Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: Lack of advocacy for black gun owners

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.

---

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

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

References

Survey

• Oppose. Again. You have proposed this multiple times and tried forcing the material in. I don't think that it's out of line at this point to question why you've spent so much effort to put this particular issue in. It's starting to look like a crusade. I'd also note that you didn't present this version for discussion before jumping straight to a RfC, which seems to be your weapon of choice lately. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - mainly on NPOV grounds. This cuts both ways, and bears mentioning if included, that African Americans as a voting block vote in the 90% range [1] for Democrats, and in general being critical, as a bloc, of the NRA - e.g. No group is less supportive of the NRA’s policies than black Americans, Washington Post, 8 March 2018 (and no lack of sources). Furthermore, if we were to devote such discourse to African American relations with the NRA, we would have to do so for a number of ethnic groups as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as written - The material regarding contemporary racism as it relates to recent cases is already in the article and close in text to what is proposed above. (Edit: I didn't realize it was removed. I would be OK with restoring as it was) The portion on historic racism was recently a stand alone subsection and recently removed. I'm not sure it has sufficient weight for inclusion but I'm largely indifferent either way. If consensus is include the material on historic racism I suggest we keep it as a separate section as it was here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Niteshift36: Actually, it is out of line for you to question why Snooganssnoogans chooses to spend so much effort on this particular issue. Cinteotl (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support. The text is reliably sourced, and the topic in question has received extensive RS coverage. I'd like to note that none of the votes above present policy-based reasons for opposing this, with one editor even going as far as to say that African-Americans are unable to take reasoned stances on the NRA, and that the content should be excluded for this reason. The editor suggests, without any evidence, that African-Americans oppose the NRA simply because they are partisan Democrats, yet when one actually reads the source that's cited[3], the African-Americans explicitly identify the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners as the source of their skepticism towards the organization. Even if African-Americans were the feeble-minded partisans that the editor suggests they are, that has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. We are not here to evaluate how right or wrong the criticism is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is basically an essay: argumentative (even though sourced), prejudicial, and inappropriate for this article about an organization. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a problem I've seen repeatedly in this article. A criticism, fair or not, of the organization is added but the details of what the NRA did and any legitimate rebuttal is not. Including the criticism is often legitimate but we fail the readers of the article if we don't offer sufficient details for people to understand and make up their own minds. I had this exact issue recently when trying to include material that explained why the NRA was against computerized sales records mandated by the ATF. Here is a rebuttal to Winkler's article. This is the sort of material that would cut down on many of the original objections since it puts things on context. [[4]] Springee (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support but leave out details of Shooting of Philando Castile. The link to the article is sufficient. The rest of the paragraph can be included, but of course the prose can always be improved later. Ward20 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support the majority of the text but not the title. The text seems to draw attention to a (notable) debate surrounding the subject, whereas the proposed title slants towards a claim that the debate has been settled and that lack of support for black gun ownership is already inherent in the NRA. I don't think anyone's political views are relevant here. The source material is OK, it's just the conflict between the source text and the title, which I have a problem with - A problem which could be easily solved by rewriting the title in order to have this content included. Edaham (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support but trim. I agree with Ward20. The subject should be covered, but the amount of coverage is undue. The Castile sentences should be the first to go, since at least as written they're about one particular case rather than about black gun owners in general. Also I agree with Edaham that the heading should be removed. It's choppy and generally undue to have a bolded heading for a single paragraph. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose unless significantly rewritten. For example the claim that the NRA's motivation in opposing mail-order sales (after Oswald shot Kennedy with a mail-order rifle) was to reduce gun ownership among minorities is incredible. I do believe the criticism should be mentioned, along with their defense(s), and the Castile case is a relevant and well-covered example. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support overall addition but that doesn't mean you can't argue sentence by sentence later about the details. The text is a bit inelegant because it has been compressed, presumably by edit warring - it could reasonably expand to multiple paragraphs. The last sentence there, if it checks out, is really interesting and would be worth exploring further - sounds like the NRA might have had its own Crassus moment. Wnt (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support but trim.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Definitely too much for here. For the size of the NRA, there should be a few subarticles in which things like these can be covered IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Haha, for what it's worth, these Wikipedia squabbles are in the "news"[5][6]. :P Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not entirely a joke that guns are anthropomorphized in some people's minds. You see the policies protecting living people being misapplied to guns as if guns themselves could be defamed or offended. Other topics too, but guns are often treated as a special case when they should be handled like any Wikipedia subject. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment None of the opposing editors have pointed to specific problems within the proposed content, nor have they suggested how it might be changed to assuage their concerns. A couple of editors have indicated that they hope this issue will go away. I wouldn't count on it. Editors may come and go, but the subject of systemic racism in the NRA is going to keep cropping up here until its addressed in the article. (This article has already hit the media. It won't take much for an activist to make it go viral.) Would you rather work to come up with a compromise/consensus now, or spend the next year going through this and every other WP dispute resolution processes (over and over and over?) Cinteotl (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually it's not a very absolute position on the Second Amendment. The NRA may no longer be supporting gun control against blacks as described at the above paragraph, and even sawed-off shotguns are back in the courts again, but you don't hear a peep out of them about our right to make fireworks and rockets and recreational bombs even though those kinds of "arms" are as American as the Fourth of July used to be. If the Second Amendment were interpreted as broadly as some of the others it would have been used to strike down the drug laws entirely, and then we wouldn't even have a violent country. I admit it would be hard to find secondary sources talking about this, but let's not imagine the NRA position is anything near extreme. Wnt (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2018 (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.

Post close discussion

@MrX:, The closing doesn't say the material should be kept rather that there wasn't a consensus for the exact text. Second, there is no reason or excuse for the excessive citations used in the section. Finally, the last bit of material is historic rather than contemporary and thus questionable for the section. If nothing else the excess citations should be removed since they just clutter the article. We can debate the last bit of material. Springee (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Actually it says "Consensus here is for inclusion of the material in some form". I disagree that the number of cites creates clutter, and they aid readers in deeper research and they establish due weight. As a compromise, what if we convert the groups of four or more into list cites?- MrX 🖋 12:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Grouping may be a good way to handle the WP:overcite problem. We should verify the citations actually add the article vs are just extras added to claim weight. The material discussing historic vs recent events will have to be discussed as well. That's hard to do on the phone but I wanted to reply to your effort towards compromise. It is noted and appreciated. Springee (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for exemplifying collegial editing Springee.- MrX 🖋 13:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is WP:OVERCITE with so many reference basically trying to establish false notability, something Snoog has had a problem with for a long time. For further reading please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, specifically "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." It is not the purpose of citations to be a further reading or a see also section. As for the RFC close, note the "some form" in the quote you listed and "What to trim or change needs to be the subject of further discussion, and potentially a new RFC if this can not be agreed upon on the talk page." Which is certainly not yup this and this text only. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE is an essay—the opinion of a few editors. It's one that I and other editors don't entirely agree with. I've proposed a compromise and other ideas are certainly welcome.- MrX 🖋 11:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is an essay but I think it makes a lot of sense. Why put in a bunch of redundant, in line citations? Also, if two sentences in a row reference the same material why cite twice? Below I offered a rewrite with comments. Please give it a read and let comments. Oops, you already did. Springee (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, then which source or sources do you think should so, and please specify why those sources are not needed?- MrX 🖋 11:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Remember, the RfC said the topic should be included but 2/3rds of respondants weren't happy with the content as is. We don't have a default or baseline version of the text. Below I proposed an edit that includes sufficient citations to back the claims. I think the onus is on you to say why the additional citations are needed. You are welcome to propose which additional citations are needed in my edits below. Springee (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about your compromise solution a bit more. I still don't agree that we need so many citations but what about this. The big change I've made was the number citations following the first two sentences. Perhaps after the second sentence we could add a citation group that contains the additional citations that I removed from that section. It would offer the readability improvement while still keeping all the original citations. Again, I don't think they are needed but I don't want to overlook the bridge you were working to build. Springee (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Note about WP:OVERCITE. Yes, it's just an essay but looking at the list of all the articles that reference it suggests it is widely cited. [[7]] Springee (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Follow up The above RfC was initiated after previous discussions which should be considered with the above [[8]]

The material that was recently added per the RfC above as something to work from is quoted below

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

The Adam Winkler historical racism material wasn't always part of the section and was a stand alone section for a while [[9]]. Springee (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• My opinions: Lots of sloppy copy edit work in that section. First, the Adam Winkler section was and probably should be pulled out as a separate section again. As written above it makes it sound like the NRA was always discriminating against African Americans and specifically mentions Italians, not African Americans. We can also debate how much weight should be given to the single editor but that's another matter. At least the text and section heading need to be changed so it's clear this isn't just "discrimination against blacks". The rest of the section wasn't too bad other than WAY too many unneeded citations. As was mentioned above, excess citations is sometimes a false way to establish weight. Since we have agreed to include the topic, we don't need to load it down with redundant citations. The first sentence has 4 citations claiming the NRA has come under criticism for not supporting minority gun owners in recent times. Per WP:OVERCITE two is sufficient since we aren't debating that claim. The next sentence has a block of 9 (!!!!) citations. Again, we don't need that many. The three strongest are more than sufficient. This is especially true since many are redundant. TO be honest, we could take perhaps the three most general of that 9 and use them to support both the first and second sentences. Of those 9 the ones that are Castile specific should be moved to the next sentence that talks about Castile. There is simply no reason other than sloppy copy editing to have so many redundant citations. Here is what the section could be with no loss of content.

The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving minority gun owners. The criticisms were highlighted after the June 2017 police shooting of Philando Castile. Castile, an African American, had a valid firearm permit and informed the officer of his gun and was subsequently fatally shot by the officer when he attempted to retrieve his wallet. According to The Washington Post, the NRA had typically "been quick to defend other gun owners who made national news", but stayed silent on the Castile shooting. The NRA rejects the accusations of racial bias. Others have argued that the NRA's inaction in prominent gun rights cases involving black gun owners is not due to racial bias but is instead likely due to overly zealous support for law enforcement. Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy for minority gun owners. Winkler cites the NRA's promotion of gun control legislation in the 1920s, 1930s targeting groups such as Italian immigrants and during the social unrest of the 1960 targeting militant groups such as the Black Panthers.

References

Revised Springee (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Same content but in more compact form. Redundant calls to the same sources are reduced/eliminated and the historic vs modern material are separated as they were earlier. Springee (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe that this content should stay in:

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

This is an expert opinion by a notable individual and puts the discussion into context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you believe it should stay in the body of the text or be a separate section? It's only semi-related since it's talking about historical events vs contemporary like the other sources. Springee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Same spot it was when added to the article: [10]. I don't see a need to put this elsewhere. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that it's talking about historical vs contemporary events I would suggest a separate section as you did a few months back.[[11]] It's not something I feel that strongly about unless we get other material talking about the motivations/politics behind those previous laws/events. Any issues with the rest? Springee (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Springee edit warred to remove cites and complained about my single revert sufficient to get me blocked. I urge caution by all editors moving forward on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wan't the revert you got you blocked, it was your edit summary. So yes, choose your words cautiously so you don't cast aspersions upon another good-faith editor or their edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with K.e.coffman's view about the Winkler material. I don't unless it's expanded, it doesn't need its own section. It is related to the rest of the material about African-Americans. It could actually be moved to the top of that section, but it would ave to be reworded a bit.- MrX 🖋 11:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A change that should be made is from African American to minorities. As I pointed out earlier, the Winkler article claims the pre Ww2 gun control laws that the NRA endorsed were aimed at Italian instants, not African Americans. Springee (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not and there's four Winkler articles, not one. The section is not about Italians, or other diversions from the consensus material, so let's not go there please. Also, this Atlantic article by Winkler [12] is obviously focused on African-Americans. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to read The Atlantic article more critically. It's talking about gun control laws and their use against minorities. It does not say that when the NRA supported gun control laws in the 1920s and 1930s they were targeting African Americans. Our article text does say that which isn't what Winkler said. If we are going to cite the comments of Winkler then we should be clear that he isn't saying the NRA only targeted AA's but that they, according to Winkler, also targeted other minorities including Italians. We should be true to the source. Springee (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

But the section we're discussing has nothing to do with Italians. We're not writing an analysis of Winkler's views; we are citing his views about the NRA insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Isn't the objective of this discussion to see how we can improve that specific topic?- MrX 🖋 15:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Then the Winkler material, or at least the 1920s and 1930s part of it should not be included in the section since Winkler makes it clear that was related to immigrants such as Italians. Only the material about the Black Panthers can be included in which case we need to make sure the cited articles are clear in linking the NRA's actions to the laws past. That link isn't as strong in the Atlantic article when we look at the 1960s. This is part of the reason why editors were rejecting this particular material earlier. It's not well tied in with the section header. It would be better saved for a section about the NRA's involvement with previous gun control laws. Springee (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll with User:MrX and [[User:User:K.e.coffman's assessments. As for OBERCITE - just an essay and not applicable here. Contentious claims should he supported by multiple sources. 5 or 6 good sources is a good thing here. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim isn't contentious. Weight has been established via the RfC so we don't need many redundant citations to support the claims. PackMecEng felt the same way. I don't think K.e.coffman offered an opinion on the redundant citations. As a compromise we can group the redundant citations for ease of legibility. I don't agree that the Winkler material has weight (and the RfC didn't specifically say what should or shouldn't be included) but for the time I agree that local consensus says it stays. Springee (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged I agree with Springee, the claim itself does not seem contentious. But 9 sources for a single claim even by your 5 or 6 suggestion is a little to much. I personally go for 2-4 even with contentious claims. Also yes it is an essay and not a hard policy or even guideline, but that does not mean it has no value in this situation as a helpful reference. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Statements with too few references are often seen as lacking support. My opinion is that 4-6 diverse sources would be adequate, and Springee's suggestion to group the citations is a good one. All of the sources are preserved in the RfC so I'm not worried about potentially losing them.

The historical context is appropriate in this situation. The section doesn't need to just be about contemporary issues. –dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Second attempt

OK, I've revised the material above. The Winkler content is merged back into the section vs being a separate section. I tried but was unable to figure out how to bundle [[13]] the extra citations so they are again absent. That said, this is an issue with WP:OVERCITE. I know some have said OVERCITE is just an essay thus we should ignore as we see fit. However, we shouldn't dismiss the essay so quickly. Starting with the Citing_sources#Bundling_citations section of the Citing Sources guideline which points readers to OVERCITE. The Citing_sources#See_also section contains both OVERCITE and wp:BOMBARD, both state that it's bad form to include redundant citations. From BOMBARD, "However, adding a reference to already verified material merely to get the reference into the article is not a good practice." and "When the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant, on the other hand, this can be seen as bombardment.". The citation guideline says we should consider both OVERCITE and BOMBARD. Both essays discourage redundant citations that add no additional support to the article. Springee (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

please stop. You just made esentially the same cite removal the third time in 3 days [14] for which you lack concensus. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First, I didn't make the same edit as the Winkler material was not include in the earlier edit. Second, the OVERCITE issue was noted by more than just me and is in line with recommendations that come from the citation guidelines. If you feel the extra citations are needed then make a case for the individual citation. Springee (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Overcite and bombard are not guidelines. It is clear in this discussion that there is not consensus to elevate the essays to the status of a guideline that must be adhered to for the purposes of this material. Let's please move on.- MrX 🖋 15:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Springee: I see you removed a whole lot of sources in spite of the push back in this discussion. I have restored some of them, leaving out three of the less important ones. I would ask that you seek consensus before removing any more sources.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX:, I hope you don't mind that I moved your comment down here. As I noted above I was trying to bundle the citations but was unable to get the syntax to work. If your only concern was the removal of the citations I would ask you to restore the text changes and then help with the citation bundling. We probably need more eyes on this since there was a strong consensus against the text as written and so far we are getting hung up on an OVERCITE issue that per guidelines should be a non issue to correct. Springee (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"Minority" is not a synonym for "African-American" or "black". Your edit misrepresents the sources as a whole, and attempts to change the topic of the section. Maybe the NRA also fails for defend the gun rights of other minorities, but that a different subject. If you would like to add that material, you should do it in a new section.- MrX 🖋 14:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Winkler article specifically mentions discrimination against Italian immigrants in the 1920s. It doesn't mention discrimination against African Americans until the 1960s. Springee (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Aren't there four Winkler articles. What is the relevance of the not mentioning discrimination against African Americans until the 1960s?- MrX 🖋 16:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There are three quoted in the article. The WashPo just says vaguely that the NRA supported "these laws". That's not much help. The article does say that the laws were in part racist but it's very vague to conclude the NRA's intent was racist. Remember the WashPo article is about gun control laws, not the NRA specifically. The New Republic had a more detailed take. Here is their discussion of the 1920s and the NRA's early involvement with gun control laws:

Like the KKK, the NRA was also formed right after the Civil War. The organization’s first major involvement with promoting gun laws tainted by prejudice was in the 1920s and 30s. In response to urban gun violence often associated with immigrants, especially those from Italy, the NRA’s president, Karl Frederick, helped draft model legislation to restrict concealed carry of firearms in public. States, Frederick’s model law recommended, should only allow concealed carry by people with a license, and those licenses should be restricted to “suitable” people with “proper reason for carrying” a gun in public. Thanks to the NRA’s endorsement, these laws were adopted in the majority of states.

Determining who was “suitable” under these licensing schemes was left to the discretion of local law enforcement. Predictably, racial minorities and disfavored immigrants were usually deemed unsuitable, no matter how serious a threat they faced. In 1956, after his house was firebombed, Martin Luther King Jr. was turned down when he applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Montgomery, Alabama.

Note that it doesn't talk about the NRA and the racism aimed at African Americans rather aimed more broadly. The Atlantic is again an article about gun control and racism but it doesn't really discuss the NRA until 2/3rds of the way down the article. In it's discussion of the 1920s and 1930s it doesn't mention racism at all. In that article Winkler doesn't accuse the NRA of racism until their actions in the 1960s. So right now the text is just plain wrong. It's WP:SYN. I would also note that we should include the NRA pairing with the NAACP to form an all black NRA chapter in the 1950s (Robert F Williams, [[15]],[[16]],[[17]]) This was during the 1950s 1960s time period. Springee (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not going to be possible to use list cites because several of the individual cites are reused throughout the section. I don't regard a maximum of five cites in a row as being problematic.- MrX 🖋 14:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Five cites in a row is perfectly fine. Do it all the time on other pages, especially to support controversial material. Time to move off this point. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In the opinion of two editors five sequential citations is fine. In the opinion of an essay cited by WP guidelines it is not. Currently only two editors support the view that all these citations are fine. Two don't. Since the added material doesn't represent a consensus view there is no reason to act like we need to maintain it. I will open a new RfC on the edits related to this section. I have additional material to add so I'll work on the edits and see where it goes. I would hope that the editors who are opposing can offer some suggestions (credit to MrX for efforts in this direction). Springee (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get some additional eyes on the OVERCITE issue but also just trying to clean up the passage in general.

Pinging RfC involved editors: @Niteshift36:@Icewhiz:@RAF910:@Snooganssnoogans:@MelanieN:@North8000:@Miguel Escopeta:@Dennis Bratland:@Dlthewave:@Neutrality:@PackMecEng:@K.e.coffman:@MrX:@Cinteotl:@Aquillion:@NinjaRobotPirate:@Legacypac:@Ward20:@Edaham: @DrFleischman:@James J. Lambden:@Wnt: Springee (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd be inclined to let this version by MrX stand. There's clearly some pushback against further tinkering with the content. The current version is acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• WP:OVERCITE is just an essay and not a policy. I would be generally opposed to trimming (otherwise valid) cites from a section that has just been the focus of an WP:RFC and an extended debate related to notability; it seems likely that many readers are going to have objections similar to the opposers here and that the cites are necessary to answer that. However, I agree that a massive line of citation links is a pain. Probably the solution is just WP:BUNDLING most of the citations. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. For the short term, leave any footnotes that are otherwise valid in the article as long as there are major unresolved content and article structure disputes among editors. Kick the can down the road on that. But once the major disputes die down, it will then become necessary to remove the redundancies. The main question is: Is this footnote here to help the reader? Or is it here because of a dispute between two editors? Keep the ones that serve the reader. Those that were put there by Editor A to convince Editor B about some dispute should be left on the talk page in the discussion between Editors A and B. If there are still more than 3 or 4 footnotes at the end of a sentence and the reader needs all of them, then bundle as many as you can. If there is a footnote that is cited in multiple places in an article, and it is also cited in a bundle of 4+ citations, then it's OK to repeat it. It adds a bit to the clutter at the bottom of the article, but it minimizes the clutter in the body where it counts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here are some additional sources and information that could flesh out the NRA's position on racism etc. It clearly is not a simplistic case of the NRA being racist. In 1957 the NRA and president of the Monroe, NC NAACP Robert F Williams formed an all black NRA chapter called the Black Armed Guard that was credited with protecting locals from Klan activities in the area.[[18]][[19]]. So the NRA was supportive of one group but supported laws that negatively impacted legal gun ownership by the members of the Black Panther Party. In recent times we have the NRA's minority outreach [[20]] and the founder of Black Guns Matter Maj Toure who states, "The NRA is not a whites-only organization. Are there a lot of white males in the NRA? Yes, but it’s time we break that narrative. It’s not even about getting people to join organizations like this one. We want to get people involved in self-defense, in shooting sports, in Second Amendment conversations.". [[21]] "There is a stereotype that the NRA and the gun-rights movements is just a bunch of old, white guys and racist rednecks who don't want us around and don't want you part of the culture. You've been lied to. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do we as NRA members want you all, we are begging you to come in." [[22]] (Yes, Daily Mail but I think it would be accurate for a direct quote). Toure supports the NRA.[23]] We should also note that the NRA is trying to reach out to black and other minority gun owners [[24]]. That last article reiterated that the NRA's Castile reaction was likely based on fear of alienating law enforcement vs actual racism. Anyway, while we wait for the community to weigh in on the SYN and OVERCITE issues in the current text we can at least start suggesting improvements with the material above. Springee (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd be well served by focusing on actual policies rather than essays. I would argue that neither OVERCITE nor BOMBARD provide coverage for bulk removal of relevant citations to reliable sources.

I think the previous version of the "Lack of advocacy" section and Springee's version [25] both have problems. For example, in the last sentence of both, it's unclear whether it was the NRA that targeted minorities, or the gun laws that targeted minorities. I don't think either is WP:SYN, but both are unclear.

Though either version could be fixed, I think the current version [26] is a better starting place. Cinteotl (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about the lack of clarity in the Winkler material. Most of what I read on the supporting articles say the gun laws were at least in part racist. It then was implied that the NRA supported the laws thus they were racist. It seems like a rather weak accusation against the NRA, hence part of why I was against including the material in the first place. I don't think you have made a good case as to why OVERCITE and BOMBARD don't apply. The most obvious example is the Castile citations. No one is claiming that the NRA wasn't slow to comment so why so many citations? Either way, just above I've suggested additional material so we can at least try to add more context to the section. Springee (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: I'm a bit confused. You have been advocating reducing the number of citations, but two posts ago, you advocate adding more citations. FYI, Reason.com and The Daily Mail are not reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RSN consensus that Reason Magazine (Reason.com) isn't a RS. The last map of media reliability I saw put it in the same category as The Atlantic, a reliable source with well argued points of view (Found it faster than I thought I would [[27]].). Also consider the content it's being used to support which is historical fact in nature. The Daily Mail I agree is normally not but in this case is only being used to provide a direct quote, not interpretation of facts (hence what I previously said). Yes, I've been advocating removal of redundant citations. Here I'm advocating adding more content with supporting citations. That is a very significant difference. Springee (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The New Republic citation [28] supports the claims that (1) A model gun control law which the NRA’s president, Karl Frederick, helped draft was "tainted by prejudice" against "racial minorities and disfavored immigrants," and (2) The Gun Control Act of 1968, for which the NRA took credit, was about "controlling blacks," and was "motivated by racism." I'd say these are substantial accusations. There is a citation offering a different perspective here [29].

Regarding the OVERCITE and BOMBARD essays -- you're the one who seeks to use them to justify removing citations from the article, so the onus is on you to make the case. I believe the citations should remain until the outstanding content and structure issues are resolved. At that point, we can revisit the topic.

Regarding the sources you found to flesh-out the NRA's position on racism: They're a good start. I was able to find quite a few sources discussing NRA racism (for example [30]), so it shouldn't be hard to fairly represent all significant viewpoints. Since this is a generalization of the existing section, we should probably rename it to "Racism." Cinteotl (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Just in reply, I agree (and previously highlighted) what you said about the New Republic source [[31]]. It's why I'm concerns about SYN in the article as posted. The first quote was from the discussion of the pre-WW2 laws and the critical part was that it was not targeted at just African Americans. The current Wiki article text implies that (hence SYN). My edits were an attempt to make it clear this wasn't a narrowly targeted law and it was focus more on mob and organized crime related issues. The 1960s law was clearly tied to the NRA in that article.

I've repeatedly explained the issue with OVERCITE and the fact that we have redundant citations that add no additional support to the claims in the article. That said, you and Dennis Bratland are correct that if we don't have stable text then they can reasonably be left in place as a work in progress. Once the text is stable we can revisit cleaning the citation mess.

I would be OK with expanding the scope. I'm reluctant to use the word "racism" because in political context its very binary. 1950s KKK racism isn't nearly the same thing as "racism" because someone was insensitive to minority views or due to subconscious/inadvertent biases. The MediaMatters article is an op-ed and doesn't offer strong support for the claims. It would be worth following them up but I don't think that article, as is, should be considered RS. BTW, I think the NRA's efforts at minority outreach should also be included in this section (hence why I don't want to use "racism" in the title). Even if the NRA hasn't succeeded, it's clear the NRA is making efforts and wants a more diverse member base. Springee (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason "1950s KKK racism" existed is because it was normalized by ostensibly mainstream and respectable voices like today's NRA or Fox News or Donald Trump. There is a direct line between racist dog whistles in an NRA video and a white supremacist terrorist driving a car into a crowd of people. When we talk about how "lone wolf" terrorists are radicalized by ISIS or Al Qaeda, there is little disagreement, even among white nationalists, about how this works. But some in the US pretend that white nationalist terrorism is somehow different. It's not different; it's the same. The way terrorists of the 1850s or 1950s or 2010s are radicalized is exactly the same. Very little has changed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. My point was that "racism" is the description used for very deliberate acts and mild indifference or self interest (avoiding a lower income neighborhood out of fear, real or imagined, of crime). It lacks gradation. Per NOTFORUM I'll leave the other part on the table. Springee (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was addressing. Racism is not merely deliberate acts. Overt crimes are supported by deniable winks and dog whistles. Overt racist crimes are caused by structural racism, and structural racism is built on a foundation of subtle racism. The idea that a gradation places a group that cultivates racist attitudes but washes their hands of the acts themselves outside the category of "racist" is false. Indeed, the most important element of racism is subtle encouragement and toleration by the mainstream. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The assertion above that "racial minorities" is not another name for mainly African Americans, especially when written alongside "immigrants", is misguided. The NRA was not targeting laws that would make it harder for Koreans to carry guns. Racism is racism be it separate water fountains, segregated schools , or gun control laws that made it easy for white police to keep black citizens from carrying guns. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to MrX's statement a ways up? Winkler did say the laws supported by the NRA in the 1920s and 1930s were used to exclude unsuitable people from gun ownership. "Determining who was “suitable” under these licensing schemes was left to the discretion of local law enforcement. Predictably, racial minorities and disfavored immigrants were usually deemed unsuitable, no matter how serious a threat they faced. " I would agree that "racial minorities"!=African American in all cases but in many cases. The Winkler source didn't say the 1920s, 1930s legislation was solely targeted at African Americans so we shouldn't either. Springee (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In this instance, it might be more accurate to use the term "white supremacy" rather than "racism." Except one is more highly charged than the other. Cinteotl (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

2nd try - section break 2

• I attempted a rewrite here of the paragraph here [32]. I did not remove any citations or alter the meaning. I removed redundancy, for example, the previous version contained: "The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans" and "Critics say that the NRA [...] has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners" which essentially say the same thing. I also put the pro-law-enforcement argument directly before Castile and put Winkler in his own paragraph. I will have to read the sources there before I form an opinion but I hope this is helpful in the meantime. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, This is an area of active discussion. If you can't explain why you think the current version is better don't revert. Keep in mind the RfC said consensus is against the current text. I see JJL's text as an improvement. Springee (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Please specify your objections. Your complaint "not an improvement" is impossible to engage. The version you restored repeats essentially the same the complaint four times:

• "The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans"
• "Critics say that the NRA [...] has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners"
• "The NRA came under criticism [...] for its silence on the shooting of Philando Castile"
• "According to The Washington Post, the NRA [...] stayed silent on the Castile shooting"

How is that a service to the reader? James J. Lambden (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored @James J. Lambden:'s edits. The RfC closed with consensus that the text as written was not a final form. JJL's edits read more cleanly, don't remove any citations nor change the meaning of the text. This should be a easy change. Snoogansoogans offered no actionable critique of the change nor justification for restoring text that was not viewed positively in the RfC. For that reason I've restored JJL's version of the text. Springee (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've unrestored it. The section should not start out with "Critics say..." per WP:WEASEL and grouping all of those citations together means someone will want to remove them, as has been the theme in this discussion.- MrX 🖋 11:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. The text needs improvement per the RfC. Rather than help or even offer constructive edits we've seen roadblocks. The critics say can easily be fixed without reverting the rest of the improvements. The concern regarding overcite is a red herring. Bundling has all ready been suggested and if the citations are redundant than their removal is no loss to the reader. Springee (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs improvement. I tried myself, but its difficult to convey this fairly complex issue in just a few words. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant:

The NRA has come under criticism for insufficiently defending gun rights for African-Americans. Critics say that the NRA is typically quick to defend gun rights when the rights of white gun owners appear to have been violated but has stayed silent or offered muted and delayed responses in gun rights cases involving black gun owners
— Current Text

.

We should try to find away to introduce the subject in a brief summary. Perhaps:

The NRA has been criticized as routinely defending white gun owners' gun rights while remaining silent, or offering muted and delayed responses, when African-American gun owners' gun rights are involved.
— Proposed

Thoughts? - MrX 🖋 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

MrX, sorry for being snippy earlier and thank you for the text suggestions. I'm not sure I like either of those because they contrast white vs black. Is the intent of the section how the NRA responds to African American gun rights (vs all others) or how it responds to Caucasian gun rights (vs all others). As written it implies that black and white are the entire spectrum. Meanwhile our Winkler source specifically talks about the NRA supporting legislation that was targeting Italian immigrants among others. If we want the section to be about AA gun rights and the NRA then we shouldn't contrast it with just whites. BTW, I think part of this section should cover the NRA's attempts at outreach with, based on the sources I've found (I think I've added most to this thread) mixed results. This actually ties in because a number of the articles mention that the NRA is trying to reach out but their efforts are hampered by things like the Castile incident and a perception of the NRA being only for old white men. Springee (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Had someone rephrased my "Critics say..." I would not have objected. My goal was to remove redundancy and improve readability not to moderate any claims. I share Springee's concerns but in terms of incremental improvement I would consider my edit with MrX's proposed text progress. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made another edit for readability here [33]. Are there any objections? I removed "overly zealous" because it was not in the source [34]. The source, by the way, could be used to expand the article. For example it asserts regarding the NRA's support for law enforcement that "this wasn’t always the case. Back in the 1990s, the NRA was sharply and very publicly critical of aggressive police tactics, at least at the federal level." I am concerned that the article is classified as opinion but wonder whether Radley Balko satisfies the "expert" exception. His 2016 book The Rise of the Warrior Cop is thought-provoking whatever your politics. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• As a general comment on how we phrase criticism or opinions, we should try to avoid any of the synonyms for said, per WP:SAID. Instead of "X argued that" just say "X said". "Others argue that..." should be changed to "Others say that..." (And if you remove the word that, it says exactly the same thing with one less word). "Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, has argued that there is..." should be "Adam Winkler, professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law, said there is..." I'd probably make it even tighter and more specific by, and use less punctuation by writing "UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler said the NRA favored gun control that was 'used for racist purposes' in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s, with the intent of taking guns away from Black Americans." It's inaccurate to say that Winkler "said there is historical precedence to the NRA's lack of advocacy". Winkler did not say "lack of advocacy". He said the NRA is " intimately involved " in gun control "used for racist purposes" and that the NRA promoted laws that were tainted with racism." Another point that Winkler has repeated in the three citations given is that the NRA is a latecomer to gun rights advocacy, and that it was the Black Panthers who pioneered the modern gun rights moment, in spite of the NRA. We ought to mention that. Also per WP:SAID, "noting that" should be changed to "and that" or just "and".

  "According to The Washington Post, the NRA had..." might be considered neutral, but it's unnecessarily wordy. You can convey exactly the same thing by saying "The Washington Post said the NRA had..." But in this case, I'd probably write "Avi Selk of The Washington Post said..." because it's not clear if this article is the WaPo editorial position.

  We should try harder to avoid passive voice, and in this case we should not lable anyone as a "critic of the NRA" unless that is an established fact. Avi Selk's article says NRA members have complained about the response to the Castille killing. These members are probably best characterized as "NRA supporters" (if we must characterize them at all). I have often said that "Wikipedia did X and I think Wikipedia should have done Y". That doesn't make me a "Wikipedia critic". At least, characterizing me as primarily a Wikipedia critic is misleading. I'm primarily a Wikipedia contributor, and supporter, though I take issue with some Wikipedia decisions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the style suggestions. I will review the Winkler sources before commenting on substance. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have qualms with Balko. His existence (notability) relies solely on ensuring that his claims of "militarized police" never goes away. He (and Peter Kraska) get quoted a lot because they're the two main agenda warriors in a small field. Creating controversy is in his best interest in terms of sales and trying to stay relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch RfC

You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Offstage? Her statement that she made is talking about the event that occurred onstage. This is what she said. And it was over 5K people. I had to have a security detail to get out. I wouldn’t have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming ‘Burn her!’ And I came there to talk solutions. Jake Tapper confirmed this. The Miami New Times only shows videos offstage and misleads their readers to thinking that Loesch was talking about what happened offstage. ViriiK (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

LaPierre compensation

@MrX: I'm not sure I agree that the LaPierre compensation is DUE but I think if we include the information it should be clear the $1m is a recent figure, not 1991 pay. Here is a better source [[35]] Springee (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If we aren't including the salaries of all other NRA presidents it's undue and it's trivia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to reword it to make that clear. It is a pretty high salary for nonprofit employee and thus would be of interest to readers. The Independent article actually has more useful facts about the NRA like their membership and revenue growth.- MrX 🖋 01:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't restore it before discussing here now that it has been challenged. At this point you need to establish weight for inclusion. BTW, while the pay is very high, it wouldn't hit this top 10 list [[36]] nor this one for schools [[37]]. Anyway, at this point I think you need to make a case for WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I just added another source. I certain believe that the salary of one of the NRA's most visible employees is noteworthy, don't you? I say that having written a number of article on nonprofits. It's a basic fact, not a point of view.- MrX 🖋 01:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Rather than discuss, and I'm noting here that MrX was pinged to this discussion, he decided to revert my reversion. Isn't that a vio of the DS policy for this article? It should also be noted that MrX reverted after he was pinged here, after it was noted in my own edit summary that WP:DS is in place for this article and WP:BRD should be applied with discussion taking place as the edit he made was challenged. His edit [38], my reversion [39], Springee's opening of this discussion and the ping of MrX [40], MrX's reversion [41]. I'm not sure why he chose to behave in this manner (reverting without discussion), but I'd love to see an explanation. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm discussing, as is evident in this discussion. No need to ping me. I'm right here. Let's work on improving content rather than shooting it down for no reason.- MrX 🖋 01:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're reverting and editing the disputed content more than you're discussing. Which is inappropriate. The content should stay as is until discussion has concluded and consensus reached. That's been the standard for a long, long time. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my editing behavior, you may raise it at an appropriate noticeboard, but not here. Please focus on helping to improve the article's content. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 01:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: information is not "trivia" when 3rd party sources devote considerable coverage to a topic, i.e. this article in Money.com: "Wayne LaPierre Has Made a Fortune as CEO of the NRA. Here's What We Know About His Money", discussing his compensation over time. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It's trivia when it's singled out to one individual out of several named, in the same position, throughout the article. Why is LaPierre's salary encyclopedic when none of the other past NRA presidents' salaries are listed in the article? If one president's salary is encyclopedic, then we need to include the salaries of the other past presidents as well, as theirs are just as encyclopedic - correct? Otherwise, it looks very unbalanced and POV to single out LaPierre. Or it's just trivia. At any rate, if the NRA president's salary is encyclopedic for this article, then the salaries of all the presidents is and we need to list them. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what trivia is. LaPierre has been the face of the NRA for decades, so yes, his salary is a pretty significant. I don't know what other NRA presidents you're referring to. Past presidents? Feel free to add them if you think it will improve the article and if you can find sufficient sources.- MrX 🖋 01:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is LaPierre's salary encyclopedic when none of the other past NRA presidents' salaries are listed in the article? It's encyclopedic when there are reliable sources covering it, as required for the encyclopedia. If there are reliable sources covering the compensation of other presidents, let's include it too. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"It's encyclopedic when there are reliable sources covering it" Wrong: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Note that MrX's rationale for including the content as "Fact" in the edit summary. As that policy article states, doesn't matter that it's a fact. And, when reading that policy, please also notice the mention of WP:WEIGHT. Which has already been brought up above by myself as well as Springee. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:NPOV/N then and see how many editors agree with your interpretation of our policies.- MrX 🖋 02:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Absurd revert and absurd discussion. Why is it that the most obvious and non-controversial things have to move past countless hurdles on this page and so many other pages related to conservatism? If RS deem it notable enough to mention, we mention it. Salary information for senior staff and prominent figures of organizations (non-profits and businesses) is frequently covered in Wikipedia articles, and it would stun me if I were to ever ever ever observe someone revert reliably sourced info about salaries from any non-political page. For what its worth, I don't think I've ever seen salary info removed from a page related to US politics before. It's so noncontroversial that even on pages characterized by edit-warring and constant content disputes, editors don't even attempt to argue that there are policy-based reasons for removing reliably sourced salary info. That is to say, until Winkelvi did so on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Well said. It's so contrary to Wikipedia's principle of creating a free and open encyclopedia that it boggles the mind. I've never seen basic information like this reverted before, and that includes when editing controversial articles about anti-gay organizations and controversial religious groups.- MrX 🖋 02:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  "If RS deem it notable enough to mention, we mention it." That's contrary to WP:NOTNEWS, which clearly states that most newsworthy items aren't notable, so that can be extrapolated here. However, I'm going to ask very plainly: Are you saying that if something is in a RS, it belongs in this article and I'll have your support in adding whatever I find in a RS? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course @Snooganssnoogans: fabricates a non-response and puts it in an edit summary. I never argued the NYT violated SYNTH and he couldn't explain a policy he doesn't understand himself. Passive-aggressive much? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Did people bother to look at the actual edit? First, the way the material was restored during a dispute was problematic given this article is subject to DS. Second, weight, in context of this subject should be established before restoring the edits. I can see a case for WEIGHT here but that doesn't mean we inelegantly dump the content into an inappropriate section. Why was this content added to a section called political expansion vs say the Leadership or Criticism sections? The location of the pay in and otherwise unrelated section seems random or POV pushing. Why would executive pay be in a section on political expansion? It makes no sense to include it in the current location. We won't always agree on content but I hope we can at least agree on good copy editing! Springee (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Time source ties the compensation to the growing political clout of the NRA, so the location is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Springee (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I modified the content taking your objections into account. You complained about due weight, so I cited three sources. You're the one usually complaining about too many sources! I added it to that section because that seemed to be the most relevant. Do you have a suggestion about a better section to include it in?- MrX 🖋 02:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well you did at least fix the part where your original text suggested WL's 1991 salary was around $1m. However, the weight and location were still problems. I've moved the material to the Leadership section. Springee (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm OK with it being moved, but I noticed you omitted two sources, and the $3.7 million retirement payout he received in 2015. That is part of his total compensation and should be reflected in the article.- MrX 🖋 02:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I used the most recent CNN source that K.e.coffman provided. It stated the average compensation number that I put in the text. Since the CNN source discusses the one time payouts we are covered for those who wish to look into the mater in greater detail. Springee (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean Time/Money Magazine. Isn't it a bit misleading to omit information about the rest of LaPierre's NRA compensation, which both Time and The Washington Post (and The Hill) made note of? Do you object to including that information in the article, and if so, prithee why?- MrX 🖋 02:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I do mean Time/Money. Given the $4 million retirement payout was covered by the $1m/year average I don't think it needs to be mentioned. If you make on average $1m/year does it matter if the payout is exactly $1m each year or $2m the last year and less than $1m over the preceding few? Either way, I added the one time payout to the article. Springee (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that. I understood the average of $1 million per year not to include the extra $3.7 million in 2015.- MrX 🖋 03:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly such salery/compensation information is of encyclopedic value. It's unusually high for a non-profit but given the amount of money sloshing around in the NRA not surprising. It needs to be included and sourced of course. Anyone that has an issue with restoring this knows how to use the appropriate noticeboards. Expect to have your own editing examined carefully if you file a report. Legacypac (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You say that it's unusually high because you react without studying the question. He makes $1 million. Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Assoc makes 1.8 million. Cristian Samper of the Wildlife Conservation Society makes 1.3 million. James Williams of Easter Seals makes 1.2. According to Charity Watch, there are 19 CEO's of non-profits that make $1 million a year or more. Another 5 make $900K or more. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Good research - so indeed it is unusually high - likely in the top twenty non-profit salaries out there. I'd exclude hospitals and such that are really big businesses operating as non-profits.Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We should also keep things like civility in mind, avoid casting aspersions and follow best practices like BRD. Springee (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, you're one of the last people who should be warning anyone about having their edit history examined. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm gonna surprise a person or two here. I support inclusion. Not because of Snooganssnoogans' incorrect claim that if a RS said it, we say it. LaPierre is the face of the NRA and has been for decades. He is the most constant face and voice of it for decades. I can't think of anyone else, save possibly Charlton Heston, who is more associated with the org for all those years. I have to say it's probably relevant enough to include. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't totally disagree with your reasoning. That said, there's no encyclopedic reason why LaPierre's salary should be singled out and the only salary mentioned. To do so still is in the undue weight realm. Especially when you consider that Wilson Phillips, NRA treasurer, makes more than LaPierre and the ED/ILA (Chris Cox) makes near LaPierre's salary. The other item worth noting (if we are going to list executive salaries) would be how NRA compensation varies from year to year, retirement payouts change the total compensation picture, and there are and have been years where the president has made more than previous years as well as less than previous years. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer a single sentence entry like was made over adding all that. Although I know who Cox is, most people won't. Fewer know who Phillips is. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the NRA, not LaPierre or NRA presidents. If we are going to include salaries, we would be remiss (and still ignoring undue) to only mention LaPierre's salary and not the salary of the other top execs of the non-profit. Otherwise, we are not helping the reader to better understand the article subject as a whole, just a minute portion of it, and an incomplete one, at that.

I'm pretty clear on what the subject is. Would we really be remiss? Take the Ford Motor Company article. The infobox shows the Chairman and the CEO. We know who the CFO, COO, CTO are, but they don't all get listed. I think in this case, LaPierre is too much linked to the identity of the NRA to dismiss this. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying we dismiss it. I say we need to not focus on LaPierre because he isn't the subject of the article. He's not the only person at the NRA that has or currently makes a huge salary. We need to make sure that is clear with other salaries included. Otherwise we are violating WP:UNDUE and that type of content is unbalanced. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Including the top guy's salary is not undue. We don't need to list the secretary's pay for balance. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's dishonest as well as undue if it's not the top salary from year to year. Which it isn't. And, just for the record, the president of the NRA isn't "the top guy", the CEO is. Where's his salary in this article? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not dishonest as well as undue if 3rd party sources cover the compensation; we follow the sources to determine weight in articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

“The National Rifle Association has been criticized by newspaper editorial boards, gun control and gun rights advocacy groups, political commentators, and politicians. Democrats and liberals frequently criticize the organization.“ Criticised on which grounds? I know that criticism in the US can be quite undifferentiated, but this is too less. I believe it is not possible to just say “I criticise XYZ.” and then be cited as criticising XYZ. Also, criticism does not only mean negative points, so some positive critique should be added as well, due to WP:POV of course in the right dose reflecting the facts. Surely the organisation supports its members by, for example, sponsoring professional competions or promoting firearms education. I know that there are many heated tempers on this topic for various reasons but nothing of that has something to do in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTNEWS). In this current state the whole section could as well be omitted because there are no facts except the quite minimal meta-information that someone criticised someone else. I do not mean pro gun rights here. That is not any criticism of the NRA directly. If you understand German, look at the german article, it lists and cites very well in this regard. Cheers, Narwaro (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two very good sources provided to support those words. It is hardly a centrist, non-controversial body. It would be non-encyclopaedic to leave that fact out. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The section is certainly a mess of UNDUE and NOTNEWS. The problem is we have a mix of editors who fight to put smaller stuff into the article and bigger items that are still arguably too long. The criticism related to the mass shootings is absolutely due given the very large amount of coverage but the play by play coverage isn't likely encyclopedic over the long haul. Other items such as "In December 2008, The New York Times editorial board criticized..." are virtual throw aways. The problem is any serious effort to clean this section up would face accusations of whitewashing the moment some of the negative material was trimmed. Springee (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, undue and notnews is right. As far as use of the word "criticized", Narwaro's right: there's no qualification to explain why the NRA has been criticized. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I'm generally OK with the intro paragraph since the NRA clearly has received wide criticism. It can be debated if the criticism was deserved, legit etc but it certainly receives a lot of criticism. If there is anything in the intro I would question it's the list of anti-gun organizations. I'm not sure why a simple list of opponent organizations would be included. If they made a particularly notable criticism then the name would exist later in the text. Springee (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, any criticism should be woven throughout the article. The NRA is largely notable because it has been so widely criticized, thus the weight distribution in the article.- MrX 🖋 13:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If we are arguing WP:WEIGHT, then you're going to have to support "The NRA is largely notable because it has been so widely criticized" with reliable sources. The NRA has been very notable long before it was ever considered by some to be controversial. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the organization is largely notable because it has been criticized. It's notable because it's influential. That influence has drawn criticism largely from those who disagree with the legislative polices the NRA supports which ironically don't appear in this article. I would like to address that last part but time and how to do it in a way that doesn't get rejected are current problems. Springee (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"The NRA is largely notable because it has been so widely criticized" That is a very telling statement. Now I understand why your focus is entirely on criticism. You don't actually understand the org or the history of it. To you, criticism is the main reason for this article. That could be the most honest thing you've said in these discussions and it should probably call many of your positions into question. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The article would exist without criticism, but I stand by my comment that a very large number of sources have covered the NRA in a critical light. - MrX 🖋 13:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering the organization has existed since the 19th century, a very large number of sources - and far more of them - have covered the NRA in a positive light far above a negatively critical light over the last 100+ years. Looking at article subjects and their notability in the context of Wikipedia and its standards for inclusion and sourcing is short-sighted, at best. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect.- MrX 🖋 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And you're basing that personal assessment on what, precisely? 123 years of media coverage prior to when the NRA was beginning to be negatively covered due to the assault weapons ban in 1994 (with repeated/regurgitated coverage via the internet after the release of Windows 95) is to be discounted? Can't imagine why. The world did exist, coverage did happen before the mid-90s. For anyone to dismiss it is a myopic action, in my opinion. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently your version of history doesn't date back more than 10 years. You're a victim of recentism. Again, your inability to fully understand the topic and focus solely on a segment that you are incorrectly elevating makes your edits questionable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would discuss content, not your opinions about my abilities. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you would. Why would you want anyone to bring attention to the fact that you've reduced a 150 year old organization to a 5 year news cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The NRA is very well known outside the USA, almost entirely for negative reasons - the reasons for which it is criticised. {For example, as an Australian I frequently find myself trying to re-educate NRA members who wrongly believe our government confiscated all our guns. How could they have ever got an idea like that?) The many years of non-controversial behaviour did not gain it that reputation. It is the stuff it is criticised for that make it notable. Remember, this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Aanecdotal stories don't establish weight or notability. Yes, this is an international encyclopedia but NOTE doesn't say the subject must be internationally notable for inclusion. The criticism section is still subject to NPOV and WEIGHT. 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Springee (talk)

I agree that anecdotes prove nothing, but a search of international journals would demonstrate my point, should those aiming for a great encyclopaedia feel like doing it. And are you suggesting that the views of 95% of the world's population are not of significance? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So what is your point? Springee (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My point is obvious. There is no need for me to repeat it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the views of MrX.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX is correct to say that the extensive criticism, legitimate or otherwise, gets a lot of coverage. However, it would be totally wrong to say that is the only reason the organization is currently notable. It would totally ignore the NRA's non-political activities. Those activities alone would make the organization notable. It also ignores a critical component which is what the NRA advocates for. It's funny that we are so worried about why they should be criticized but we have almost no coverage of what the NRA actually advocates for or, perhaps more importantly, why. Springee (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on totally ignoring the point I recently made (and you actually commented on), that in the 95% of the world outside the USA the ONLY things that make the NRA notable is those things it is criticised for. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems your point was muddled. Anyway, it might be your opinion that the criticism is the only notable thing about the organization but we have to follow wp policy and guidelines. Springee (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote, and throwing insults. That tends to be a strategy of those with no valid response to something they don't like to see. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And so do I agree with MrX. The average Canadian finds American society somewhere between slightly and totally gun crazy - and a good part of that impression is a result of the NRA's vocal stances. The rest is how people keep shooting up schools and the American's don't crack down on guns. I'm sorry Springee does not feel he has forced enough of what the NRA wants said into this article. I can assure you that even outsiders like Canadians already know what the NRA stands for and why. They spend tens of millions a year making that clear. The NRA is not some misunderstood organization with no budget to defend themselves. Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree about what? If you think criticism is the only notable aspect of the NRA you are simply wrong. If you think it should be covered per NPOV and DUE I don't think anyone disagrees. That you claim to know what the NRA stands for and why is interesting. Why not share with the rest of us. Springee (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, while entertaining to you, this discussion has nothing to do with your anecdotal take one what the average Canadian things. And we're not trying to write this from a Canadian perspective. So once again, your response adds nothing to the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The ONLY notable things about the NRA outside the 5% of the world that is the USA are the things it is criticised for. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac and HiLo48, your personal opinions on the NRA and have no bearing on content inclusion in the article. Unless, of course, you have reliable sources to support your personal opinions. Do you? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It does beg the question: Since the NRA is an American organization (other countries have similar orgs), why are we suddenly focused on the current opinion of a bunch of other countries? I could probably find a poll telling us what Litunanians thought of Obama, but does anyone really care? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does what other countries think matter? Because the USA has massive cultural (and other) impact on the rest of the world, one that the rest of the world cannot ignore. There is also the fact that in the case of my country, Australia, the NRA hates the fact that mass shootings were eliminated here through some sensible gun control legislation, so it tends to lie to its members about what actually happened in Australia. (NRA members tell me, wrongly, that the government confiscated all our guns. I wonder who told them that? I have seen Australians called ignorant sheeple by NRA members on online forums. The term is a common one. Where did it come from? The NRA and the USA does not stand in isolation from the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"There is also the fact that in the case of my country, Australia, the NRA hates the fact that mass shootings were eliminated here through some sensible gun control legislation" That's not a fact (got reliable sources to support what NRA as an organization thinks - as a whole?), that's an opinion. And because it's your personal opinion, it has no relation to the article's content. Which makes me wonder why you even thought it necessary to bring up as if it does. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, HiLo48 is correct, the statement is a fact in that it can be proven or disproven. In this case, disproven as Australia had a mass shooting in 2018. Springee (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's false, but it's what the NRA wants you to believe. Thank you for proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't have a point and claiming the "NRA lies" just shows your hostility to objectively discussing the subject. BTW, you might want to check your own history. [[42]] Springee (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Get your definitions right. That was a murder-suicide, not a mass shooting. The definitions matter, and are formalised. But the NRA doesn't care. Nor do its supporters. And Murdoch news is not a reliable source for language such as that. As for declaring that I don't have a point, insults are not welcomed here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Tell that to the news sources calling it a mass shooting. I didn't realize you were an NRA spokesperson. Can you provide a link supporting your "NRA doesn't care" claim or is that just your opinion? Springee (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You give the distinct impression that you never read the whole of what I write. I'm getting sick of repeating myself here. I give up. Others will know what I'm talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't assume that a failure to agree with you is due to a failure to read what you wrote. Springee (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I can handle rational and informed disagreement. I am less impressed with ignoring what I write. HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were against insulting people. You are now suggesting others here, myself perhaps, can't handle rational, informed disagreement. I suspect most of us can. I don't agree that your opinions on the NRA are well informed and more to the point, they aren't relevant to the subject at hand. As for ignoring what you write, don't confuse disagreeing with ignoring. You failed to persuade. That doesn't mean I ignored what you wrote. Springee (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but it IS a fact. The existence or non-existence of a source cannot change a fact. HiLo48 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is Wikipedia. Where facts are only facts if they are verifiable. Got sources to support what is now becoming even more clearly your personal opinion? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is rather absurd to say the NRA is best known for it's criticism, even outside the USA. That is a non-starter looking at the discussion. Now there is due weight to have criticism in the article, perhaps not a dedicated section but in the areas relevant to the specific criticism. PackMecEng (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What else is the NRA known for outside the USA? I can't think of anything. HiLo48 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your short-comings in terms of news and history shouldn't be foisted on others. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that the editor who started this section appears to be from Germany and was noting how poorly the section is being handled. Springee (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Very ironic. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The "Criticism" section is yet another example of why recentism bias and lack of enforcement of NOTNEWS are two of Wikipedia's biggest problems. Editors seem to lose the ability to effectively summarize important information and ramble for endless paragraphs and sub-(sub, sub, sub...)topics. Near all the criticisms originate from the last 5 years; yet it is almost as large as the "History" section of an organization that has existed since 1871!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the NRA goes back far further than 5 years. Wikielvi has banned me from his talkpage so should never ping me or try to ask me questions. Next time I will simply remove any post they me tion me in as trolling. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

True. We know that criticism goes back at least to LBJ. That's hardly recent (or news).- MrX 🖋 22:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac and MrX: Sources, please. Reliable are the only ones which will be acceptable. I'll wait. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

^^^troll who evidently can't read my instructions. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You should try actually reading the article. Citation #34, if that helps.- MrX 🖋 02:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A timeline of events and the NRA's connection to them is not media criticism. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. I made an comment and backed it with a source. My part of this fatuous discussion is done.- MrX 🖋 02:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote: "We know that criticism goes back at least to LBJ."

I wrote in response: "Sources, please."

You then responded to my response with this: "You should try actually reading the article. Citation #34, if that helps."

Citation 34 is a WaPo article with a timeline of events in the NRA's history.[43] I'll repeat: A timeline of events and the NRA's connection to them is not media criticism. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

-- ψλ, from Citation 34: "1968: In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson excoriated the NRA, saying: “The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby.”Waleswatcher (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I know what the source says re: LBJ and the NRA. As I already stated above, the source gives a timeline of events involving the NRA. But that's not the topic of this discussion editors are saying they have proof of. The topic is negative media coverage of the NRA over the organization's near 150 year life span. Anti-NRA editors are claiming that negative media coverage over 1.5 centuries far outweighs the positive. One such editor claims the WaPo article proves the claim. It doesn't, because that's not even the premise of the article and no such proof exists in the timeline. But thanks for trying to help. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

-- ψλ,MrX, How about this? It was the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, however, that led the NRA to drop any positive affiliation with the mainstream press. Following the president’s death, investigative journalists began exposing the NRA’s behind-the-scenes practice of pressuring legislatures to vote against firearm regulations. The NRA responded by either denying the truth of the reports, claiming that a given news organization was “anti-gun,” or hinting that anti-gun elites, Communists, or a foreign government seeking to disarm the United States had funded an objectionable story.....After the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, in an editorial appearing in American Rifleman, the NRA declared that “future Americans” would look back on that moment as a “classic example” of the media pressing the “panic button.” This editorial went on to claim that Congress passed the law because of a “richly-endowed [anti-gun] propaganda machine.” From https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/how-the-nra-pioneered-the-right-wing-art-of-demonizing-the-media.html. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Legacypac here too. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In what capacity are you proposing adding that to the article? As is, no, it would put way to much weight on the opinion of the Slate writers. If what they claim is true then we should be able to find other sources, in particular non-recent sources, that say the same things. Claims such as those being made in the Slate would require multiple sources to support. If other sources noted some other group was the "first to attack the media" then we would have conflicting views. I'm sure we can find conflict between parts of the media and the NRA going back many years. That wouldn't support the claims being proposed above. Springee (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Springee, this is a reliable source that shows the NRA has been subject to criticism (and had an adversarial relationship with "the media") at least since 1963. That's all. If more are needed for something I'm sure they can be found.Waleswatcher (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

OK but what do you expect us to do with the source? I mean I don't doubt the NRA has been criticized in the media prior to say 1994. I'm sure they have responded to negative articles in the past. How is that content encyclopedic? On the other hand, the claim that the NRA somehow started the idea of attacking the media would require significant sourcing. As I recall the protection of free speech in the US was born in part out of government organized attacks against the media dating back to before the US was founded. The NRA was founded after 1776. If we can make a reasonable section out of the NRA's adversarial relationship with some parts of the media or just note that it's often involved in controversy or viewed controversally then the Slate article would support such a section. If this is all to prove that the media didn't just discover the NRA, well OK. I believe you (and never said otherwise). Springee (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher I think this is good material. It establishes an important turning point for the NRA. Slate is perfectly fine source. Ideally, we will find a couple of corroborating sources.- MrX 🖋 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

5 years ago the National Post (leading Canadian newspaper) was so surprised to get pro-NRA letters they published a column about it. [44] MEC (Canada's leading outdoor store) and the Running Room (largest athletic wear retailer) both boycotted Vista Outdoor for its support of the NRA, and this was not a comtroversial move it gained wide consumer support.

The NRA has been active in Canadian politics for at least 12 years - something missing from the NRA article [45] which makes many Canadians uncomfortable. This editorial lays out a typical Canadian reaction to the NRA [46] and it is not positive. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism sections, per policy, are generally undesirable, because amongst other things they are magnets for POV edit warriors. High quality articles usually do not have these sections. Many of the items in the Criticism section, e.g. Media campaigns and Boycott, could be integrated into the History section. Other items, e.g. Gun control, could be added to a new Positions section. Positions would express the NRA's position, and then a response.– Lionel^(talk) 04:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board with this. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This conversation is a total waste of time. Now some editors have jumped from denial there was criticism for many years to throwing up supposed arguments that no one is making so they can shot them down. This is just insulting our intelligence and wasting our time. It someone want to propose a actual edit please do that so we have something to discuss. Legacypac (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"It someone want to propose a actual edit please do that so we have something to discuss." Lionelt did exactly that here: [47]. Perhaps you missed it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen a conversation with you that was not a waste of time Legacypac. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

McClatchy, Putin’s inner circle &/or high in the Russian Orthodox Church photographs and an NRA source

Since there is a "McClatchy reported in January 2018 that...", I suggest the inclusion of

McClatchy reported in June 2018, per photographs and an NRA source, Putin’s inner circle or people high in the Russian Orthodox Church, now have been identified as having contact with National Rifle Association officials during the 2016 U.S. election campaign.

X1\ (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If that statement made grammatical sense, we might have something to work on. Want to try again? HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See above, better? Or can you suggest a better sentence? X1\ (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

May 18 edits to intro

Waleswatcher, the material you restored doesn't actually fit in context where it was added. The NRA was not the focus of intense criticism after the Las Vegas shooting. The body of the text doesn't say the NRA was widely or intensely criticized. That is why the material was removed. Since you think it should be restored, please justify the position. Also, please note that the version prior to your edit was in place for 2 weeks and was the stable version prior to that. This means the addition needs to be justified. Springee (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, "The NRA was not the focus of intense criticism after the Las Vegas shooting." I totally disagree. If I can find multiple sources that indicate the NRA was in fact strongly criticized and add them to the body, will you concede the point? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The text of the article doesn't support that and your edit is against the consensus version. The intense criticism after the FL shooting was clear. After the LV shooting the NRA came out for a bump stock ban. Springee (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"The text of the article doesn't support that" - as I said, if I find multiple sources and put them in, would you accept that? If not, why not? " The intense criticism after the FL shooting was clear." Same after LV. " After the LV shooting the NRA came out for a bump stock ban." And that didn't satisfy their critics. "your edit is against the consensus version." Where can I find the discussion that reached consensus against mentioning LV in the lead? thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A good measure of how much heat the NRA felt on October 3 and October 4, 2017, was that by October 5, they took the unprecedented step of supporting a ban on bump stocks. Bump fire or bump stocks had been an issue that had some discussion in the media and specifically among gun control advocates in the years leading up to the Las Vegas shooting, but not a peep from the NRA about it. Their uniform opposition to any sort of restrictions such as banning bump stocks, or related issues like large capacity magazines and other gadgets, didn't crack until Las Vegas. Their position was that the AR-15 is a sporting rifle, end of discussion. The NYT wrote in the lead paragraph of their story that it was "a rare, if small, step for a group that for years has vehemently opposed any new gun controls." It is entirely accurate to say the NRA came under intense criticism after the LV shooting. Why are we even having this discussion? There's plenty of controversial points to debate but this is not one of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On one hand when just about anything gun related happens we can find an article critical of the NRA (frequently based on faulty logic). On the other hand, look at the vitriol directed at the NRA after the FL shooting that was certainly something different. Same with Sandy Hook. That sort of anti-NRA stuff didn't happen after the Vegas shooting. Also, if the lead is supposed to summarize the body, well the body doesn't say the NRA was subjected to such extensive criticism after Vegas. If wide spread and reliable examples like what we saw after the FL shooting can be found then we should talk about changing the body followed by the lead. Note that this shouldn't just be an article that was critical of the NRA. Alternatively, we can drop "intense" from the lead sentence in question so the lead fits the claims made in each of the referenced shootings. Springee (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"We can find an article"? You think we have to search to find articles saying the NRA was heavily criticized in the wake of the LV shooting? It sounds to me like you simply don't like what the overwhelming majority of respectable, reliable sources have to say about the NRA. The burden is on you here to support any of the novel claims you are making here. Faulty logic? Source? Vitriol directed at the NRA after the FL shooting that was certainly something different? Source? I really dislike that you're making other editors spend so much of their time wrestling over no-brainers with you.

The burden is on you. You cite reliable sources who have made any of the assertions you make here. The sources saying they were intensely criticized after LV, and responded by caving on a long-held position, are copious. No effort is necessary to "find" them because they are at the top of every major story. Please don't demand we waste our time proving that to you. It's disruptive, and if your intent here is to force others to hand-hold you source by source just to prove to you the sky is blue, then I question your motives.

Ball is in your court. Sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The body of the text doesn't say it. The onus isn't on me to find sources for you. Also, you have to keep things in perspective, look at the anti-NRA protests after the FL shooting. Where were those after Vegas? The burden isn't on me since I'm not the one pushing to change the consensus text, that would be Waleswatcher. Why don't we removed the "intense" word, add a source that indicates the criticism after LV and call it good? Of course you could just argue consensus has shifted with 3 editors to 1. It would be a weak justification but I would accept it. Springee (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to support the series of wild claims you have made to justify your entire argument. To me it sounds like you're making it all up. As far as whether or not the body says it, so what? Why should it? Because the MOS:LEAD guideline says that is the preferred way to organize an article? The MOS organizational guidelines are not an easy tool for to delete whatever you don't like. If you want the organization to be perfect, then write the missing material in the body. Or patiently wait for someone else to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why was that directed at me? I haven't changed the text in question since 6 May. WP:ONUS states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I'm not actually pushing for a change to the article. I'm stating we should keep it as it has been for at least a few months. It was arguably 3 vs 1 in favor of the change but after Niteshift36's edit it's 3:2 in favor of the change (counting the original editor who has been silent on the change since 6 May). That isn't much of a consensus for a change. Your claim about abuse of MOS is based on the assumption that the text of the article supports that version of the lead. That hasn't been shown. Springee (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, we shouldn't try to list every event that the NRA was criticized for in the lead. Two examples where they were most heavily criticized is sufficient. It gives readers the idea that there was criticism and that it can be found later in the article. The 2 I left were incidents where the NRA received the heaviest criticism. Again, I feel like 2 is sufficient. It lets a reader know that there was more than one instance without looking like we're trying to 'name-drop' or make it look like it's less neutral. In short, my question to you would be what does adding a third do that isn't accomplished by 2? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A lengthy article about the National Rifle Association but no mention of the National Rifle & Pistol Matches and only the briefest mention in passing of modern competitive shooting. Sheesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18th lead changes

Tomwsulcer, would you please explain why you prefer the new lead vs the previous consensus version? It seems to have too much detail and it's being supported by opinion articles (the citations added to the lead). Given that this is the lead we should explain why the edits make sense and aren't UNDUE (for example mentioning Gov Christie and NJ). The language could be better but I don't think this new version is an improvement. @Ryan1783: Springee (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally, it's at least as good as the previous, but there is a grammar error in the last sentence and we should drop the Chris Christie material entirely.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Springee yes the new sentence more adequately describes the level of antipathy toward the NRA, which is covered in numerous references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that the text could read better. However, the net of the changes are not an improvement. Please keep in mind that that paragraph has been around basically unchanged for several months. The paragraph in original form was added late February and became basically stable March 9th. Given all the contentious edits I would say that means the previous text had at least a grudging consensus when a lot of editors were involved. That said, it doesn't mean things can't be improved. The change to the first sentence has several issues. Previously it stated the NRA was criticized both by gun rights and gun control groups. That is supported by the article. It now no longer says anything about gun control groups. The first setence is also loaded with MOS concerns related to PEACOCK and WEASEL wording/phrasing. We start with "In recent years" but that would suggest the organization wasn't the subject of controversy in the past (say more than 20 years back). This is also something that MOS:RELTIME says should be avoided. Just as we are told to avoid positive MOS:PEACOCK words we should avoid negative ones as well (and hyperbole in general). The text, "...fierce condemnation and criticism for its ideology, legal challenges to laws regulating firearms, and relations with the media" may be true but it has a lot of loaded words and phrases. The previous sentence covered the same issues but without loaded language. I'm not saying the sentence couldn't be improved but the new sentence should be more factual and less copy paste of critics. Remember, we are supposed to be neutral (avoid WP:EDITORIAL). NPOV means we can cover unflattering things but it also says we should avoid the language of rhetoric in the process.

The redone final sentence is an improvement in a number of ways. "Gun control advocates have accused the NRA of complicity in mass shootings by actively opposing laws in favor of restricting firearms,[13] gun rights advocates have criticized the organization for perceived leniency regarding firearms, and political commentators and politicians, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, have excoriated the NRA for airing advertisements which have been interpreted as defamatory.[14]" I don't think we need the citations in the lead as most of this is well supported in the body (and lead citations are generally poor style). I would suggest changing "complicity in mass shootings by..." to say "complicity in mass shootings and gun crime in general..." (or similar) since gun crime in general is clear part of the attention. I like the mention of politicians but see no reason to mention Christie in particular nor why the politician's criticism would be "limited" to defamatory advertisements. I think it would be more general to say something like for lobbying for/against gun legislation and politicians. Springee (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here, in this instance, trying to be neutral (eg pro-gun people say this, anti-gun people say that) is generally a good approach but when trying to describe the level of seething anger on the part of wide swaths of the public, against the NRA, we need to describe what is out there, as it is. Watering it down, papering it over, is like sprinkling sand on a river of angry lava. That's a disservice to Wikipedia readers as well as contributors on both sides of the debate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

But we shouldn't put that "seething anger" in the lead using negative peacock terms. Also, it's not for us to decide that the public feels that way. A neutral telling is a better path for a number of reasons. Springee (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase seething anger is a bit over the top, but those two words are not in the lede section we're talking about. But the reality is that there is much anger at the NRA in the aftermath of repeated high-profile episodes of mass murder, and trying to paper this over with neutral-sounding words is misleading. Here's the supposedly neutral version: The NRA has been criticized by gun control and gun rights advocacy groups, political commentators, and politicians. That's pretty cardboard-y, bland, almost makes the NRA look like a victim. Here's the more accurate (in my view) version: In recent years, the organization has been the subject of fierce condemnation and criticism for its ideology, legal challenges to laws regulating firearms, and relations with the media. The second version more accurately conveys the true state of affairs, which is reflected in numerous sources. Further, I believe NRA supporters who read this article should get an accurate sense of the public mood.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's simply over the top and thus a MOS problem. Despite the criticism as recently as 2015 (the most recent data I found in 5 min of searching) the NRA's overall public support was 58%. It's probably lower now but we aren't talking about a fridge group. [[48]]. The cardboard language was added by an editor who isn't sympathetic with the NRA. Per the spirit of Peacock we state using neutral language and don't lead readers to a conclusion with our phrasing. "Fierce condemnation" is redundant to criticism other than being harsher sounding. But being harsher sounding means it's a MOS problem. The word ideology absent other context is vague. There legal challenges part is generally fine since it's both neutral and closed ended but it's somewhat problematic since part of the criticism of the NRA is based on their legal compromises. Your edit again leaves off that pro gun rights organizations have also criticized the NRA. The public mood comment directed at supporters has no basis in policy and reads as WP:RGW. We aren't supposed to editorialize (per MOS). Springee (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, these changes need to be left out. They're loaded with weasels and peacocks. -- Frotz(talk) 12:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Frotz and Springee. It's one thing if an organization is sometimes criticized; it's another if a wide swath of the public views it negatively with widespread anger about repeated gun violence, expressed in numerous editorials such as here and here. I don't see how the term "fierce condemnation" is a weasel word or peacock; that's how much of the public feels, frankly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does the MOS say it's OK to use PEACOCK and WEASEL words if public sentiment is no longer on balance positive? Even if public sentiment were 95% negative the MOS still applies. Even your source doesn't say negative opinion is over 50% when polled right after a school shooting and a LOT of negative (fair or otherwise) coverage. Springee (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Stuff like "fierce condemnation" is covered by MOS:OPED and should not be used. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur with these objections. The size of the swath of public opinion is no reason to start using weasels and peacocks, no matter the topic. Another thing that should be understood is that the accuracy of public opinion polls on issues dealing with firearms are much worse than with less politically-charged issues. Most gun owners I've spoken to will not talk honestly with strangers inquiring about their guns or their opinions on guns as a topic, if they will talk at all. This can be verified by a casual examination of assorted online forums for discussing firearms. The reason for this attitude is fear of being targeted by thieves eager to steal their guns and fear of attacks from people who hate them for owning guns. -- Frotz(talk) 15:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on a lack of consensus for the change here I've restored the previous stable version. I personally think some of the concerns raised are valid and we could improve that part of the lead. I think the first sentence of the new material was problematic but the last sentence could be an improvement with some edits.

Gun control advocates have accused the NRA of complicity in mass shootings by actively opposing laws in favor of restricting firearms. Gun rights advocates have criticized the organization for perceived leniency regarding firearms restrictions and gun rights. Politicians have criticized the organizations political influence.

I would suggest the above as a replacement for the current last sentence. I don't think it would require specific citations as it can be supported by the body of the article. Springee (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Just replace the second use of "gun rights advocates" with "They", and an apostrophe in the final "organization's". That would accurate and unarguable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case my intent was to say the NRA has been criticized by some gun rights groups for what they see as being not hard line enough, for having compromised on gun rights in the past. Clearly my intended meaning was lost so that one needs help. Springee (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Newly added Russia material

@Soibangla:, you recently added material related to the possible connections between the NRA, Russia and Trump[[49]]. That subject was recently covered by a RfC [[50]]. The outcome was to allow a limited amount of material, "There is consensus to include a few sentences about this issue." I think your added material reads too much as a series of damning quotes rather than an actual assessment of what happened or is alleged to have happened. Given the RfC would you mind cutting the material down? I think it would be better as just a summary of the allegations and evidence vs a series of quotes. Thanks! Springee (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Four sentences in a small paragraph would seem to meet the definition of "a few sentences". Perhaps it could be trimmed slightly, but we shouldn't leave readers in the dark for something this important.- MrX 🖋 14:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Springee's request for paring down to a brief summary as it is excessive per the consensus and fits the definition WP:UNDUE. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry quite so much about the 4 sentence length though I would take that to be longer than the RfC intended. The problem is a few of those sentences are very long and tt's currently the longest paragraph in the section. It's got at least some sourcing issues such as citing The Daily Beast and a raw pdf. It seems like the quotes were included to create a damning impression rather than a discussion of the facts. For example, why mention the NRA spent more on this election than on Romney's? In context it suggests a Russian related conspiracy rather than offering an number of rational justifications (Different political climate in 2012, less money available etc). The damning quotes method is something I've seen in the past when an editor wants to include controversial or damning material that would not be acceptable in Wiki voice. Quoting allegations doesn't make for an encyclopedic entry. If Soibangla doesn't weigh in I would suggest pinging the editors involved with the original RfC to get opinions on how to fix this. Springee (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rather than pinging everyone and potentially making this into a big issue, why not just propose an alternative version that addresses your concerns?- MrX 🖋 14:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look but to be honest I haven't been following the issue as closely as others. Thus I'm not as knowledgeable with regards to all the details that aren't in the sources provided. I am willing to give it a shot but I would suggest that those who want the material in are likely better at making suggestions. That is why I pinged Soibangla. As a first draft I would suggest we cut any material that is speculative in nature from the text, even if it comes from a source. This shouldn't be a gossip column. Springee (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I could weakly support removing " — triple what it devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race", but that's it. Everything else is pretty essential to understanding the issue.- MrX 🖋 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't a "limited amount". It was clearly the largest entry in the section. The line about spending $30 million on Trump is already mentioned in the section. The whole 'Torshin is connected to Putin' part is just trying to make it sound more evil, same with mentioning his charges in another country. If you want to know about Torshin, click on his name and read his BLP. I've removed them. I'll renew my question that was never answered: Has any news org aside from McClatchy independently made the claim that there even is an FBI investigation or is this still 2 anonymous people and everyone just repeating it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's please not WP:REHASH the RfC. If you have an alternate proposal, can we please see it?- MrX 🖋 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

So rather than discuss it, you just add it back in speculation and a POV description. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you type four colons :::: instead of two ::? Fix it, then I'll respond to your comment.- MrX 🖋 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

So that it would be inset more than the other from Springee. First you griped about the asterisk. So I stopped just for you. Now you gripe about semicolons and even make it a condition of response. Starting to seem more like a cry for attention power play than a legitimate concern. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks from here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it and you still didn't respond. Makes one question, doesn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, you restored a sentence that seems to be largely speculative in nature. I understand the NRA isn't subject to BLP protection but we shouldn't include speculations and the like. How about an alternative means to fixing this. What information should this section contain? Let's not focus on the current text but instead ask, what should be in the section and go from there. Since you were the initial champion of the material at the RfC would you start off? Personally I would cut the material down to one sentence saying a report has claimed the NRA is being investigated for X and preferably a second sentence saying if sources feel the NRA was a willing or unwitting participant. That part is important since I'm sure people would judge the NRA based on if they knowingly vs unknowingly participated (or if that information is unknown). That's something the current text leaves out and seems to be significant to me. Springee (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty important to explain Torshin's connections with Trump, the NRA, the Russian government, and Taganskaya, exactly as the main sources do. I don't see that being speculative, since they are facts specifically highlighted by the sources. One sentence is not nearly sufficient to cover this, and creating WP:FALSEBALANCE would not be a way forward. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's rephrase that incorrect statement. My edit didn't cut it to "one sentence". It removed one (very long) sentence and a shorter one that you agree could go. I left 2 very long sentences. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

But do any of the sources say the NRA was a knowing participant or that something actually happened vs it's currently speculation/under investigation? Anyway, I think if we can't get an agreement in the next day or so I think the best option is pinging the RfC participants. Yes, it will be painful but it hopefully will result in a definitive answer. As I look into this a bit more it seems that we have a very partisan subject and even partisan material (note the PDF in question is from Feistein's government website, anything but a friend of the NRA). Yeah, I'm not OK with the text as is but I don't currently have a better suggestion. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No one disputes the NRA took big donations from a Russian and spent big money for Trump. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No one disputes that the NRA spent money on the Trump campaign? I guess. What counts as "big money" is debatable when the NRA's spending is compared to other groups, including some anti-gun groups. Do we have a source that says how much Russian money the NRA spent? The only one I've seen is $2500 but I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the whole of it. At this point I'm pretty sure we are having the same discussion that was had at the time of the RfC. Springee (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Many many many RS point out the spending for Trump was 3x spending in the Romney campaign or any other campaign and thst Torshin is connented to Putin. Stop trying to whitewash this by hassling any editor that adds anything questionable about NRA activities. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of whitewashing. Springee (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

LP, what you call "big money" is less than the Service Employees International Union gave Democrats in that same cycle, less than the American Federation of Teachers gave Democrats that cycle and about the same as the National Education Assn and Laborers Union gave Democrats in that cycle. So really, how notable is that amount of money in Presidential campaigns? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, it does seem like you consistently object only to material that is unflattering to the NRA. While "whitewashing" is a bit saucy, the underlying observation is well-founded from where I sit.- MrX 🖋 17:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you only put 2 semicolons after a response from me? Applying your standard, it's fair to say that you are pushing an anti-NRA view since you've only added or supported information that puts them in a negative light. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

lol. I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Springee. See WP:THREAD for more information.- MrX 🖋 18:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

For someone as sarcastic as you are, you apparently don't recognize it very well. But hey, whatever makes you feel superior. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The newly added material is perfectly fine. Substantial RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answering a question that really isn't being asked. Nobody is disputing that there's coverage by RS's. We're discussing UNDUE and NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The material is neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:POV (Of course, due weight is actually part of the NPOV policy). I documented 25 sources for this material, far more than what is available for about 80% of the material in this article. Due weight has been more than adequately established.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Having a number of sources don't magically erase UNDUE. The TOPIC isn't being disputed in this particular discussion, but the AMOUNT of text is. The edit you reverted left more information than it removed. You already misrepresented it before (claiming I left one sentence). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Many sources discussing something supports us giving it weight. Yes $30 million dollars is a lot of money from one lobby group for a single campaign especially when it is way more then they spent on previous campaigns (says the RS) . Sorry I don't take editor opinions on what is a lot of money too seriously. Big union agragate donations to hundreds of Dems is 100% expected. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, you don't take editor opinions on what is a lot of money, yet you alone get to say "big money" and can't be chaleenged on it? Typical of you. And no, many sources is not what gives it weight. MANY sources discuss many things every day. Most newsworthy items aren't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean if you want to get technical they gave 11.4 million to the Trump campaign and spent 19.8 million on anti Hillary stuffs.[51] Which itself got somewhere around 957.6 million.[52] Not a ton in the grand scheam of things. PackMecEng (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's always wise to refer back to what the applicable policy says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't think that 131 (less than 2% of the artcle text) words is excessive when we have at least 25 sources to draw upon.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

But what you are actually fighting here is 1 sentence. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Interested editors should try to improve the sourcing on the rest of the page instead of trying to trim a well sourced little section that is remotely potentially negative for the NRA. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Interested editors should try sourcing material that doesn't drive their personal agenda. (Not saying you have an agenda. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that every addition you support to any firearms related article is a negative one) Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break, NRA-Russia discussion

Having looked at the recent edit there are a couple of problems with it that haven't been already discussed. First, the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't release the report we quote in the article. That was released by Democrats on the committee and thus should not be treated as bipartisan. The Daily Beast leaf out the fact that the "report" is just a statement from the involved Democrats. The commettee actually released 2000 documents but not the one in our article. Thus that sentence needs to be changed as it's factually in error. [[53]]. The WSJ had an article noting many of the issues with the current story.[[54]] The biggest issue is simply that their is basically nothing concrete in the whole thing. We really should be clear on that point and it would be proper to make sure one of the "few" sentences is that disclaimer. Just a bit from the WSJ:

A few days later, the same two McClatchy reporters were out with this: “NRA lawyer expressed concerns about group’s Russia ties, investigators told.” It again cited two anonymous sources claiming Congress was investigating Ms. Mitchell’s worries that the NRA had been “channeling Russia funds into the 2016 elections to help Donald Trump.” Ms. Mitchell tells me she told McClatchy before publication that this was false, that she has spoken to no one about the NRA’s actions in 2016, and that she believes the entire NRA-Russia story line is preposterous. She asked the reporters to explain to whom she supposedly said this, when and in what context. They couldn’t, but ran the story anyway. Ms. Mitchell calls it “the quintessential definition of fake news.” Ms. Mitchell notes that other news outlets backed off the story after she denied it, with one reporter agreeing in email that he did not want to “be associated with some left-wing conspiracy.” A McClatchy investigative editor emailed me that since the “central assertion” of the story was that “congressional investigators are looking at information” that Ms. Mitchell said something, it didn’t matter if she had denied it. The editor noted that McClatchy had published her denial, and corrected its headline to reflect that she is not a current NRA lawyer. Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.

We also have NR critical of the narrative.[[55]], [[56]], [[57]] Anyway, the current text has errors and bad sourcing so it needs to be corrected for those reasons alone. Springee (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The only one here which is MAYBE a RS is NR and that doesn't support the text. The other two are not reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You claimed there are other sources that refute the claim. That would make a stronger case for removal. You otherwise need to explain why you feel the sources provided are not reliable for the claims being made. The removed text could use improved prose and the citations here needed to be added but once that is done the text should stand. Springee (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice work, Springee. You're right, this all needs to be rectified. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's problematic that you're unable to distinguish an op-ed from an article ("Don't see evidence the WSJ considers this an editorial"). Not only is the content of the "article" utterly idiotic (as most WSJ op-eds are) but it's labelled "opinion" at the top. That's an op-ed by Kimberley Strassel, a pro-Trump partisan who frequently posts falsehoods and conspiracy theories related to the Russia investigation and America's institutions. Why are you citing non-RS (op-ed in NR, the Moonie Times and the Federalist) in this talk? Is it really that hard to stick to actual RS and facts to defend your view? This is not the first time that you bring op-eds and blatant non-RS to these kinds of discussions. Throwing all these non-RS into the discussions does nothing to help us find a consensus or acceptable compromise, they just divert the discussion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That the report is from Senate Dems should of course be mentioned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Snoogans, OK, I see the issue. I have a paid subscription and on that it doesn't say opinion (I did double check because when I first saw the article I thought I saw "opinion". Either way, I see no issue including the WSJ opinion and we can call it as such. Regardless, the concerns raised are still there. I'm not saying we should simply remove them but if we are going to include unsubstantiated rumors, and that's what they are, then we should also include commentary that notes as much. I would ask that you tone down your last bit. You are critical of including a WSJ editorial but OK with treating "The Daily Beast" as a RS? I'm agreeing with many of the editors who were involved with the RfC that noted that we have a core, undisclosed source and many other sources repeating the claim. We also have source saying an NRA lawyer said she was concerned about the Russia involvement but the lawyer specifically denies making any such claim. Alternatively, we can just say this is an investigation and that all reports are rumor at this point. That wouldn't stop us from saying many NRA critics have run with the claims but we shouldn't act like the claims are in the least bit substantiated. Springee (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• If we don't have some type of way forward by this evening I'll ping the RfC participants. It's disappointing when an editor who adds material doesn't come to the talk page to discuss it. I've added a NPOV tag to the section. Springee (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't be everywhere, but maybe the paragraph will soon need elaboration: FBI gets wiretaps on Torshin soibangla (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that still, no other news source is claiming that there is a FBI investigation. It's still all centered on a report by McClatchy, based on two anonymous sources. As time passes, shouldn't some news source corroborate this? Or the FBI even confirm it? We keep acting like this is a done deal, a proven fact. It's an claim that hasn't been corroborated. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Nation actually backs that up the vague single source issues you have mentioned. Perhaps we should include that in the article. [[58]]:

No other outlets have confirmed McClatchy's report. Articles from the same co-authors, Peter Stone and Greg Gordon, have relied on similarly vague sourcing. After reporting that the NRA may have been used to funnel Russian money to the Trump campaign, Gordon conceded in an interview that one possibility is it "did not happen at all." Springee (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Nation is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have something to back that POV? The Nation isn't a right wing source interested in saving Trump. Springee (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That the Nation has a fringey left bias does not make it a RS for criticism of the left. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to see where that consensus was determined. In the meantime, The Nation was help to be acceptable for BLP's [59] here and here [60]. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Times said something similar a month earlier [[61]]. Springee (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Moonie Times is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Snoogans, I think you will need to show why these diverse sources aren't reliable for the claims they are making. Springee (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am absolutely not going to dig through linkspam from a "diverse" list of rubbish sources. It's a complete waste of time to fit through op-eds and "reporting" from outlets that undertake no fact-checking and frequently publish birther conspiracy theories, 9/11 truther nonsense, climate change denial, Seth Rich conspiracy theories and so on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to dig through link spam. All you have to do is go to WP:RSN and find discussions that support the view that those sources aren't reliable. Springee (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, from RSN, just like the links I provided you to show that the community doesn't dismiss the Nation like you do. The Times article is written by Rowan Scarborough, a notable journalist and best-selling author. You, on the other hand, want to take the word of two non-notable reporters with some anonymous sources on a claim that at least one of them appears to be backing away from. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What about This discussion on RSN? or this one?. Notability/bestsellingness have absolutely nothing to with importance or reliability Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those reach any consensus. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Skimming through those articles doesn't show the WT to be unreliable. We also need to consider it's not just the WT but WT + WSJ + NR + TN + TF all saying the same thing. Springee (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating op-eds and reporting, which is egregious in the case of WSJ, which has high-quality news reporting but idiotic op-eds. And a collection of bad sources do not equate one good source. Is there a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to it? Well, the WT + WSJ op-ed page + NR + TF say that there is no scientific consensus on climate change and that the world might even be cooling. Let's go and add that to the climate change article, shall we? Or wait, that's not how this works, is it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Op-eds aren't prohibited. It depends on the author and what they're covering. Climate change has nothing to do with this, nor is it mentioned in the source article under discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The cited Washington Times article is completely unusable here, especially when we have numerous reliable sources that have actually done some journalism beyond asking a few NRA members what they think. Members like Rose Wilson who calls it a lie because Hillary uranium(!) or Ricky Bullon who calls it "stupid" because Hillary funnel(!). Let's try to do better.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would it be completely unusable? Because you don't like it? It's not an op-ed (which doesn't immediately disqualify a source anyway). It's a piece by a notable reporter. I've seen no consensus at RSN showing that the WT is not a RS. For you to arbitrarily declare is 'completely unusable', then add comments about random people not contained in the article, is simply not supported by policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained why it's not usable. Aside from the Washington Times having a reputation for nakedly promoting a hard right view of the world, the article is little more than them selectively asking a few poorly-informed NRA members what their opinion is. None of that belongs in, or even near, a serious encyclopedia article.- MrX 🖋 20:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you've made the declaration, but there's nothing but opinion in it. MSNBC is hard left, yet we use it. Mother Jones is hard left, but we use it. Can you show a community consensus at RSN that backs it up? You've made the statement twice that the WT piece is the opinions of NRA members. Are you reading the same piece? [62] I see a spokesman for Mueller quoted. I see Trump attorney Michael Cohen quoted. I see Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS (and benefactor of the Steele dossier) sort of quoted. I don't see anyone else quoted in this article. So either you are reading a different WT article than the one under discussion or talking about some BS in the comment section. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for Mr. X to explain how an article that doesn't quote "poorly-informed NRA members" can be rejected because it does little more than ask "poorly-informed NRA members" for opinions. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Random people who happen to be NRA members are not experts on the Russian government illegally giving money to the NRA to help get Trump elected. The fact that they immediately go to Hillary underscore the shallow, cynical reasoning of these "people on the street". Such lazy journalism is one of the reason why the Washington Times is not a well-respected source. Obviously I was referring to the source in the OP. - MrX 🖋 11:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What random people? We're talking about the WT article. There's no "random" "poorly-informed NRA members" quoted in it. You said "... the article is little more than them selectively asking a few poorly-informed NRA members what their opinion is" The article, singular, is clearly referring to a specific article, not the WT as a whole. Once again, the article we are discussing doesn't ask for any "people on the street" or stuff like that. Either you are not reading the same article being discussed or you are talking about some stuff in the comment section. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So far you've added no substance to your accusations. Springee (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sngs, I'm not conflating anything. Those sources have all said there hasn't been any follow on after the original McClatchy claims. Do you have any sources that refute that claim? You might not like the WT but given the range of sources saying the same thing I think you will have to do better. MrX, the same really applies to your objections. We aren't talking about a single source or just right leaning sources. Springee (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal OPINION | POTOMAC WATCH piece is devoid of substance and full of random musings by an NRA lawyer/not lawyer. Let's pass on this one too.- MrX 🖋 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The WSJ article is making a few claims. First is that the lawyer didn't say something she is reported to have said (which I admit doesn't directly impact the current wiki text). The other, which is confirmed by more than one source, is that no sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims. That is a rather significant bit of information which shouldn't be hidden from readers. Do you have any sources that say there have been followup reports that corroborate the original? We can always attribute the no follow up claims to the various sources rather than in Wikipedia voice. After all, the WSJ is a very significant source. Springee (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. I have no objection to simply stating that no (publication) sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims.- MrX 🖋 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's part of what I wanted you to acknowledge two months ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification of RfC editors

I'm notifying editors involved in this RfC [[63]] based on the addition of related material to the article. Currently there is a disagreement regarding the degree to which the material adheres to the closing consensus. @Sandstein, MrX, Snooganssnoogans, Icewhiz, Niteshift36, DrFleischman, PackMecEng, GreenMeansGo, K.e.coffman, Markbassett, BullRangifer, Neutrality, SMcCandlish, Aquillion, François Robere, Mathglot, OwenBlacker, Tomwsulcer, Emir of Wikipedia, Legacypac, and Elmmapleoakpine: Springee (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that four well-sourced sentences in one paragraph constitutes "a few sentences" per the RfC close. This looks like 1-2% of the article text. Why are we debating this again? Neutrality^talk 03:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, please provide a link to the section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

After a very brief look at this - I think the current text is appropriate (at least in what is in the article as I write this). The Senate Judiciary Committee's report is a significant development - that was not present at the time of the previous RfC (where this was in the substantiated zone). I don't think the content should get much longer that it is in the article at the moment - per RECENTISM - but obviously we should allow some space for development of the article based on development in the "Russia angle".Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• The NRA-Russia angle is important and should be covered by a few (eg, four) well-referenced sentences.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Icewhiz completely. 3 sentences with 4 well-sourced refs reliable seems completely appropriate here and it makes sense both that it doesn't merit much expansions right now but may merit such in the future. No concerns here (apart from the presence of the NPOV banner and the bare URL to the Senate Judiciary PDF) — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Icewhiz as well.Waleswatcher (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Current material isn't well sourced. The second sentence is sourced to The Daily Beast and contains misleading information. The report it discusses was not released by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The SJC just released documents. The report was released by the minority Democrats on the panel (out of Diane Feinstein's office). It's anything but non-partisan. Beyond that, the DB's summary is incorrect. We can fix this by using a better source. I also propose adding at least once sentence citing the sources that are critical/skeptical of the claims. We have enough that they should get some WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Correct. This wasn't the SJC, it was part of the SJC. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I take no issue with the amount of content, but I think the sentence about Torshin is off-topic, a bit non-neutral. We generally don't have a full sentence going into details about a side character, at least not when those details have no apparent connection to the rest of the sentence, and especially when they implicate WP:BLPCRIME. The appositive "the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor" is enough. Readers can readily click through Torshin's link to learn more about him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That was an improvement and I agree with your concerns. Also we need to find a better source to replace The Daily beast. It's summary is factually wrong. It leaves out important details like it was Democrats not the SJC that released the summary report and the report said "Kremlin may have used" (as reported by The Hill and other sources) while the TDB says "Kremlin Used NRA". Omissions like that make this particular TDB report non-reliable. This is fixable of course. Springee (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Are you actually suggesting that Torshin is a side character, rather than a central character? Let's see what ABC News has to say:

"Alexander Torshin, the Russian politician who sat at a dinner table with Donald Trump Jr. at the 2016 National Rifle Association convention, has been added to the list of Russian nationals sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department.

The deputy governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation was for years a paying member of the NRA and repeat guest at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, but more recently has been the subject of scrutiny as lawmakers and Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigate possible attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 presidential campaign.""
— ABC News

Not only do they cast Torshin as the main character, they even put in in their lede!- MrX 🖋 12:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It's important to say that he's under investigation as part of the probe into Russian interference. What I don't think is appropriate is a whole sentence about his (alleged) ties to Taganskaya. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I would be amenable to swapping out the Taganskaya sentence with the content I proposed below in which the FBI was handed recordings of Torshin talking with a Russian mafia boss.- MrX 🖋 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd oppose that for the same reason: it's not part of Torshin's short description and there's no apparent connection to the NRA or the rest of the paragraph. This discussion is getting too unwieldy. I suggest you start a new one. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I still think OFFTOPIC, just yet another sniping, but as to length .... Too much at 10 lines, of 5 sentences is more than “a few”, or the editors “couple”, “1 or 2”, “very brief paragraph”. The first line does good, and properly credits McClatchy. The second line seems a decent paraphrase runs on a bit, so perhaps cut it there. (Just fix the attribution to source Feinstein.) The line about $30 Million being triple the prior candidate seems unsupported and in any case not related so could go. The last two lines mentioning the NRA arm not having to report, and the last one saying the Russian is laundering seem pure innuendo and SHOULD be cut. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  It's not innuendo; it's a significant fact that at least two excellent sources took note of.- MrX 🖋 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I replaced the Daily Beast with a McClatchy article as the DB was misrepresenting the facts. I agree with DrFleischman that the last sentence is off topic but given the eyes on the subject I didn't want to pull it without a bit more input (or silence taken as approval). Springee (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm seeing more support than not for the version as of the start of this discussion.- MrX 🖋 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking back on it, the Torshin-Spanish stuff is just off give a brief mention. It doesn't discuss the NRA. It does suggest Mr Torshin is a shady character but perhaps that can be integrated into the previous sentence more succinctly. I'm not sure that many have expressed an opinion one way or the other regarding this last sentence. I think 3 opposed, you and I think one more for but we don't have a clear opinion from most people. Can we just do a better job of integrating it?

In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign". [First name] Torshin, a lifetime member of the NRA (as of X date?) and close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his assistant Maria Butina are reported to have acted as intermediaries.

This better integrates the material and keeps it focused on the NRA. I'm open to other suggestions. Springee (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. While that would certain make it look nicer for the NRA, our role here is to represent sources faithfully, and that includes reflecting what they say even if it is not flattering to the NRA. - MrX 🖋 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We also don't have consensus for inclusion of that sentence. Let's try to address the issue through editing vs removal. Springee (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We have a substantial majority of editors who approved the content as written. If you have ideas for edits to the last sentence, please make sure they actually reflect what is highlighted by the best sources (not editorials, street surveys or tabloid articles). I have already got you started with the ABC News article. ABC News is a mainstream source.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that we have a substantial majority that support all sentences as written. I'm not sure what your other comments mean as trimming/better interesting the last sentence doesn't need new sorces. Springee (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You asked editors to review the material. Eight editors expressed support, or lack of concern: Neutrality, Icewhiz, Waleswatcher, Tomwsulcer, OwenBlacker, soibangla, MrX, Snooganssnoogans. I also believe Legacypac also supports the material based on his comments above, which would bring support to nine. Five editors oppose all or part of the material: Niteshift36, Springee, Markbassett, Winkelvi, and DrFleishman (last sentence). I'm not sure where PackMecEng, Galobtter, or BullRangifer stand. So far, this would be considered at least a rough consensus.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if this was a vote, this would be settled. Since it's not, there's not a clear consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I support MrX's version. I do not agree with Springee's discarding Daily Beast as "misleading" and continued insistence that anything possibibly negative to the NRA is off topic. Please cut it out. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

user:MrX Your numbers are a miscount in a couple ways -- the inputs in this section do not have all those folks plus your presumption of Legacypac seems off, but mostly that the inputs were not discussing just two versions. Note folks seem talking about more than two different texts (e.g. mentioning 4 lines in one place (Neutrality and Tomwsulcer), or of 3 lines (OwenBlacker), or of 5 lines (Markbassett)); and that other inputs are mostly about side topics of McClachy vs Beast cite, Torsin phrasing, what edit is in question, and so forth rather than a particular version. I think the original question re Soibangla edit had no supports here and numerous points against, but other than that it seems a bit fuzzy with side discussions. I'll suggest Springee do a SNOW closure and clarify to separate threads any other points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: The question posed is (paraphrasing) does the material conform with the length provision outcome of the RfC. I believe my count is close to accurate and that the discussion is indicative of a rough consensus, although my assessment is obviously not binding. Several opposers simply don't want this covered at all and have not offered alternative proposals. We're not pursuing perfection here. Our goal should be to write an informative article, which requires positive collaboration, copy editing, and compromise. If you think a formal close is needed, you can request one at WP:ANRFC, or you can query each commenter to clarify whether they explicitly support the current text. A snow close would not be appropriate, especially if done by an involved editor.- MrX 🖋 10:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, the Daily Beast article was replaced because it contained factual omissions which were misleading. Such omissions is why the the DB is not a reliable source for this discussion. Your statement suggests that you haven't been following the reason why the DB was replaced with McClatchy as the source for the second sentence. If you think that replacement was incorrect please state your reasons for the record. Springee (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Junior too

This stuff is getting real. It looks like Junior might have been involved in this scheme.[64][65][66][67] We will probably have to expanded this material accordingly.- MrX 🖋 15:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I support the above and this per MrX Andrevan@ 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So this is the "per talk" discussion that warranted forcing this in?Niteshift36 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• The recently added material is getting very speculative for inclusion in the NRA article. It's addition goes against the recent RfC. I would suggest it needs some discussion here before adding to the article. Remember this is an article about the NRA, not the 2016 Russian election involvement. Springee (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC did not say that material could not be expanded when new sources become available. I don't you mean by "very speculative for inclusion in the NRA article."- MrX 🖋 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, so I would like to get other editor's views of this addition:

According to Spanish special prosecutor José Grinda Gonzalez, in early 2018 Spanish police gave wiretapped audio to the FBI of telephone discussions between Torshin and mafia boss Alexander Romanov. Torshin has been closely connected with NRA and met with Donald Trump, Jr. at an NRA event in May 2016 while attempting to broker a meeting between Donald Trump and Vladamir Putin.

Sources

This material provides necessary context to the preceding material, and based on coverage in multiple sources should be included. Each source has specifically cited Donald Trump Junior's connection.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Necessary context can be provided by linking the existing material to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections via neutral integration of the link into the opening sentence of the paragraph. Springee (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about the NRA, not the election interference. The RfC made it clear that only a limited amount of this material should be in the article since at present it is all speculative. The material here doesn't offer any additional understanding of what the NRA is alleged to have done or have known. It may look like bad news for DTjr but I'm sure DTjr has his own article. Kind of odd that we have to deal with material like this yet basic information about the NRA like what their position on topics like back ground checks, carry laws etc aren't part of the article. If we are going to put new content in this article it seems some of the most significant material we might try to add would be an explanation of WHY the NRA is for or against various policies since that drives why the organization supports or opposes various laws. For example, I think it's common knowledge that the NRA is against universal background checks. Yet such a critical fact that was such a big deal after the Sandy Hook shootings gets only scant coverage in a Criticism section. Why don't we have some primary topic like "Stated political positions of the NRA"? Springee (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's because we use independent sources to write about all aspects of a subject, according to their prominence in reliable sources. I find it curious that editors wish to keep such material out of the article, while being perfectly fine with covering mind-numbing minutiae about their board of directors and labyrinthine org structure. (Springee, there's no need to top post and bullet all of your comments. It makes it look like you're trying to dominate the discussion.)- MrX 🖋 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I used to bullets to make it clear the text was a comment vs a direct reply. I've removed them and shifted the indentations.

The NRA's position on issues is of critical importance to the topic. If nothing else discussing what motivates the NRA would be the most important part of any political discussion section. Its the foundation of WHY the organization does what it does. If nothing else WP:IAR would apply here. Any rational discussion of political organization (at least the NRA-ILA which is the organization that actually seeks to shape policies) would start with a discussion of what the NRA wants. Once readers know what the NRA wants in terms of gun laws/policies then it adds context to the rest of the discussion (why they support or oppose various laws etc). Springee (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but if you want to discuss the NRA's positions on issues, could you start a separate discussion? I would like to hear from other editors about the content above and these side discussion tend to impede the consensus-seeking process.- MrX 🖋 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the hot link to the first sentence of the section. The new material was also problematic because the FBI hasn't said they are investigating so such statements are speculative. Springee (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

MrX, you reverted my changes. Let's make sure a few things are clear. First, there is no consensus for the change you are trying to make and increasing the length of the material is going against the RfC closing. Second, there is no policy that says we must include additional sources assuming the material is already fully supported. Absent consensus the text should go back to what it was this morning (previous stable text) Springee (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph needs to include a mention of the FBI investigation, doesn't it? What harm comes from very briefly mentioning it, or from including two excellent sources that took note of that rather important fact? An announcement from the FBI is not likely, nor required, in order to include this material.- MrX 🖋 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't new information or sourcing. There is no reason to add it now given the above discussions. Springee (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you actually suggesting that we omit that the FBI is investigating this? Were it not for the FBI and congressional investigations, there would be little point to even having it in the article.- MrX 🖋 17:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The boxed material looks on topic and well sourced. Could the editors that oppose anything remotely negative around the NRA just lay off and let uninvolved non-bias editors edit this page for a while? If you wakt to put info about NRA positions great - go write and source it. Legacypac (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-biased editors such as yourself? Let's drop such accusations and wp:FOC. Springee (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, if we prohibit biased editors, you'd be on the list. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't care about the NRA and no one could point to me as someone who edits with a sharply focused agenda. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that it is pure coincidence that every single edit you're supported in firearms related articles is negative. Although your loophole may be the "sharply focused" part. I'd agree, your focus is not sharp, but it doesn't prevent bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Material about the Russian-NRA connection should be included; it's sourced, relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Which material? Per the recent RfC we have Russian-NRA material. Springee (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop badgering other editors User:Springee it looks like you want to discount their opinions by introducing an element of uncertainty. Legacypac (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, Tomwsulcer is referring to the material under discussion in this section. The material in the green box. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I support MrX's take on things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is getting rather silly and is hard pressed to be related to the NRA directly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me but what is getting rather silly? Of course this is directly related to the NRA. Did you even read the sources?- MrX 🖋 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I did, I especially like the blog btw, and yeah at best tangentially related. PackMecEng (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you read it MrX? Spanish police gave tapes to the FBI. A Russian was talking to another Russian. One of those Russians also talked to Jr at a NRA event......did I miss something more damning actually stated by the Spanish police? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, let's review what one of the sources says in an article titled The FBI has obtained wiretaps of a Putin ally tied to the NRA who met with Trump Jr. during the campaign:

Spanish police have turned over to the FBI wiretaps of conversations involving Alexander Torshin, a prominent Russian banker suspected of money laundering who met with President Donald Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., during the 2016 US presidential election.

Torshin is closely associated with the National Rifle Association, and he and his longtime assistant attempted to use the organization's annual convention in 2016 to set up a backdoor meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Neither Trump nor his campaign associates attended the convention, but Torshin and Trump Jr. did attend a separate NRA dinner that same night.
— Business Insider

Yes......Spanish police turned over recording. A Russian talked to a Russian. One Russian is a NRA member. A Russian and Jr. Attended a dinner.... pretty much what I said. I see a s#*tload of speculation and a big jump to draw a conclusion, but no actual legal allegation. Is this all part of the FBI investigation that we still have no confirmation of? Or is it a new one that we don't have confirmation of? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stop being in such a hurry MrX. This vote counting BS is getting old. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You have already opposed in this discussion, and I'm not in a hurry, but when a minority of editors object on the grounds that this is not about the NRA, those comments can safely be discounted. What exactly are we supposed to be waiting for?- MrX 🖋 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I did? Could you provide the diff where I cast an oppose vote in this discussion? I reverted you, but I don't think I clearly stated that I opposed it. You are in a hurry. This is the second time recently you've reverted to mere vote counting to try to declare a consensus. While you may discount everyone who doesn't agree with you, everyone else doesn't. When you get elected king, you can change the system. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. You reverted me and commented about how "this is an article about the NRA, not the election interference" and that "this material should be in the article since at present it is all speculative", but that shouldn't be construed as opposing the content? I'm sure you realize that that's not helpful.- MrX 🖋 16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I reverted you with the edit summary "expanded per talk? The whole part about Trump Jr is new and barely discussed". Those other quotes are from Springee, not me. How about if you step back, figure out who you are talking to and then you can retract your claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're correct. I apologize.- MrX 🖋 16:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Having seen AfD's where the nomination didn't count as a delete vote, merely reverting may not count here. I could oppose the wording, but not the content, the content etc. Additionally, those who didn't view the page history wouldn't see that. Please stop insinuating that I've somehow voted twice. I'm sure you realize that is not helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: The quote seems inappropriate as it is about FBI looking at Torshin, not the topic of this article. The mentioning NRA and/or Junior seems just name-dropping speculation. Though I did note the end of the Yahoo cite has a denial statement that I wonder if folks would feel belongs as the NRA response to the Russian suspicions. [68]

An NRA lawyer, in responses to Wyden, said that Torshin has only paid his membership dues to the group and that, based on an internal review, the NRA received a total of only $2,500 from about 23 Russia-linked contributors since 2015.

Consensus? - hat please!

User:Springee -- to the original question of Newly added Russian material (and the Notification of RfC editors) it looks like a SNOW non-support for the [Soibangla 5 lines], but no clear consensus or much clarity to the side discussions, with substantial unease for the Torshin line and the question of McClatchy vs Daily Beast cite. The Junior section seems an addition not part of the upper-level thread and to be going into some heat. I suggest declaring SNOW and stating the consensus that the Soibangla 5 lines are rejected, then hat all these subsections to end it and take any remaining topics you want to separate threads for greater clarity and focus. Proceed or discuss as you wish. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we need to come up with a new consensus text. Currently we don't have consensus for the expanded text. I count 4 in favor and 3-4 against. That would be a no-consensus. Really, the none of the text has been around long enough to call anything consensus but we have a RfC that says we should include a limited amount of information. I would propose stripping the most recently added sentences and including a sentence noting that the report has not been independently verified (we have several sources that note the lack of independent corroboration). Springee (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There are nine (9) ten (10) who support the material; five (5) who oppose it; and three (3) who have commented, but otherwise have not stated their position.- MrX 🖋 13:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC), 13:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Which material are you talking about? We have the material added around the 20th then after the discussion died down we have a new round of additions. The original material was discussed and the inclusion of the last sentence was still not decided. Adding to the last sentence was discussed by 7 editors with 4 in favor and 3 against. We also have DrFleischman's comments regarding the last sentence not belonging. Well we can reasonably assume DrF doesn't mean the corrective action is to expand that text. Springee (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As I’m uninvolved, I’d close this. But, it would just be reverted. So, I’ll add my support for the material as clearly DUE with ample coverage making it ten (10). O3000 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you supporting? We have a RfC that says the material in general is included. What isn't clear (and your vote isn't clear in this regard) is if the material added in the last two days should be retained given it's only tangentially related to the NRA. Again, the 10 was supporting the material (with edits) added on the 20th. Springee (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I support inclusion of Torshin, the FBI, and Trump Jr. Such connections to a nonprofit are highly unusual and DUE. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you think connections to non-profits are highly unusual. Thay're not at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the Boy Scouts had the same kind of connections to the FBI, President’s son, and a sanctioned Russian during major investigations, I think that would be considered unusual in their article. O3000 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that's ONE non-profit. And maybe you haven't been following all of this. The FBI may be looking into a possible connection. Thus far, only 1 news source has reported this investigation based on the word of 2 anonymous sources. Additionally, you said connections to non-profits are highly unusual. They're not at all. Many notable people are connected to some non-profit or another. But how about the Clinton Foundation (a non-profit) investigation [69], which began before the Trump administration? That's one. Do you need others? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And a Russian connection is mentioned in the Clinton Foundation article, although I don't think there is any connection to a sanctioned Russian. Of course this is unusual. O3000 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You're being too specific. The point is that non-profits are often associates with notable or powerful people and institutions. They're also investigated from time to time. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not going to convince me that this is normal. Certainly not to the point it should be excluded. And that would go for any nonprofit that has drawn this much attention in RS. O3000 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Not only am I not arguing for total exclusion, I presented wording I'd agree to that includes much of it. The discussion with you is your wrong-headed reasoning for your support. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling my reasoning wrong-headed and all of this normal is not a convincing argument. O3000 (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No less unconvincing than your reasoning. And way to ignore the fact that I'm not supporting total exclusion, as you assert. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t remember using the word “total”. In any case, this is not a productive discussion. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I'm not the only one who read "exclusion", without any qualifier, as meaning......exclusion. Like all of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone arguing for total exclusion? I think that ship sailed with the RfC. As I read it the issue is what counts as "consensus to include a few sentences about this issue" based on the closing of the RfC. Springee (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Springee - from the number 10, MrX seems referring to the text of the first 3 lines, since he had listed 9 earlier including OwenBlacker who spoke re 3 lines of 4 cites. (Or maybe he's thinking 4 lines) It's not a very valid count since folks were speaking of different texts, but since the count starts before the Junior section and the Junior remark has had only 4 oppose and 3 include remarks it is not including Junior. A close and different thread or explicit text would be more clear, but folks have not discussed shown content much. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support the first two sentences of the suggested edit, with the caveat that it be corrected to show that it was not the Senate Committee that released it, but that it was Democrats on the committee. That's actually an important point. The third sentence should end at campaign. The 4th and 5th don't belong. So I'd agree to: "McClatchyDC reported on January 18, 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign. On May 16, 2018, Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump’s campaign." The NRA reported spending $30 million to support the Trump campaign." Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I disagree with your reversion of Niteshift36 here [[70]]. On the minor claim of OR, presumably associated with this edit [[71]], I agree that it needs citations but we have those citations in this discussion. It wasn't OR so much as simply citation needed. The other part here [[72]] is material that doesn't have consensus for inclusion per the discussions above. I would suggest we add the citations that support the "no other source" claim and leave out the material that didn't gain consensus for addition. Springee (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please show current sources that say there is "no other source". We can't ignore the fact that there are 10 editors who favor the content as it was written, compared with five editors who don't. A supermajority is strongly indicative of a consensus.- MrX 🖋 14:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, your claim on 10 supporting editors is based on assuming that editors who supported the original addition would also support the later additions. The material that was removed was not supported by 10 editors. It was near parity between those who supported the additional content and those who did not. Additionally, we start to run afoul of the RfC closing which said a few sentences. As for the "current", we have several sources that support the "no other sources" and none that directly or indirectly refute the claim. Additionally, by stating that you think the sources aren't current you are admitting that the material wasn't OR as you said in your removal edit but merely that you feel it is no longer current. Springee (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the version that existed when you opened this discussion:

"McClatchyDC reported on January 18, 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign. On May 16, 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump’s campaign." The NRA reported spending $30 million to support the Trump campaign — triple what it devoted to backing Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. Most of that money was spent by an arm of the NRA that is not required to disclose its donors. Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.

Here is the version when you pinged the RfC participants:

McClatchyDC reported on January 18, 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign. On May 16, 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump’s campaign." Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization.

Sources

Editors consented to remove the $30 million material. The latter version is what currently has consensus, in some form.- MrX 🖋 14:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you aren't presenting the facts correctly. Look at the dates. Most of the above discussion happened before May 27th. Your second quote appears to be the state of the section around that time. After the 27th you added additional material on May 29th[[73]]. Those changes have been disputed and thus far we don't have consensus for any of those changes. Your "10" editors includes editors who weighed in prior to you adding to the section in question. While it's reasonable to assume DrFleishman's opinion that the section has too much Torshin would still apply when you expand that material, it's not reasonable to assume all who supported the section as it was on the 26th would support even more Torshin material that is only tangentially tied to the NRA. Springee (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: What facts do you dispute: That The first green block is the material that existed when you opened this discussion #Newly added Russia material on May 21 or that the second green block is the material that existed when you pinged the RfC participants on May 22? (If I made a mistake, please point it out or help me correct it so we are all singing from the same hymnal).- MrX 🖋 15:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You say 10 editors support the material you restored yet much (all?) of that material was added after the 27th thus your claim of 10 supporting editors for the material in question needs to include editors who commented after the 27th. Springee (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, for camparison, here's the current material:

McClatchy reported in January 2018 that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether the Central Bank of Russia's deputy governor, Aleksandr Torshin, illegally funneled money through the NRA to benefit Trump's campaign. In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report stating it had obtained "a number of documents that suggest the Kremlin used the National Rifle Association as a means of accessing and assisting Mr. Trump and his campaign" through Torshin and his assistant Maria Butina, and that "The Kremlin may also have used the NRA to secretly fund Mr. Trump’s campaign." Torshin, a lifetime NRA member who is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been implicated in money laundering by Spanish authorities who have characterized him as a "godfather" in Taganskaya, a major Russian criminal organization. The FBI is investigating whether Torshin funneled money to the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign through the NRA.

Sources

So, to be clear, your objection is to informing readers that "The FBI is investigating whether Torshin funneled money to the 2016 Donald Trump Presidential campaign through the NRA."? How is that not essential information?- MrX 🖋 17:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You said, on May 22 "OK. I have no objection to simply stating that no (publication) sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims." [74]. Today you call it OR. Can you please try to keep your position straight? What exactly changed between then and now? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You wrote: "No other sources have confirmed the claim of an investigation." Not the same wording; not the same meaning.- MrX 🖋 19:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I see, I said the same thing, but I'll play along. So if I write "No sources independant of McClatchy have confirmed the claims", you won't revert it? Is that correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It took you ONE MINUTE to revert, but you've ignored this, despite the fact that you are editing elsewhere. I'm going to take your silence as a lack of objection pretty soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with "No sources independent of McClatchy have confirmed the original claims", provided that it is inserted immediately after the first sentence of the paragraph. It's important that we don't appear to undermine the other factual information. Of course, I speak for myself. I'm not sure what other editors think about this.- MrX 🖋 22:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Content on Torshin

Edit warring behavior and forcing content to remain based on "consensus" has commenced. The disputed content is on Torshin. Niteshift36 edited the section, MrX immediately reverted claiming there was consensus for the content. Questions: Where is a declaration of consensus on the content? (I see discussion but was unable to find an official consensus) How much of the content is untouchable due to this alleged consensus - the entire section, portions of it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

MrX, don't remove comments that aren't a personal attack claiming they are a personal attack. Reminding of WP:TPG. My comments were based on watching this behavior from many various editors at many politically focused articles over the last year - it's a pattern and it isn't only about a specific editor. NPA simply does not apply here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

another significant McClatchy for addition

Since I had little response to the above, I propose another addition from also, per (July 02, 2018 05:00 AM) reference Russia investigators likely got access to NRA's tax filings, secret donors, related to dark money. X1\ (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Right to Bear Arms" interlanguage link to ru:Право на оружие (движение) ?

Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" group appears to be ru:Право на оружие (движение), although движение translates to "movement" presumably "social movement" (ru:Общественное движение (социология)). The Russian article while may be RS, I have my concerns as this topic involves geopolitical foreign influence. If I don't get a response, I will add, and see what happens. X1\ (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article, what exactly would you be adding? PackMecEng (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the same question I have. Springee (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)