Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Russia connection, justification examples of Timelines' inclusion in See also

In contrast to these deletions [1][2], these Timelines are to be included in the "See also" section for reference, dated item examples given as justification:

1) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)

• January 18: McClatchy reports that the FBI is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Alexander Torshin, funneled money to the Trump campaign through the NRA.
• March 15: McClatchy reports that Congressional investigators have learned that Cleta Mitchell, a longtime NRA lawyer, expressed concern over the organization's ties to Russia and its possible involvement in funneling Russian money to support Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Mitchell denies the reports.
• March 16: Politico reports that the Federal Election Commission is investigating whether Russian entities funneled money to the Trump campaign through the NRA during the 2016 election. The inquiry was prompted by a complaint lodged by the American Democracy Legal Fund, a political watchdog organization.
• March 28: NRA outside counsel Steven Hart tells ABC News the NRA received only one contribution from a Russian since 2012, the life membership payment from Alexander Torshin.
• April 10: NRA general counsel John Frazer informs Senator Ron Wyden in a letter that the NRA accepted $2,512.85 from people with Russian addresses between 2015 and 2018. He says $525 came from contributions by two individuals, and the rest came from membership dues from 23 individuals. He notes that some of the individuals may be U.S. citizens. He acknowledges that Alexander Torshin is a life member of the NRA. Information in the letter contradicts earlier statements by the NRA.
• May 7: The NRA announces board member Oliver North will replace Peter Brownell as president of the organization after Brownell announces he will not seek a second term. The selection of North is unusual because the NRA board normally selects someone who has served two terms each as the first and the second vice president, and North has held neither position. In August, David Corn of Mother Jones points out that the move comes two weeks after the FBI raided Butina's apartment and that Brownell is an associate of Butina.
• May 8: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tells David Corn of Mother Jones that there was no December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow.

2) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)

• July 16: NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch clarifies her May 8 denial of the December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow, telling Mark Follman of Mother Jones that she meant it wasn't an official trip.
• July 23: Senators Ron Wyden, Robert Menendez, and Sheldon Whitehouse send Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin a letter demanding the "production of any documents relevant to financial links between the NRA, its associated entities and Ms. Butina and any entities or individuals related to her." The letter is a follow-up to a similar letter Wyden sent Mnuchin in February.
• November 2: The Daily Beast reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee asked the NRA for documents related to its connections to Russia, including the December 2015 Moscow trip.
• December 6: Mother Jones reports that the Trump campaign and the NRA both used National Media Research, Planning and Placement (NMRPP) to buy political ads in 2016, often with the same NMRPP employee buying ads for both Trump and the NRA for the same dates, television stations, and television shows. Former Federal Election Commission chair Ann Ravel tells Mother Jones, "I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where illegal coordination seems more obvious. It is so blatant that it doesn’t even seem sloppy. Everyone involved probably just thinks there aren’t going to be any consequences."
• December 7: The Campaign Legal Center and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence file a joint complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging the NRA and the Trump campaign illegally coordinated ad buys in 2016.
• December 13: Butina pleads guilty in a D.C. federal court to trying to infiltrate the U.S. conservative movement as an agent for the Kremlin. She admits to working with Erickson to forge bonds with NRA officials and conservative leaders while under the direction of Torshin. In her plea agreement, prosecutors agreed to drop a charge of failing to register as a foreign agent in exchange for cooperation. In the statement of the offense, Erickson is identified as "U.S. Person 1", Torshin as the "Russian Official", the Republican Party as "Political Party #1", and the NRA as the "Gun Rights Organization".

3) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)

• January 11: Mother Jones reports that the NRA appears to have coordinated ad buys with Republican candidates in at least three U.S. Senate races. Like the scheme reportedly used by the NRA and the Trump campaign, National Media Research, Planning and Placement (NMRPP) CFO Jon Ferrell placed scores of ad buys on behalf of the three senate campaigns and the NRA to air ads within minutes of each other on the same local television stations. The three senate campaigns were Senator Richard Burr's 2016 reelection campaign in North Carolina, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley's successful 2018 campaign to unseat Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, and the unsuccessful 2018 campaign by Montana state auditor Matt Rosendale to unseat Montana Senator Jon Tester.
• September 27: The Democratic minority of the Senate Finance Committee releases a report which finds that the NRA acted as a "foreign asset" to Russia ahead of 2016 election. The report presents detailed evidence of NRA officials' interactions with Russian nationals that bring into question the tax-exempt status of the NRA, including many details of the December 2015 Moscow trip that internal documents show was an official NRA function despite subsequent public denials.

X1\ (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No reason to spam this (and many other) article with a bunch of Trump links. It looks like a kind of POV pushing. The article has a section on Russian efforts to use the NRA. Any links can be made (and already are) in that section. Springee (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: feel free to include these Timelines in context there. X1\ (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No reason to. We have the relevant information in the article already. The lead in to the section on Russia includes a link to the timeline of interference in the 2016 election. That is the parent topic for the three lists you added to See Also. Per MOS we should think about it as what might someone what to read after reading this article. Well if you read the Russia stuff the parent article is right there so there is no reason to make 60% of the "see also" links subsets of the parent article. This is especially true when the Russia investigation is only a small part of the NRA article and is only related to the last 3 years. The DUE material is already in the article. The timeline articles are effectively list articles so it's not clear they are really good link candidate anyway. As an alternative proposal, what about replacing the current in article link, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections with a link to the parent topic Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections? If someone is interested in the bigger topic that is the place to go, not the timeline. That also puts the link in a germane location vs at the end of the article. Springee (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Updated Springee (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking back I realized I must have missed the Jan addition of the material and only noted the Dec modification as a new addition. I've restored the Dec 3 version of the "see also" but I think it should be removed as UNDUE. The problem is 3 fold. 1. The 2016 timeline link is already in the Russia section and per MOS we shouldn't have the same links in the article body and in the see also. Per MOS the see also section should not contain a link that is already in the article. 2. As I said above, a single link in the relevant section to the parent topic makes more sense. Readers who are most interested in reading more about the Russian interference are likely better served by a top level link there vs timeline links later. Linking to what amounts to a list article that isn't really about the NRA. Again, this is why a link, in the Russian section, to the parent article makes more sense. The relationship between the content of the timeline lists and this article are not obvious absent searching for the keyword NRA in the lists. 3. Placing that much emphasis on Trump-Russia material, which largely doesn't involve the NRA and to the extent it does it's largely Russian agents deceiving the NRA, becomes a question of due. The Trump investigation is a tangential topic to the NRA and as of 3 years ago they had no linkage. Even a single See Also link is questionable. To have 3-4, well over half the see also link becomes a bit of a NPOV issue. Anyway, the easy way to solve this is by changing the Russian section link to the parent article to point to the primary Trump-Russia article. Springee (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@X1\:, I object to your recent edits. While the material I restored was added in January, you just restored recent edits which I objected to as soon as they were added. Those edits compound two problems I outlined above. 1. An undue emphasis on the Trump-Russia topic via too many links. That topic is tangential to the topic of this article. 2. The links to list articles should only link to the parent article, not the sublists. Also, there is still the issue that one of the links already exists in the Russia section. Basically this is a mess that needs to be cleaned up. However, I've offered a good option to address the problem above. Springee (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@X1\:, the changes you have restored are not long standing and I'm objecting to your Dec 3 changes. Thus you either can claim the Jan version which has MOS issues or you can work on a compromise solution which is what I've done. Your UNDUE inclusion of 4 subarticles isn't a good option. That you haven't made any reasonable effort to address the problems here is also an issue. Springee (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

1) Items are long-standing, see 01:16, 17 January 2019.

2) "Further" was added later (20:28, 9 November 2019)

3) Onel5969 helpfully created a dab (Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)) 12:56, 24 November 2019, after "2018" was split. Obviously the dab is not the correct wikilinks.

4) I check which of the two halves this topic related, and it was both halves. So I changed the dab to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018) and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018) (see example items related above)

5) Then (1:30, 3 December 2019) you, Springee, deleted all four of the Timeslines from "See also" with an ES of "All relevant links are already in the article." (Which they are not.)

6) When I noticed (00:47, 27 December 2019 ), I restored, assuming good faith, with an ES of "restore wlinks (from diff=929002852&oldid=928998986), not found in article (and update): ..."; the update being the article title Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) had been changed to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). Same article is linked.

7) You undid those corrections 04:35, 27 December 2019, with an ES of "This does not need to be in this article."

8 & 9) I undid your revert (21:52, 27 December 2019) with an ES of "(See Talk:National Rifle Association#Russia connection, justification examples of Timelines' inclusion in See also", after creating (21:51, 27 December 2019) a B.R.Discussion here.

10) You undid my corrections again (22:31, 27 December 2019 ) with an ES of "Get consensus before restoring. No reason to place this on every page with even a limited connection." (Even though the Consensus, due to the long-standing, was Keep, and the Bold was deletion.)

11a) 22:35, 27 December 2019 you respond on this Talk page.

11b) While (also 22:35, 27 December 2019) I restore the "See also" Timelines, with an ES of "Follow BRD and goto Talk; these are longstanding, see diff=878804707&oldid=878710203 01:16, 17 January 2019".

12) I respond here (22:37, 27 December 2019) that all relevant Timelines are not in this article.

13) 22:38, 27 December 2019 you delete the restoration again, with an ES of "This is a disputed addition. Per NOCON it stays out until consensus is established." (again long-standing, so is Consensus; not the other way around)

14) and you respond (22:41, 27 December 2019) on my Talk page admonishing me for not due doing BRD (how ironic)

15) I attempt to direct the discussion back to the article (NRA) and the topic at hand (22:43, 27 December 2019) by moving your comment from my Talk page to here; as wp is not about personalities but content.

16) You respond by overwriting my move of your comment on my Talk page to here, with another response by you (22:44, 27 December 2019), saying they are here "already". (They are not.)

17) You tell admonish me on my Talk page to not move your comments (22:48, 27 December 2019), on my Talk page.

18) And continue (02:28, 28 December 2019) here.

19) 03:20, 28 December 2019 you self-revert (kind of), with an ES of "I missed that the Dec 3 edit was a modification vs new. Restoring Dec 3 version until issue can be resolved. This is not support of this content". Your "self-revert" is to Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018) (disambiguation) (it is SPLIT now) and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019) (wrong title).

20 & 21) 21:45, 28 December 2019 I remove your admonishment from my Talk page, with an ES of "added explanation at article Talk page." and restore it with "added explanation" here.

22) 21:41, 28 December 2019 I attempt to correct your "kind-of self-revert", with and an ES of "restore correct wLinks (due to previous split) Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018) & Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018) (instead of Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018)); and since renamed Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020) (instead of Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)" again in AGF attempt to clarify.

23) 00:34, 29 December 2019 you deleted my move with "added explanation".

24) 00:39, 29 December 2019 additional Springee comment.

25) 17:35, 29 December 2019 you delete all the Timelines from "See also" and change the "further" to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

26) 19:48, 29 December 2019 I revert that with an ES of "No consensus to change long-standing items, continue at BRD."

27) 20:06, 29 December 2019 additional Springee comment.

Hopefully I have all the back-and-forth captured and ordered correctly. X1\ (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Updated, again. X1\ (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC) And again. X1\ (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

X1\, that timeline of this discussion doesn't address the MOS issues I've raised. Springee (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Springee although the topic you raise is not the topic of this thread specifically, I also would find it helpful to have the *addition* of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (in this case at the "further"). In no way does this replace the long-standing Timelines.

You incorrectly say this has been going-on for 3 years, which shows you have not only not read the Timelines, you have not read Maria Butina § 2011's timeline either.

These misunderstandings are why the Timelines are needed here. X1\ (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Y I changed the "further" per our apparent consensus on that side topic. X1\ (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As a side, but related note: Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017) have NRA/Butina items also. X1\ (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

X1\, you still fail to address simple MOS issues with your edits here. For example, the link to the 2016 timeline exists twice. That is something that MOS explicitly says we should not do with a "see also" link. The lists here are problematic to read around and hence were collapsed. Your timelines cover 3 years so please don't take my comments and apply a disingenuous meaning. I think we are going to need some outside help since you aren't willing to follow MOS and are willing to engage in an edit war to support both UNDUE linking and violations of the MOS. Springee (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@X1\: The stack of links to Russia-related lists in the "see also" section is at odds with MOS, see MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: your MOS:NotSeeAlso refers to not having disambiguation pages, which is what I correctly replaced from Springee's "kind-of self-revert". Besides that, not only isn't there a "stack", only half of the Timeline(s) are listed. X1\ (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: What are you talking about? Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections only exists once in the article.

You are correct, I mistook the 2016 timeline article (parent article) for the 2016 timeline investigation (child) article. Can you offer some reason why we should include "also see" links to sub-articles rather than a single link to the parent article? I do see that you are a primary contributor to the investigation timeline articles but those are largely just lists vs narrative articles. Why have direct links? I rather doubt we use a "see also" for every article where the NRA is mentioned. Again, in context of the overall subject this is a DUE weight issue. Springee (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: they are timeline segments, not parent/child or article and sub-articles. X1\ (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, please don't spam ping me. A single ping is sufficient. The Russia investigation is certainly a topic you have put a great deal of effort into. That doesn't mean every remotely related topic needs to have a link to every subarticle you find important. The investigation timelines are basically list articles and they are simply supporting articles of the primary topic which is the Russian interference in the 2016 election. They ARE parent-child topics. If the interference didn't happen the investigations wouldn't happen and we wouldn't have investigation timelines. The timeline articles are lower order lists vs the primary topic. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: you have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the connection between the NRA and Russia which is spelled-out in the Timeline (segments). Your responses in this thread show why direct wLinks are necessary. X1\ (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitur. The timeline articles are lists. They say when various journalists or political groups (typically those who are opposed by the NRA) mention that the NRA was used by a Russian agent. But if the material you feel is so important is DUE then it would be in this article's body, not in a list article. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: again, what are you talking about? Your timelines cover 3 years? "Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" starts in 1986, over 33 years ago. Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections § 2011 has "Maria Butina founds the "Right to Bear Arms" organization." and (April 29 – May 1) Nashville lawyer G. Kline Preston IV introduces Russian Senator Alexander Torshin to National Rifle Association (NRA) president David Keene at the NRA annual meeting in Pittsburgh. A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.; over eight and a half years ago. X1\ (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess I didn't realize Trump was running for the 2016 election 33 years ago. Again, that is a non-issue. What you seem to be saying is that the NRA should be considered guilty of something because the Russians decided to try to use them unwittingly. Again, if this material is DUE why isn't it in the body of the article vs in a see-also tag at the end. Springee (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, you your sarcasm belies your misunderstanding of the topic, i.e. unhelpful. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, considered guilty? ... what are you talking about? Why are you not just following the RSs and wp process? X1\ (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, feel free to build this article since you wonder out loud why isn't it in the body of the article ... yet. X1\ (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\:, linking to each of the disambiguated pages vs just a parent article isn't really a proper solution. Can you justify why we should have each page vs just a link to the parent article on the subject? @Shinealittlelight:, what is your thought on having the 5 links to basically related pages vs just a single link to the overall topic? Springee (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: you have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the connection between the NRA and Russia which is spelled-out in the Timeline (segments). Your responses in this thread show why direct wLinks are necessary. X1\ (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: apologies, I meant to be referring to that whole sub-section of the MOS. Specifically, the current version appears to violate the MOS requirement that the links should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. In my view, based on editorial judgment and common sense, we should also limit the see also entries to a reasonable number of links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, which I think the current version also does not do. @Springee: Five links is in my view not a reasonable number of links. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Examples from other segments:

4) Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

• 2011
  • Maria Butina founds the "Right to Bear Arms" organization.
  • April 29 – May 1: Nashville lawyer G. Kline Preston IV introduces Russian Senator Alexander Torshin to National Rifle Association (NRA) president David Keene at the NRA annual meeting in Pittsburgh. A witness claims financial support for Torshin by the NRA was discussed.
• 2012
  • April 12–15: Torshin attends the NRA annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri with an "all access" pass.
  • November 8: Torshin visits the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia.
• 2013
  • May 3–5: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA convention in Houston, Texas.
  • Early October: Butina makes a presentation on "Right to Bear Arms" to the Association for the Promotion of Weapons Culture in Israel. Her presentation includes a slide claiming her organization has cooperation agreements with similar organizations in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Estonia, and she informs the group that it also has a cooperation agreement with the NRA. Another slide states it has a cooperation agreement with the International Defensive Pistol Association, which the Texas-based organization denies when asked in 2018.
  • Early November: Keene, Alan Gottlieb, Gottlieb's wife, and Paul Erickson attend the "Right to Bear Arms" conference in Moscow where they meet with Butina and Torshin. Gottlieb and Keene are invited speakers at the event. Gottlieb and his wife dine with Torshin and Butina, and receive "gifts that [display] research into their interests." In 2017, Gottlieb tells the Washington Post, "They wanted to keep communications open and form friendships."
  • December 10: John Bolton promotes gun rights in Russia in a video made for Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" organization.
• 2014
  • Butina tells an American Facebook friend who complained about California's gun restrictions that he should "hold demonstrations" for gun rights.
  • April 24: Butina presents NRA president Jim Porter with an honorary membership in "Right to Bear Arms".
  • April 25–27: Butina and Torshin attend the NRA annual conference in Indianapolis. Butina attends several meetings as a guest of Keene.
  • Late 2014: Butina resigns from her position as the head of "Right to Bear Arms".

cont. ... X1\ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Springee and PackMecEng, 320 days is long-stand, thus consensus. If time didn't matter in its meaning, there could never even be a moment in which consensus existed. For review of discussion, start at item number 1 above.

Since the items are long-stand, deleting them is the Bold in BRD, which has been Reverted, so now we continue Discussion, if you so desire.

If you want me to continue (as it was a Work-In-Progress) illustrating the avalanche of RSs (above) that show why the items were more than DUE (added back in Janauary 2019), I am willing to do so. X1\ (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus appears to be to exclude all the links. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, a long-standing (320 days) consensus has established. I continue to support that consensus, and Springee does not. X1\ (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:SILENCE. Just because it has been there a while does not mean it is not a bold edit that has been challenged. By my count 3 different editors disagree with you and from my read Springee is correct that consensus to exclude from see also has been established. There is already a section in the article about the Russian interference angle and it is way undue to also add all those links in the see also section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As Springee incorrectly stated previously, the section in which your refer, PackMecEng, doesn't include all relevant links, as illustrated by this fragment of the relevant RSs alone, is DUE. As I stated earlier, I am willing to add to what is already an avalanche of RSs supporting the established consensus.

I must say it feels odd that you want to devote so much effort to delete a couple of relevant wikilinks. X1\ (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The section National Rifle Association#Russian influence is about general interference. If the read wants to read more on the minutia of the timeline they can go to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which is linked in that section. The timelines serve no purpose to be in the see also section. Yes there are a lot of sources on the topic, which is why this article has a section on it, they are not what determines what goes in the see also section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, why are you devoting so much effort to keep them? That same question can go both ways. Also, it's a problematic form of editing to accuse me of a mistake I already admitted. At the same time, I'm correct in that if the article text points to the primary topic there is no reason to include all these also see links to the sub-topics. At this point please listen to others. Consensus can change and silence was always a weak consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus may have been considered "weak" before, but that was before the start of including backing RSs, which is strong. X1\ (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X1\, while the content does have an assumed consensus, having not been challenged. However, that isn't a strong consensus. Now we have three editors, myself, PackMecEng and Shinealittlelight who have objected. That is a new consensus. Springee (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not a new consensus, it is a challenge to the established consensus. X1\ (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start a RFC if you feel this new consensus needs more input. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with these points. It's a new consensus. And the new consensus is policy based: as pointed out above, the edit is out of step with WP:MOS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Since WP:SILENCE was called, we should review this part: [[3]]. "Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change. " This is a case where consensus has changed. Springee (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

See here and here. By pointing to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, Springee, you are conceding there is a (long-standing) consensus. X1\ (talk)

Was a consensus. Yes, the material was in the article for a while and no one opposed it until now. However, three editors have opposed an only you, the editor who added it in the first place supports it. This is a new consensus. Please respect it. Springee (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is a challenge to the established consensus, and a while is, in fact, almost a year; plus now backed by an avalanche of RSs. X1\ (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Excessive Links to the Trump-Russia timeline articles in See Also section

The above discussion has become hard to follow due the volume of content vs discussion text above. I've added an UNDUE tag to the See Also section. The timeline articles are child articles of the parent topic Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. The child articles include Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as well as the related "Timeline of investigation..." articles. The primary topic is already linked in the Russian interference section of the NRA article. The inclusion of 4 links to the child articles in the see-also section is UNDUE and simply unneeded. @X1\ and Shinealittlelight: Springee (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This had no consensus for inclusion in the first place (it was simply never challenged) now it has consensus for removal 2:1. Removed. Springee (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

See my response above, under main thread. X1\ (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

X1\, first, there clearly is a new consensus against inclusion. You are the only editor who has ever supported inclusion. The material was simply not challenged at the time you added it. Admittedly, at the time you added it the Timeline topic hadn't been split into as many sub-articles. Your wall of text didn't convince others that the material was DUE. I think these timelines should probably be removed from all articles where they are added as "See also" links. After all, we have a primary topic on the Trump-Russia topic and we don't need to add "see also" links to every subpage of that topic. Springee (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I agree with you, Shinealittlelight and PackMecEng. In fact, after a quick review of the timelines (tl;dr), we probably should remove all the speculation relating to the 2016 Trump campaign now that the Mueller report has been published. I doubt there will be anything notable worth keeping much less encyclopedic (timelines of allegations and speculation are not encyclopedic) so an AfD may be in order. Articles like Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and a few others that attempt to imply collusion should be reviewed as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Redo ping PackMecEng I messed up. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User Springee is removed referenced content.

This is tantamount to vandalism.

I would welcome the user Springee to provide an explanation for removing referenced content, which has been concisely worded and maintains NPOV. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I will not take sides over the edit, I will take sides over calling a content dispute vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the issue? Removing referenced content is vandalism, and we are without an explanation. The mention of UNDUE is nonsensical. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No it is not. Do not use the word vandalism again when referring to a content dispute. O3000 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

What is it then? Disruptive editing? We still have no explanation for the removal of the content. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edits do not have consensus, I ask you to revert until you do so. And yes an explanation was given it breached wp:undue, you need to make the case why it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was that it is not supported by the sources per MrX and Springee saying that it is undue for the article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The way it works, is if you're making a claim of UNDUE you need to provide an explanation of why it is undue. Consensus is not required for minor edits, and regardless, consensus is not necessarity the truth - WP has policy regarding this. Facts are facts. Disagreement based on POV is not a sufficient reason to raise an UNDUE claim. The source also supports the addition. Suggest you read it again. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

So there is a lot to unpack here. Per WP:ONUS it is on you to provide justification on why content should be included. That was not a minor edit, it added new and controversial content. Consensus should be obtained when an edit it challenged. See WP:TRUTH, for the consensus is not truth. Per WP:CIVILITY, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, do not accuse other editors of being POV pushers. Comment on content not contributors. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy that states that "consensus is not necessarity the truth". We are not obligated to include any and all material that can be sourced; we are selective. Please make a case as to why this material should be added to the article. Once your edit has been challenged, that's what you are supposed to do, not edit war or insist on your preferred version. — Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a simple matter of fact should be considered controversial. The UNDUE claim has not been established, yet an edit war was started by revisionists. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You will soon find yourself fully blocked if you keep attacking other editors. WP:AGF WP:FOC O3000 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not telling us why you think it is not undue. Why is this relevant, what does it tell us about the NRA?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we focus on the issue please. Why was the edit reverted? You are the one making the claim that my edit was 'undue' here. So, how and why is was it undue? What was wrong with the edit? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, no I am not. I said that was the stated reason someone undid it. Also read policy again, it is not down to us to justify exclusion, it is down to you to justify inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Legal Basis for Jurisdiction for New York States Attorney General's (NYSAG) 2020 Lawsuit

I believe the paragraph on the NYSAG's lawsuit should clarify that the basis for the NYSAG's jurisdiction to seek dissolution of the NRA is that the NRA's founding charter was granted by NYS. This is a rarely known fact that speaks directly to the authority to dissolve an ostensibly national organization. NovaCrest5878 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree — it's clearly stated in the source, and reflected in prior footnotes #1 and #6. Lindenfall (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

^[4]

The case for adding mention of links to the far-right

Can we please collate here links to research, reports, and make a case to include mention of links to the far-right and white nationalist organisations.

It should go without saying that any organisation with links to the far-right would warrant mention of that on Wikipedia. There should be nothing controversial about adding simple, established matters of fact to an article.

There's at least one well-documented case of a link to the Australian far-right political party One-Nation.

• https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/thetake/2019/05/al-jazeera-infiltrates-nra-australia-190517133738839.html
• https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/03/25/1760444/0/en/How-to-Sell-a-Massacre-an-Al-Jazeera-Investigation-into-Australia-s-One-Nation-Party-and-Gun-Lobby.html
• https://www.ft.com/content/01997e92-4f79-11e9-b401-8d9ef1626294
• https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/australia/australia-one-nation-nra-intl/index.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/26/one-nations-james-ashby-filmed-lobbying-for-20m-in-nra-donations-to-weaken-australias-gun-laws

Some research on the NRA, sociology and race:

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259526523_The_National_Rifle_Association_and_the_White_Male_Identity
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328517034_Gun_Culture_in_Action_Social_Problems
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318176136_The_sociology_of_US_gun_culture
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268260690_Varieties_of_Popular_American_Nationalism
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Whitehead4/publication/326044604_Gun_Control_in_the_Crosshairs_Christian_Nationalism_and_Opposition_to_Stricter_Gun_Laws/links/5b3534240f7e9b0df5d8299d/Gun-Control-in-the-Crosshairs-Christian-Nationalism-and-Opposition-to-Stricter-Gun-Laws.pdf?origin=publication_detail

WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem maybe one of implication. Whilst they may have links to one or two far right organisations, this is due to gun rights. The NRA backs anyone who is pro-gun [[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would having in common the issue of gun rights, prohibit inclusion of the organisation's far-right links? What is your concern about implication? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

That they back far right groups because they are far right, not because they are pro-gun.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

But isn't that kinda obvious? They're a gun lobby group. I hear you, but qualifying these links as being solely around the issue of gun rights is incorrect. The research above shows that they share racist views with these groups, and even offer financial support to them. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually we do already hint at this. The problem is trying to used link to specific parties to try and make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hinting at something doesn't sound very encyclopaedic, I'm sure we can improve on that. Readers should be able to see any such connections clearly, such as by linking to the far-right page and any other relevant Wikipedia articles. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We have to be very careful with what we add to an encyclopedia. You say that they offer financial support to far-right organizations. But the links you provided just say that a group asked them for funds. I don’t see where any were provided. Do they have links to white supremacist organizations. Personally, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But, that requires excellent sourcing. WP:IRS O3000 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Certainly agree it's important to maintain a NPOV with subjects such as this. FYI the political support for One-Nation was recorded on camera [6][7]. Financial support is harder to assert as you say, but we can say there has been "support". WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WinstonSmith is right. There are ample sources indicating connections between the NRA and far-right groups, and they belong in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

So the next stage is to offer up a suggested edit (here on talk) to see if this can be worded in a way that meets the concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I would suggest restoring this edit: [8], which you and others such as User:Springee have been reverting for no apparent reason, and has resulted in an incident being raised on the admin noticeboard. So, is there anything wrong with my wording there? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You were given a reason, it is about just one (very very minor) Australasian political party (also advice and support is not the same thing), as such its inclusion is wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also read wp:tendituous, you know that passage has been objected to, by at least 1 user (other may have rejected it for other reason, or for that reason), thus to continue to argue for inclusion of this passage might well be tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - the size of the political party is immaterial in this context, most far-right parties are small, fringe groups but are associated with a disproportionate level of violence and rhetoric. Advice is a type of support, it is disingenuous to suggest it is not.

The fact the party is Australian is not a valid reason to reject this text either. English Wikipedia has a global audience and the NRA has been shown above to have international links. There's also links to organisations in New Zealand, but one thing at a time. At present readers are not clearly alluded to these dealings with the far-right One-Nation party, only a vague mention of opposition to gun-law reform in Australia exists currently.

Can we also please focus on the content, and perhaps reach agreement by fleshing out the statement? Would mentioning who solicited the support, and who offered it help clarify things? Such as by saying something along the lines of 'the Australian far-right party one-nation sought out and received support or advice from the NRA?' What are your objections to that text? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I never objected to it because they are Australian. The issue is they are not big enough, and thus this is not significant enough to warrant inclusion,. expanding it does not address that concern.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We are speaking English: you put "(very very minor)" in brackets, making the size auxiliary to your objection that it was an Australian party. All registered Australian political parties have pages on Wikipedia, so they are already noteworthy. Nothing you have raised meets UNDUE criteria. I get the feeling you are not intent on engaging in good faith here. Would you be happy to seek a WP:3O on this? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure because in maths it would say that part is first, not ancillary. If you want to seek a third opinion go ahead, before you do note that I am not the only user who has objected to this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1. I see no stated objection to this being Australian.
2. For the nth time, would you stop assuming bad faith. No one has exhibited bad faith in the least.
3. If you can find a trend that’s one thing. But, having given some advice of some kind to one small party in the world is UNDUE.
4. This page has 417 watchers. There is no reason to use 3O. Indeed, use of 3O on active politically related articles is highly unusual. O3000 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to assume this is a "small" party anyway. Their share of the vote was small given their clearly extremist views, but the leader of One-Nation is Pauline Hanson and it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else hasn't heard of her. Millions of Australians certainly have. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What's even more unusual, is the repeated, tendentious reversions of the simple, matter-of-fact NPOV addition to the article I made. A third opinion is necessary in light of this belligerence. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty clear that this page is whitewashed by numerous pro-NRA POV warriors. Just even a quick read of the lede section would give a reader the false impression that all is well and good in gunland.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're responding to me, I personally think the NRA is one of the most dangerous organizations in the US, if not the most dangerous. That's no reason to ignore Wikipedia policies. O3000 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss our views on the NRA, or to defend ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe millions have, but this article is not about Australasia, its about the NRA. Thus material here has to be relevant to the readers understanding of who they are and what they represent. Them having had contacts with one minor (Australian) political party tells us nothing about their links to anything. Any more then my saying this should not be here means I am some agent of the NRA. You have been presented with a third option, re-write this to make it about a general trend, not one party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It tells us about the NRA's links to the far-right which is important and relevant information about the organisation currently missing from the article.

Australasian readers do need to be kept in mind and should not be discounted in such a way - they all have access and now have reason for interest in this article too. Especially considering recent terrorist events which highlights the importance of mentioning these links. Wikipedia English is international in nature and American readers are also entitled, and may well be curious to know about the NRA's international links to a far-right party in Australia anyway, because this is an established fact in contrast to the term "National" in the National Rifle Association.

One-Nation's political influence is not insignificant either. They have seats in the legislature and purport themselves to represent the interests of gun-owners in Australia. As already stated, all registered Australian political parties have Wikipedia articles, which attests to notability and refutes your claim of UNDUE.

We can only assert what is incontrovertible, making an ambiguous or general statement isn't improving the article as much as making concise mention of their dealings with this one far-right party.

Anecdotally, there's also responsible gun-rights advocates that detest the methods employed by the NRA, which is another reason to include the mention of any far-links. Inclusion of mention about far-right links should be made for the sake of responsible gun owners if nothing else. FWIW I hope you haven't assumed me to be "anti" guns or whatever. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, it tells us they have had some contact with A (one, singular, and minor) far right political party. The EDL have a page, the BNP have a page, none of those are major political parties.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The major point of difference between One-Nation and those parties, is the NRA hasn't been exposed by investigative journalists to be providing support to them, at least to my knowledge. I'm only asking to include mention of this simple matter of fact. The number one is infinitely more than zero. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This will be my last reply to you here, we are just going round in circles. I object to the inclusion of this, I have explained why, either an wp:RFC or wp:dr is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

One Nation are most definitely not a “minor” party. However, there is no need to call them “far-right” (even though they are). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It's okay to disagree and I bear no animosity towards you BTW. There's just an elephant in the room, so to speak. That elephant is the subtle omission of any mention about links to far-right parties - there needs to be at least one clear and concise mention about the "far-right" - using that exact hyphenated and hyper-linked word I would suggest, for readers to be aware that the organisation does, in fact, deal with these types of people. Omission of relevant information is a form of bias. Please understand my concern comes at least in part from a position of responsible gun-owners being done a disservice by the NRA's dealings with the far-right. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop with the argumentum ad hominem. Address what people have said, such as making this about more then one pathetically small Australian party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Who said what that was ad hominem? I wouldn't even think about using emotive pejorative like 'pathetic' here on Wikipedia. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Geez, people, lighten up. My comments were not directed at any contributors but at the slanted direction of the article. It wasn't an ad hominem attack but an ad articleslanted attack. It's a slanted article. Deserves a slanted article tag.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The 3O has been launched [[9]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course the NRA will have links to other far right organisations. Stands to reason, dunnit. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but then we say that (sourced to RS that say that).Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is my first (limited) chance to reply to any of this. I agree with Slatersteven, the linkage is too minor to mention on an article that covers so much ground. The paragraph in question says the NRA has opposed not just restrictive gun laws in the US but also ones in other countries. That they consulted with an Austrailian political party that sought their input on strategies for dealing with gun control isn't significant in the total scope of the article. The way the material was added that suggested the NRA was working with them because they are far right vs because of their stance on gun control is possibly SYN and certainly something that would need direct citations. Springee (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It most certainly is very significant that the NRA should be dealing with any (one, or more) far-right political party, and that fact alone warrants it's inclusion. The wording did not allude to the NRA being far-right, at all. That perception is incorrect because the text clearly described the one-nation party as 'far-right', not the NRA. WP:CIR comes to mind because to read into that text and assume it paints the NRA as far-right is a reading comprehension issue. The citation was included, but you reverted it. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia articles about other special interest groups routinely mention "links" to far-left groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.157.242 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the movie Miss Sloane on this page

Is it possible to mention the anti-NRA movie Miss Sloane on this page? Thanks in advance. 02:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why mention it? Do RS's about the NRA mention it? Springee (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder that, what does this tell us about the NRA?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Philando Castile

The killing of Philando Castile was a wrongful death case, not a second amendment or gun rights case, as explained in this youtube video link (at 17:00 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEWJIHuD1uI Including it in the section named "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners" to insinuate racism makes as much sense as accusing the ACLU of racism for not claiming his first amendment free speech rights were violated. It is just sophistry.2001:5B0:50D6:D028:69EF:D065:EC41:F747 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

YOutube is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

did the NRA do anything before the 2020 United States presidential election ?

(anything worth to mention ?)

https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=%22NRA%22+2020+Trump+%22election%22

--Präziser (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it, if only 1 RS gave a damn fails wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Filing for brankruptcy

Just heard in the news the NRA has filed for bankruptcy. Can someone add that in please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.89.96 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there is some question above whether the NY law suit should be mentioned in the lede, NRA's proposed reaction to the NY lawsuit should be subject to the same question. NRA was chartered in New York State in 1871; NY Gov Andrew Cuomo and his SAG are currently seeking to destroy NRA over gun politics. NRA is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to allow it to reincorporate out from under the thumb (or iron heel) of Emperor Cuomo of the Empire State. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The long and short is, yeah. the NRA is basically moving out of NY.

... and honestly, good riddance. The NRA has become somewhat infamous for failing to actually do their job. But, in any case, there likely should be a mention of it moving out, yeah. --SkynetPR (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, so there is no need to discuss your opinions here. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) Ayvind-Bjarnason

Criticism, Gun Control, Survey of NRA members

This states "A survey of NRA members" and points to a survey. The survey is of the general public, 2703 people, of which 169 self-identified as NRA members. That is nowhere near a sufficient sample size when claiming to be representative of the five million NRA members. There should be 500-750, depending on the confidence level and interval. Is this a problem? At the very least it appears the wording should be changed.

Meanwhile, the NRA commissioned a survey of 1,000 members and got quite different results. https://web.archive.org/web/20140821155836/http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf QuilaBird (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

History

One thing I think is missing from the history aspect of this is the lack of mention of it's rivalry (in the 70's/80's and beyond) with HCI (currently known as the Brady campaign). We currently talk about their motivation in this time frame as it relates to the '68 GCA.....but we omit all the things gun control groups (at the same time) were trying to pass and the NRA's fight against it. To put it in another way, if you go back and read any publication by the NRA from the 80's....you were going to see a lot of gripes about Sarah Brady, Ted Kennedy, HCI, and so forth. Not so much about the GCA.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Should lawsuits be mentioned in lead?

Both NY and DC filed suit 6 Aug (NY seeking dissolution of the org). They've been added to the body with refs; should a mention be added to the lead? Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

IMHO not yet. If it develops into something bigger, perhaps. WP:NOTNEWS I'm also worried that My recent edit was a little harsh on the unsourced thing. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Not yet.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Not at this time. The lawsuits may go no where and thus shouldn't make it to the lead. If they succeed and close down the NRA then yes. We simply need to wait for this to play out first. Springee (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)h

Sorry to not have ventured here first, prior to adding. I disagree, nonetheless, in this particular case, if that's not obvious. As the suit was filed by a state's AG following an 18-month investigation, can one truly argue that the case may be inconsequential or frivolous? Were all charges to somehow be dismissed, the filing of the suit, based on a reportedly in-depth investigation, remains a prominent event in NRA history.Lindenfall (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

See wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has to do with whether this should be included in the lead.- MrX 🖋 11:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nor did I see what Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has to do with including the suit in the lead. Lindenfall (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the scope and credibility of the lawsuits, it's likely that this will lead worthy. I think we should wait until there are further developments before adding it, for example if other states file lawsuits, or if NRA executive resign or are indicted. Politico[10] is reporting NRA's questionable payments to Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a story which will probably develop further. Reason and Mother Jones connect the lawsuits with the internal power struggle that broke last year and the 2020 election.[11][12] Chicago Tribune is reporting about the role of Ackerman McQueen.[13] The New York Times has reported that Jimmy Fallon said “That’s right, no more N.R.A., no more Confederate flags. This is turning into the worst year of Ted Nugent’s life,”.[14]. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong link. In essence we should not include this until its its done and dusted. Its an allegation, at this stage, when it becomes a conviction we can add it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Conviction has no bearing on significance. The amount of coverage in reliable source does. - MrX 🖋 14:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if this lawsuit were to remove members of the board or LaPeirre I don't agree that it would be DUE for the lead. As has been stated many times, this is a 100+ year old organization. Short of actually shuttering the NRA these lawsuits are probably less significant than the Cincinnati Revolt which doesn't make it to the lead. Also, there is clearly a large degree of politics going on here. Even if some of the leadership were 100% corrupt, the idea that such corruption would require shuttering the entire NRA vs removing leaders suggests that some politicians are seeing this as a new way to use the law against an adversary. I would favor putting some of the commentary noting the political nature of this lawsuits but it is probably premature at this point. [[15]][[16]][[17]]. The NRA's counter suit is also likely worth mentioning.[[18]] The National Review article probably is the best I've read so far in terms of pointing out why this looks like a politically motivated action rather than just a pure case of enforcing charity financial laws (some of which were likely broken) but the New Republic is also noting the same things even as they are clearly not sympathetic with the NRA in general. Springee (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting question. Should James' publicly stated political motivation for the lawsuit be in the article? QuilaBird (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If this were only a lawsuit by a single state AG, I would probably agree, but this is part of a complex unraveling of the organization that was exposed more than a year ago. If the fraud charges stick, which I suspect they will, this will be a watershed moment in the organization's history. Thank you for showing sources that support the significance of this development. - MrX 🖋 14:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, if the Cincinnati Revolt isn't in the lead then this shouldn't be unless it actually shutters or breaks up the organization. It's not clear there is much unraveling nor that the sins of the NRA leadership (and I will take for granted they are true) are worse than those of many other not for profit organizations (see the NR article). Part of what makes this a big deal is the level of politics the AG appears to be injecting into the investigation. Take the New Republic's take. It suggests that the objective of disbanding the NRA is a very questionable use of the law. That's not so much about the NRA as it is about the AG and a possible abuse of power, the same way LA's attempt to force vendors to disclose if they are NRA members was a clear 1A problem on behalf of the city. It was not something the NRA did, they were basically the victim (see NR article for more details). Anyway, even if it is found that LaPierre abused his position and is legally removed I would oppose this being in the lead of the article as I think in the total scope of the organization, the 10 year view and the 30 year view it wouldn't be as significant as the Cincinnati Revolt and absent some unforeseen outcome new leadership will come in and the NRA will move on. The exception would be if it causes a true shift in the external behavior of the NRA. That is something that only time will tell. Springee (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Did the Cincinnati Revolt involve fraud and misuse of millions of dollars of charitable funds? It looks more like a reorg. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You can read up on it. It fundamentally changed how the NRA approached gun related politics. Let’s assume that the leaders of the NRA did misuse funds. In ten years will we see the NRA still fighting against new firearms restrictions? Will we see the NRA's political clout seriously decline because of this investigation? If yes, then we have a case for inclusion at that time. If no then this didn’t have the sort of long term impact that should make it to the lead of an organization that is almost one and a half centuries old. Springee (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read up on it before I posted. No need to repeat your argument about how old the organization is. I heard you the first two times. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

But you failed to show that you considered it. Trying to put this in the lead looks POINTy. Not so much a summary of the organization but an attempt to make sure the reader understand the organization is fundamentally bad. Springee (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is another opinion article that questions the merits of the "shut them down" objective of James's actions. It's from Bloomberg, hardly a NRA ally. [[19]] We have op'eds on the left and right who are concerned about the stated objective of shutting down the NRA with this lawsuit. Springee (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. At least not yet. This isn't a newspaper and the mere existence of the suits, no matter how much some may want them to be major events, still haven't proven to be. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I typically see lawsuits have their own section in articles. Pending lawsuits are facts in that they are legal proceedings happening to that organization. I feel it might be valid to list under a section called "Lawsuits" or similar wording. That isn't uncommon on Wikipedia. Any organization of any size will be under constant lawsuit. So I don't see how this should be in the Lead. If every organization listed on Wikipedia had their current lawsuits listed in the lead, that might make sense but, to do otherwise is biased. Additionally, not every related lawsuit for every organization will be noteworthy in the long term. I have to agree 100% with Nighshift36. This is not a newspaper and not all lawsuits have enough impact for the organization to be mentioned as significant enough to the organization to be mentioned. Many lawsuits are dismissed. In the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty. The presence of a lawsuit does not in any way shape or form mean guilt or culpability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasenwise (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Every large organization has many lawsuits filed against it. Even more so an advocacy organization where lawsuits are a common tactic by their opponents. The existence of one does not per se make it lead material or article material. Finally, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a place to highlight narrower items. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Following up on this discussion, it's clear that the NRA used bankruptcy as a way to side step the NY AG lawsuit. A judge has since stopped the bankruptcy. Should that be in the lead? My feeling is it shouldn't because when we take the 10-20 year outlook the bankruptcy is effectively not going to happen (well at least the one filed in 2020). The reason the NYAG lawsuit is in the lead is it could close the whole organization if the AG gets what she is asking for. However, if that fails and new leadership steps in then the long term impact is less clear. The bankruptcy filing now has no impact on the NYAG lawsuit so it no longer belongs in the lead as part of the summary. Springee (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there either as per NOTNEWS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: inclusion of bankruptcy content in lead

I contend Is this content is significant and momentous in NRA history and propose such that it be should included at the end of the lead?

In August 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit seeking to dissolve the NRA, alleging fraud, financial misconduct, and misuse of charitable funds by some of its executives. In January 2021, the NRA filed for bankruptcy in Texas, though a federal judge later rejected the petition, ruling it was intended to avoid the New York lawsuit.[20]

soibangla (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Some editors may see inclusion of the on going lawsuit separately from the now dismissed bankruptcy attempt. It may be useful to indicate Support/Opposition for both or just one. Springee (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Support: as proposer. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I am unsure about this, as it is too early to say if they will even lose.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You might be right if it was only about the BK filing, but it's not only about that: it's also about the NRA filing in a state where they are not incorporated and a federal BK judge there rejecting it as an attempt to evade litigation by their incorporation state's AG. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As per NOTNEWS & RECENTISM.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you contend a bankruptcy filing and a judge's rejection of it as subterfuge are transient events that might change over time? soibangla (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In a word: yes. We simply don't know what the outcome of all this will be. Large organizations filing for bankruptcy isn't anything unusual and certainly doesn't require a large portion of the LEAD.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Filing for bankruptcy alone is frequent and unleadworthy, but "The Court agrees with the NYAG that the NRA is using this bankruptcy case to address a regulatory enforcement problem, not a financial one" isn't. soibangla (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Even if that was true (and bankruptcy claims are rejected by the courts all the time)....what does this amount to if it changes nothing with regards to the NRA? I'll answer that for you: nothing. Ergo, there is no reason to have it in the LEAD unless it does. Legal trickery isn't that noteworthy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Are they rejected because "The NRA is a solvent and growing organization using this bankruptcy as a tool to win its dissolution lawsuit, and that is not an appropriate use of bankruptcy...Some of the conduct that gives the court concern is still ongoing. Mr. LaPierre is still making additional financial disclosures. There are also lingering issues of secrecy and a lack of transparency."[21]? Are you familiar with events leading up to this, which appear manifested in their BK maneuver?[22] soibangla (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Obviously not. But bad faith bankruptcy claims are dismissed all the time. Needless to say the exact details of each lawsuit will vary.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors are not considering the full context of events, but would prefer to unlink the BK filing from the AG suit when they are inextricably linked, and that's what makes it leadworthy. soibangla (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously there is a linkage....but getting that detailed into the legal shenanigans of this is problematic for a LEAD at this point. At the end of the day, this means nothing if the suit doesn't significantly change the NRA.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

How often have we seen an attorney general seek to extinguish the existence of an organization for alleged corruption, and that organization responds with a BK filing in another state to evade it? soibangla (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

How often do we include dismissed bankruptcy claims in a LEAD? We already note the suit....no need to note every legal maneuver.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

But why was it dismissed? That's all I got for you. soibangla (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The judge said it was bad faith. Bad faith bankruptcy claims (as I have said; we are going in circles here) get tossed out all the time. It's not needed to have such detail in the lead. If/when they actually do go into Chapter 11....it will certainly be noteworthy for the LEAD. For now, it's a dismissed claim that can be detailed elsewhere in the article (along with other legal trickeration likely to come).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this could be seen as two questions. The first is if the NYAG lawsuit should be in the lead. That was discussed a few months back (see up the talk page) strikes me as no-consensus for vs consensus against. The proposed two sentences cover two related topics, the first being the NYAG lawsuit, the second being the bankruptcy filing which was dismissed as a tactic to avoid the lawsuit. The bankruptcy did appear to have consensus to be in the lead (and was) and had it gone through I don't see how we could have said it wasn't due for the lead. However, it has since been stopped and is now effectively a legal dead end. As such it will have no long term impact on the NYAG's case and thus is a footnote with respect to the lawsuit. That returns to the question of including the lawsuit. I don't see that things have changed since the question was last discussed. If it succeeds in closing the NRA down, clear lead material. If it's a partial win and removes some officers, well then I return to 150 year old organization, what is due? If it fails it's clearly not due for the lead. Note that I reverted part of the proposed content this morning (the dismissed bankruptcy). The lawsuit content is currently in the lead though it doesn't have consensus at this time. Springee (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I oppose inclusion of the bankruptcy attempt but I'm neutral/weak opposed to the lawsuit inclusion as it is currently in the lead (the first sentence of the proposal). Springee (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support While I am not wedded to this specific wording, I think what belongs in the lede section is a sentence about the NRA and the possibilities of bankruptcy related to fraud and abuse. While I can see a case for not including it because of it being too recent the issue is serious enough to include since it might end up dissolving the organization, plus it's not a frivolous lawsuit but one by the attorney general of a state.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Saying "it might end up dissolving" is definitely a WP:CRYSTALBALL statement. You can't justify WP:UNDUE weight by saying something might be more significant in future. Also, saying attorneys general can't bring frivolous suits seems like a bit of a stretch. NickCT (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The bankruptcy and lawsuits are important enough to deserve a sentence or two in the lede section, otherwise the article looks biased and incomplete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't on my my worry list, I'm more concerned about quality coverage within the article. But considering the scope of the topic (a multi-million person organization with >150 years of history and an immense scope of programs and activities), this current news event which nobody seems to really know the story about and cover IMO is not a good choice for the lead. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A suit by an AG to dissolve the organization on the basis of alleged corruption, followed by the organization filing BK that a federal judge ruled was designed to evade that suit, which now places the organization again at risk of dissolution, is not leadworthy? soibangla (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm more concerned about quality coverage in the article and much less about what is and isn't in the lead. BTW various things in your post are speculation about an area which I described as a current news event which nobody seems to really know the story about and cover. My guess is that your speculation is wrong, but that is not relevant here. (Which, roughly is that the LaPierre related stuff is substantive and that many NRA folks and NRA supporters want to see that pursued and that the "dissolution" component is frivolous by a political opponent (the NY AG) of the NRA.) North8000 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

North8000, what have I said is speculative? soibangla (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla I thought that the motivations part was speculative but I was wrong. Sorry! North8000 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is not some frivolous lawsuit; this has wide-scale ramifications for the NRA. However, if nothing substantial occurs after a verdict has been reached, then I would support removing the text from the lead. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you see a difference between keeping the lawsuit vs lawsuit and failed bankruptcy? I think these should be considered separately as lawsuit is still a real think for the NRA while the other is over and will have little overall impact on the organization. I personally think these should be considered independently. Springee (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Nothing really substantial came out of the bankruptcy lawsuit, so I would support removing it from the lead, though it can be acknowledged later in the body. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support civil lawsuit, oppose failed bankruptcy unless it is refiled and succeeds. This is what the lede currently reflects at time of this post. Failed bankruptcy to be covered in body. starship.paint (exalt) 05:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The bankruptcy filing is noteworthy to be included in the lead since it has already been dismissed. Sea Ane (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Tomwsulcer - Idealigic (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, Exclude from Lead - The NRA is a huge political lightening rod within the US. They are subject to all sorts of suits from all sorts of people. This one certainly isn't the first notable suit and won't be the last. Including this content in the lead is pure WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the hand wringing of those saying this bankruptcy, which is not the NRA being subject to all sorts of things but is a major major milestone in the NRA's history, is political, sounds to be itself political.PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Exclusion of the content is tacit and passive POV. What it would say by inclusion is not POV, rather what it wouldn't say by exclusion is POV. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I think excluding it based on recentism is a mistake and may present issues with our charge of remaining an accurate, comprehensive and balanced encyclopedia. Recentism is '"a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events, and or, without an aim toward a long-term, historical view.."', and I'm not convinced including this factual and arguably profound event in one brief sentence in the lede is going to make it "imbalanced and historically inaccurate".DN (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Note / update The situation has changed mid-rfc. My paraphrasing: the bankruptcy was dismissed on the grounds that it was a mere maneuver. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean. Where has the situation changed, in this discussion or elsewhere? soibangla (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was actually describing the changes in NRA situation which I described as: "My paraphrasing: the bankruptcy was dismissed on the grounds that it was a mere maneuver". I did not mean that there were changes in the Wiki discussions. Expanding on that a bit, I would note that this change happened during the RFC itself. Also, the specifics of the changes make it less noteworthy. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

18 Aug edits to lead

@Roxy the dog, Atiru, and North8000:, we have a dispute regarding this recent change to the lead [23]. I agree with North8000 that, in general, this is not an improvement and the consensus version of the lead should stand. Atiru and Roxy, you both wish to change the lead so please make the case for the change. Springee (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello gatekeeper. As a source for my changes I give you ... the rest of the article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My case against the change is in part, this is less IMPARTIAL than the earlier version. Additionally, the whole 3rd paragraph of the lead covers the political activities/gun rights actions. Perhaps changes should be made there. At the same time there is no indication that the education aspects of the organization have decreased so we shouldn't imply that the NRA has somehow moved away from that. Also, there is a difference between saying the membership figure is not independently confirmed and that it is actually disputed. Again, per IMPARTIAL we should not pick sides. Springee (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My change does not impact on the points you are making, (assuming you are answering me despite the indentation.) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

First, please focus on content. Comments like "gatekeeper" are not helpful. Second, no my comment was meant to be my general statement against the change. I've added an edit conflict tag. Your edit does negatively impact the points I've made. If the change isn't significant why not stick with the long standing version? Springee (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Rather than engaging on a "yes it is" "no it isn't" discussion with you, I shall wait for other "interested parties" to come back here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the combination of PackMecEng and Soibangla's edit should address the concerns of all [24]. Springee (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to get deep in on this but that solves the main problems. For the first part, it's not just a matter of neutral wording, t's unsourced and likely unsourcable due to being factually wrong. The NRA has an immense range of programs, training programs, departments, publication, publication work personnel etc. which are for things other than advocacy. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, addressing an erroneous argument made, in cases like this, a core policy clearly states that restoration of reverted additions requires sourcing even if in the lead. The common practice of less emphasis on sourcing in the lead does not modify that. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not assert you are wrong, but please cite where "in cases like this, a core policy clearly states" what you assert. soibangla (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding that, the core policy is wp:verifiability. If a statement is challenged (including by removal) wp:ver it must be suitably sourced to be put back in. (other requirements may also apply) The policy does not make any exception for the lead. The fact that the material is new/ a change means that other policies/ guidelines also weigh in against unsourced and unconsensused re-insertion, but I was not referring to them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed the bit about competency training since it was similarly unsourced. North8000 and others, please make sure that any content you reinstate is supported by sources if you're going to hold others to that standard. –dlthewave ☎ 01:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is sourced in the programs section. Please read the article before making those kind of claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That section says "The NRA sponsors a range of programs about firearm safety for children and adults" and "The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors." Even if we do paraphrase this as "competency", we should ask ourselves whether something that only merits a single sentence in the body carries enough weight to be mentioned in the lead. Additionally, I'm curious about why North8000 thought it was appropriate to add that without a cite in the lead while insisting that other content meet that standard. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I could see what you mean with an undue argument. But unsourced as you originally claimed, it is not. PackMecEng (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I was holding North8000 to their standard, "a core policy clearly states that restoration of reverted additions requires sourcing even if in the lead". –dlthewave ☎ 01:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think your edit was rather wp:POINTY. The article makes it clear that the NRA programs include safety and things like shooting competitions etc. And yes, the fact that the NRA does have extensive training and safety programs should be in the lead. Springee (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Why should it be in the lead? It's an extremely minor mention in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Because it's an extremely significant and large part of what the NRA actually does. Even you felt it was a significant thing [25]. I understand that most articles in the mass media are concerned with just the lobbying activities but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the extensive safety and skills training programs. Additionally, that content has been part of the stable lead so you would need consensus to remove it. Springee (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors. I've had a look through as many sources as I have at my fingertips which are the standard news outlets as well as academic journals and books that have been digitised. Each talks about the significance of the NRA as a lobbying organisation. I'm struggling to find evidence that the group's "extensive training and safety programs" is of encyclopaedic significance. Springee and others, would you mind pointing me towards reliable sources that indicate this position?

Here's a smattering of some of the sources I've been scanning. I think you'll find this first one particularly interesting because it talks about rifle training, the NRA, and the Boy Scouts.

Mechling, Jay. "Boy Scouts, the National Rifle Association, and the Domestication of Rifle Shooting." American Studies 53, no. 1 (2014): 5-25. doi:10.1353/ams.2014.0025.

Mechling draws a direct line between these rifle training and marksmanship programmes and developing new markets for gun manufacturers.

Lacombe, Matthew J. "The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: The National Rifle Association’s Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity." The journal of politics, Vol.81, no. 4, 2019 pp. 1342-1356.

Elsbach, Kimberly D., and C. B. Bhattacharya. “Defining Who You Are by What You're Not: Organizational Disidentification and the National Rifle Association.” Organization Science, vol. 12, no. 4, 2001, pp. 393–413. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3085979. Accessed 19 Aug. 2021.

O’Neill, Kevin Lewis. “Armed Citizens and the Stories They Tell: The National Rifle Association’s Achievement of Terror and Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 9, no. 4 (April 2007): 457–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X05281390.

Arnold, Robin. 2013. “NRA Direct Contributions Decline.” Follow the Money. Available at 〈http://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/nra-direct-contributions-decline/

Steidley, Trent. “BIG GUNS OR BIG TALK? HOW THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION MATTERS FOR CONCEAL CARRY WEAPONS LAWS.” Mobilization. 23, no. 1 (2018): 101–125.

“Wayne’s World; The National Rifle Association.” The Economist. 431, no. 9141 (2019).

“US Doctors React to Criticism from National Rifle Association.” BMJ : British medical journal. 363 (2018): k4795–k4795.

Finally, I don't actually have a dog in this fight. I am interested in the integrity of Wikipedia in regard to standards and accuracy and neutrality. In my opinion, the current "lead" accurately summarises neither the body of the article, nor the large body of research about the NRA. I think we have to be careful about finding a balance between the perception of neutrality (because, as humans, that is as close as we can ever get to impartiality) and maintaining Wikipedia standards of accuracy. Thanks all. Atiru (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of how significant we feel these training programs may be, we shouldn't add them to the lead until after their coverage in the body has been expanded. Springee, feel free to do so yourself if you have the sources to back it up. Surely you have at least one that describes them as "extensive", maybe you could add that one? –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You seriously feel that the body doesn't have enough content to support literally 2 words in the lead? Here is a source talking about the NRA's efforts just in air rifles [26]. How about Game and Fishing Magazine [27] noting that the NRA sanctions 11,000 shooting tournaments. Springee (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It's my dance to get deeply into this over a sentence. Competency training is pervasive in NRA, and even in this article. It should be noted that when I brought up the "unsourced", my removal wasn't only based on the policy note ala the usual wililawyering situation. Nor was it removing "sky is blue" statements based solely on technicalities. In tandem with the policy note, I also noted that IMO it was factually wrong and not suitably sourcable. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

And yes, the extensive range of non-advocacy stuff that the NRA does is massively undercovered in this article. I've not watched the article closely enough to know why. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that is an unintentional consequence of how Wikipedia sources information. If this were a more traditional source trying to summarize the NRA we could engage in our own research to look into the NRA's training programs etc. Clearly that would be OR here. When one looks at news stories about the NRA they are totally dominated by the politics aspect. That makes sense. Most of the information about the NRA's other functions is specialist information which is then more likely to be included in sources that we normally don't credit as reliable. We might accept those sources if the topic and the NRA specifically was less controversial/political. It's interesting to look the NRA articles on encyclopedia.com[28] and Encyclopedia Britannica [29]. The latter focuses heavily on the controversy aspects while the former includes the training/education aspect clearly in the lead, "The NRA reaches one million young men and women through educational programs, including 40,000 in its young hunters program. Moreover, 6,000 marksmen compete nationally in the Association’s shooting competitions." Springee (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue might be akin to trying to write about what courses and programs a University has where persons at the article who want to cast the university in a bad light do not not want them covered. Such is a large amount of boring "not news" material that not a lot of journalists are going to write about. So you'd need to use info from the University's own publications (e.g. on departments, committees,course listings, internal organization of the university) for the facts and then the persons who don't want that coverage could work to remove it based on it being primary sources. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting hand waving going on here regarding this topic, eg "The NRA has an immense range of programs, training programs, departments, publication, publication work personnel etc. which are for things other than advocacy."

To the wavers I say, "what is the NRA notable for?" and thanks for the discretionary sanctions notices you gave me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability is the main criteria to determine whether or not a topic can have a separate article. It is not a criteria for presence of content within an article. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

North8000, why don't you add it to the article if you think it's massively undercovered? The case for mentioning their non-advocacy work in the lead will be much stronger if it's covered substantially in the body. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I might make a try and see how it goes. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on the sources I added above and some additional ones I have I think we could add some additional information about training and then restore the material to the lead as well. Springee (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't plan any work on it in the near future. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Should a mention of the 2021 National Rifle Association ransomware attack be added?

On 27 October, I added a mention of the 2021 National Rifle Association ransomware attack to this article, and it was reverted by Springee with the edit summary RECENT, wait to see if this amounts to anything. See diff. I'm not attached to the format or wording I used in that initial edit, but coverage of the ransomware attack has continued, as can be seen in the article. As of right now, should this event be mentioned in this main article? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand by the RECENT concern. Please keep in mind the NRA is almost 150 years old. This is not a significant event when we zoom out and consider the total scope of this organization. Beyond that, we are still in what I would consider a RECENT period. Springee (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, what does it tell us about them?Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest leaving it out. Can reconsider if it gets bigger & longer-lived which is unlikely. Even stuff that is 10 times bigger in this 150 year old multi million member wide-ranging organization is not covered in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a link to the See Also section. RECENT or not - the topic does have an article which is well sourced and although obviously new, not a stub. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

New reference source: NPR: 'A secret tape made after Columbine shows the NRA's evolution on school shootings'

There is a new story covering NRA available here, I'm sure it will contain some information useful to the article but this is not a subject I know much about

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1049054141/a-secret-tape-made-after-columbine-shows-the-nras-evolution-on-school-shootings

Thanks very much

. John Cummings (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Basma95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shane mullen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

Change: In a 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015.

To: In 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015. Folgsta (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 01:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Moving article to "National Rifle Association of America"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I did check Talk Archives 1-7 and (perhaps surprisingly) did not spot previous discussion - it mostly seemed to be Content talk. There was a lot of it though!

I believe there is a case for moving this article from "National Rifle Association" to "National Rifle Association of America". "National Rifle Association" should then redirect to the disambiguation page.

My reasons are:

Correctness & WP:CRITERIA

• The organisation discussed in this article is legally incorporated as "NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA"

• The organisation's crest names it as "National Rifle Association of America"

• The article lead opens with "The National Rifle Association of America..."

• (Added 12 May 2022) WP:CRITERIA states that Precision and Consistency should be considered alongside Recognizability/Naturalness/Concision. Given that other articles use the full and correct name (e.g. National Rifle Association of Australia, of India), it is clearly inconsistent (and inherently imprecise) to arbitrarily drop the "of America".

Undue Weight/Systemic Bias

• Allowing the NRA of America to occupy the generic "National Rifle Association" namespace is US-centric and is incompatible with WP:GLOBAL. "The" NRA is really an NRA. Yes it is very large and domestically significant within the USA. But the NRA of America is not "the" NRA for most users (Brits, South Africans, Jamaicans, etc). President does not contain the article for President of the United States - that would be ridiculous.

Downstream users

• Whilst wikipedia/wikidata are not directly responsible for the usage of data by downstream users, there is evidence that the undue weight afforded by the generic namespace causes issues globally. For instance in searching "National Rifle Association" in google.co.uk or bing.co.uk, the top search result is (correctly) returned as nra.org.uk. However, the knowledge panel/info box to the right is populated with information about the NRA of America, drawn from wikipedia (screenshot). Whilst it is the job of google and bing to (for instance) avail themselves of platforms like wikidata (which would connect <nra.org.uk> with the correct entity and appropriate WP article), it is also incumbent on us as contributors and editors to be mindful of allowing domestic or locally-significant organisations to occupy a generic namespace, and the confusion or misdirection which may occur for users outside that territory.

I acknowledge this is a significant proposal, undoubtedly controversial in some quarters (and completely obvious in others!). But whilst this is a large and significant article, being "first" or prominent in the media is not a good enough reason in itself to occupy the generic namespace. I look forward to comments. Best wishes and good shooting.

Hemmers (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose - Good arguments, but I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Even here in the backwaters of the UK, if anybody says either "NRA" or "National Rifle Association" it's known that it refers to the good ol' boys in America, and nobody ever says "Do you mean the American organisation, or the Norwegian one?" Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for that perspective. I would gently note that in my back water of the UK, the opposite is true - talk of the NRA invokes images of Bisley, not Wayne LaPierre. You're quite right that nobody asks "Do you mean the Americans or Bisley?" We always mean the British entity when we refer to "the NRA". I find a nuisance that I get the wrong result in searches. Which shows the value of requests for comment!

  It does raise an interesting related point (which I had not closely considered when originally writing this) as to whether policies like WP:COMMONNAME are at risk of being contributing factors to broader societal systemic bias. Whilst Google showing the wrong organisation in a knowledge panel is far less significant than (say) the strong UK mainstream media bias towards US/anglophone news (compared with say, European or African news). The fact that such things happen could have a reinforcing, subconscious impact on the profile of US-based organisations, giving them undue weight in global culture and world news. I wonder with time whether WP:COMMONNAME may be increasingly overruled by a stricter application of WP:GLOBAL if it is found that it creates/perpetuates a bias towards North American/Anglophone organisations and culture, Hemmers (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  After further consideration, I would disagree that WP:COMMONNAME applies here. WP:CRITERIA clearly states that article titles should consider Precision and Consistency alongside Recognizability/Naturalness/Concision. Given that other articles use the full and correct name (e.g. National Rifle Association of Australia, of India), it is clearly inconsistent (and inherently imprecise) to arbitrarily shorten the NRA of America. It has also demonstrably caused confusion. For instance, at one point this article was pointing at the bare "NRA" article until it was corrected to "of the United Kingdom".

  I believe WP:COMMONNAME would be a valid consideration when deciding whether the current title should redirect to the properly titled ('of America') article or to (say) the disambiguation page. I do not believe it outweighs the need for the article to be correctly titled in the first instance.Hemmers (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name. I understand some of this concern but in terms of notoriety, the NRA is far more notable vs other examples. How many other "NRA"s are there (that are English named). Are other articles likely to be confused with the US NRA? What is the common name of those organizations? I think Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic also is in favor of the US NRA as the primary topic. Springee (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  How many other "NRA"s are there (that are English named). - At least 9 other orgs contain the string "National Rifle Association" in their name.

  Are other articles likely to be confused with the US NRA? - Yes. There is at least one case I have found of articles about Brits being erroneously linked to the NRA of America for a period. See: WP:CRITERIA Precision

  What is the common name of those organizations? - In particular, the common and legal name of the British NRA is simply "National Rifle Association". It was founded by Royal Charter as such in 1859. "of the United Kingdom" is used exclusively to disambiguate it online from the American entity. However, domestically no Australian is going to say "I need to renew my NRA membership - NRA of Australia you understand, not the NRA in the US. What sort of drongo would mix those two up?". "National Rifle Association" is the common name for all those organisations in their countries.

  I would generally disagree that WP:COMMONNAME applies directly. WP:CRITERIA clearly states that article titles should consider Precision and Consistency alongside Recognizability/Naturalness/Concision. Given that other articles use the full and correct name (e.g. National Rifle Association of Australia, of India) or even have to extend their name ('of the United Kingdom') to avoid conflict/confusion with the US entity, it is clearly both inconsistent and imprecise to arbitrarily shorten the NRA of America. It's incompatible with both WP:CRITERIA and WP:GLOBAL.

  I believe WP:COMMONNAME would be a valid consideration when deciding whether the current title should redirect to the properly titled ('of America') article or to somewhere else (e.g. the disambiguation page). I do not believe it outweighs the need for the article to be correctly titled in the first instance.Hemmers (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Hemmers (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and if anything, that policy tells me the article should be retitled NRA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  if anything, that policy tells me the article should be retitled NRA.

  I think that demonstrates how problematic WP:COMMONNAME is in this case.

  NRA is even worse, since there is an extensive disambiguation page covering the other National Rifle Associations around the world as well as many other unrelated organisations (National Restaurant Association, National Revolutionary Army, National Recovery Administration, etc). Notably, WP:en is the only wikipedia (aside from Swedish) to have an NRA disambiguation page because as far as I can tell, every single other language version has the disambiguation at NRA. Whilst WP:en is of course at liberty to set its own policies, it seems an incredible bit of US-exceptionalism to redirect a simple three-letter-acronym to one specific american organisation. That exceptionalism might be justified, but it's probably worthy of more deliberate thought and consideration than its probably had (one person pointed NRA at National Rifle Association 15years ago and nobody has thought about whether that's actually the right thing to do!).

  WP:CRITERIA (namely Precision & Consistency) would seem to dictate that the article should be full-named just like every other Rifle Association in the world (no US-exceptionalism, per WP:GLOBAL), even if we then have a WP:COMMONNAME discussion about where National Rifle Association redirects to (e.g. the disambiguation page or to the properly titled '...of America' article). Hemmers (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  "...it seems an incredible bit of US-exceptionalism to redirect a simple three-letter-acronym to one specific american organisation." I'm not American. In my many years on Wikipedia I have probably called out US-exceptionalism as often as anyone, but I don't see it here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree per WP:CRITERIA

I think relying on WP:COMMONNAME would actually support using "NRA" rather than the current title.

However, WP:CRITERIA is more applicable in this case, because we already have additional articles with the text "National Rifle Association" so for precision and consistency, I think the article should be moved, and let the disambiguation page do its thing.

• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. •Bobsd• (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME and what's said above. No need to WP:BADGER me on this Hemmers, I'm not changing my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu I'm curious what you imply with WP:BADGER. I don't recall ever corresponding with you before, and this is my first (and will remain my only) reply to your post. Should I not reply or engage in discourse? This is a Talk page is it not? I don't think it's unfair to offer one response/rebuttal per person to address the points they have made. This may sound facetious but your comment comes across like an accusation and I'm genuinely unclear what I have done to earn that. If you're simply saying "I'm dropping my opinion in and am not open to further discussion" then fair enough and I apologise if I have unwittingly taken a throwaway comment to imply more than was intended.

  I haven't chased anyone (much less yourself) around Wikipedia or badgered them on their Talk pages.

  You are of course entitled to your opinion on the topic at hand. Hemmers (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Replying to every comment is badgering. It is unnecessary and unhelpful. Perhaps it's more accurate to call it "bludgeoning the process". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue of largest outside donor

The end of the Elections section says the NRA was the largest donor in the 2016 election of any "independent group." The source article from Open Secrets says "outside group." The question is the definition of "independent" vs. "outside," which normally mean the same for this purpose. If they do, the article is incorrect. Open Secrets itself lists Priorities USA Action Outside Spending as the largest outside group with over four times the amount the NRA spent. QuilaBird (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Remove claim that NRA downplayed gun control issues previous to the 1970s

Change: Until the 1970s, the NRA was nonpartisan.[45] Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. During the 1970s, it became increasingly aligned with the Republican Party.

To: Until the 1970s, the NRA was nonpartisan. During the 1970s, it became increasingly aligned with the Republican Party. [45]

In the section on the 1970s-2000s, the claim is made that "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." I don't think this is true and it isn't related to the previous or succeeding sentences anyway. The previous sentences discuss whether or not the NRA was partisan, but that's a different question than whether or not they downplayed political issues.

The claim also contradicts the section on 1933 to the 1970s that talks about how the NRAs lobbying surrounding the NFA. Which is it, did they downplay gun control or did they send their president to speak to congress on the most significant piece of gun control that had ever been passed in the US?

Here is a link to the April 1933 issue of the NRA's magazine in which they list state firearm legislation that they believe should be killed. The editorial of that issue brags about how efficient the NRA was at killing firearm legislation. That seems like an odd thing to do for an organization that was downplaying gun control issues. https://archive.org/details/sim_american-rifleman_1933-04_81_4/page/38/mode/2up?view=theater

I propose the claim that, "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." be removed from the article. The sentence is of questionable accuracy and it doesn't even make sense in it's current location. Serowman (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The source cited in the previous sentence, a Washington Post article, does contradict "downplayed gun control issues" at the very least. It discusses times in the 1930s and the 1960s when the NRA opposed gun control laws and regulations. That article does claim that the NRA avoided partisan association before the 1970s (e.g., avoiding direct association with the Republican Party), but that's a different claim than downplaying or avoiding gun control issues. Vadder (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact, that citation for the sentence I think should be removed is the same citation as the previous sentence. And this paragraph in the cited article seems to directly contradict the claim made in the sentence.

"Many observers believe the organization was apolitical before the 1970s. But my recently completed dissertation — which analyzes nearly 80 years of the NRA’s widely circulated American Rifleman magazine — shows it was an active, staunch opponent of gun regulations since at least the 1930s, when gun policy first reached the national agenda." Serowman (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source (and see wp:or. We go by what wp:rs say, not what you think. Nor did your source contradict it, as the page was just a notice of new legalizations, not comment on them (and was wp:primary anyway). Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I take your points. Let's completely ignore the American Rifleman issue I linked to and focus on the citation in the sentences just before and after the offending sentence at [45].

The claim that "Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues." should be removed because the citation at [45] not only doesn't support that claim, it in fact directly contradicts it.

Here is the paragraph in the citation which contradicts the claim. "Many observers believe the organization was apolitical before the 1970s. But my recently completed dissertation — which analyzes nearly 80 years of the NRA’s widely circulated American Rifleman magazine — shows it was an active, staunch opponent of gun regulations since at least the 1930s, when gun policy first reached the national agenda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/26/how-nra-became-core-member-republican-coalition/ Serowman (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC

And before the 1930's? This is another problem with your edit, even if we accept that from the 1930's onwards it stopped ""Previously, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues.", we do not say that in the 30's it focus was on hunting (etc), nor does the source say it changed its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you argument. Isn't it enough that the offending sentence isn't supported by *any* citation in the article and the proceeding and succeeding citations seem to directly refute it?

You are not a reliable source so unless you can find a source that says that the NRA downplayed gun control issues I don't see why that claim should be in the article. It's just not supported by any citation.

I'm going to start by adding a citation needed tag, but I firmly believe the claim should be removed completely. Serowman (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Even then NRA says that was its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The question of their focus is different than whether or not they downplayed gun control issues.

The paragraph below in the citation you added seems to directly refute the claim made in the sentence. It talks about how the NRA played a direct role in legislation in the 1920s and 1930s. The question of the NRA's focus is different than the claim made in the offending sentence that they downplayed gun control issues. If you want to edit the sentence to reduce the scope of it's claims, and move it out of the section on the 1970s then that might be an acceptable change.

"The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.

And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law." Serowman (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"At first the group was mainly concerned with marksmanship..." "Throughout this period, however, the NRA remained primarily focused on marksmanship, hunting, and other recreational activities, although it did continue to voice opposition to new gun laws, especially to its membership." or what we say, that was its focus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So the sentence doesn't just say that the NRA focused on those issues. It also says that the NRA downplayed gun control issues which is directly refuted by both of your citations which discuss how active the NRA was in shaping gun control in the 1930s. I have removed the sentence since it is so clearly refuted by the citations. Serowman (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No they do not, and with this it is time for others to step as WE are wp:budgeloning the process. Notre I still oppose your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The latest edit is less incorrect, but it is still misleading. The NRA was constantly strongly opposing various gun control measures that they felt went too far in the 1930s, although the sources you found don’t seem to mention it. In fact they strongly opposed the early versions of the NFA until it was greatly reduced in scope. I will find some secondary sources and update the sentence to be more correct later if you are adamant that it should not be removed.

But the sentence is pretty unnecessary where it is it breaks up the sentences before and after that discuss the NRA’s level of partisanship. I suggest if there is to be a discussion of the NRA’s level of support for gun control in the 1930’s that it should be moved out of the 1970s section and given more nuance. Serowman (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

And supported others, and again we have RS saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what your saying here. But I think the section is correct now, or at least as correct as you will allow it. So I will move on to other things. Serowman (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

~::::::::"At first the group was mainly concerned with marksmanship..." "Throughout this period, however, the NRA remained primarily focused on marksmanship, hunting, and other recreational activities, although it did continue to voice opposition to new gun laws, especially to its membership." or what we say, that was its focus.

 Note: This is not the intended usage of edit request templates. They are intended for editors who do not have editing rights to request an edit, not for general discussion of whether an edit should be made. If you want further input, you might consider a request for comments but it is worth trying to resolve it without the RFC procedure first. I have removed the edit request template because this page is not semiprotected, and for the reasons outlined, but if you reach a conclusion and for some reason cannot make an edit, feel free to reinstate the template. Irltoad (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:NRA (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)