presented them all in chronological order, more than half of the entrenched NPOV disputes about this topic would evaporate. The talk page would become almost peaceful. Anything that looked like it was given too much weight could be surround by contextual details, background, outcomes. For example, instead of arguing "this event was inconsequential!" we would see that literally, in the chronology, the even had no consequences. That's the beauty of writing a straightforward narrative instead of slicing the subject up by POVs, such as separating lobbying or criticism from the rest of NRA activities.

Start with boneheaded decade name section headings, and once the content is there, more colorful heading will practically write themselves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to handle much of it. A lot of the politics and controversy type material could fit in that structure. How would you suggest including something that has been an issue over a number of years? For example opposition to universal background checks and/or assault weapon laws? They would fit into a post 1968 time period (I picked 1968 because with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 the NRA started shifting away from gun control to gun rights - the reasons for that shift would be great material for this article if we could find good sources). I'm not certain a chronological order is best but your point about "we can all agree on it" is compelling. Springee (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's like they had a cease fire in the Korean War, and then the lack of a peace treaty was an issue decade after decade. But for years at a time everyone could ignore it until an event occurred, and then there would be lots of coverage about the event. Then back to other things. Typically these events are when a law is being debated, and the NRA makes their position well known, and there are reactions. Then the law either passes or doesn't and we look for consensus among historians as to what happened. Then on to the next event. I would expect that some parts of this will get really bogged down in small details. Once the content has been rearranged, those parts are good candidates to spawn off sub-articles so they don't detract from the main thrust of this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

NRA Russia Connection

NPR investigative piece [48] Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the related section above. Springee (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)