Talk:2018 NRA boycott

BlackRock?
The current reference for BlackRock being part of the boycott (link) only says that BlackRock had heard from investors who no longer want their money associated with the firearms industry and intends to speak to gun manufacturers. To me that sounds like they haven’t actually cut any ties yet, they’re just thinking about it… —Galaktos (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * you are right, it needs to be fixed (maybe we can move this to a sentence in the body of the article). See also on BlackRock from Reuters.--DarTar (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for that additional source! I’ve tried to improve the article accordingly. —Galaktos (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the fantastic job on Wikidata and editing this stub. I also linked this article from Portal:Current_events.--DarTar (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ah, I take it that’s why more people have started editing here :) thanks a lot for starting this! I just copied the list of participants on Wikidata from here :D —Galaktos (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on NRA talk. I've nust linked it from the lead of National Rifle Association. Hopefully that sticks. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

List of companies that have not joined
Is this article reporting or activism? The whole article reads as if the intent is a call to arms (no pun intended). Stating which companies haven't joined is an attempt to single then out for additional scrutiny. That section should be removed as inappropriate for Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the section. If this is an organized movement with a published list of additional companies to target a link to that list along with a statement such as "addition organizations are being contacted [link]" may be ok. I think this article needs more eyes to review it. I'm trying to decide what is the appropriate venue to request external review from uninvolved editors. Springee (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Restored. The sources that are covering this boycott have deemed the list of companies who have not severed ties to be important information. It is highly relevant to the article subject and covered by many news sources. Omitting it would be WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee, I see your concerns. However, the lack of response to the initiative by a number companies is not original research, since it's been reported extensively in mainstream media (Time Magazine, Bloomberg, Esquire Magazine, Huffington Post, to name a few). If you see any statement that looks POV, please flag it. It's important that information on an activism campaign remains factual. The impact of an activism campaign (or lack thereof), as reported in mainstream media, is a notable piece of information and it does a service to readers of this article.--DarTar (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DarTar, thanks for understanding. My gut feel tells me this has moved from encyclopedic to advocacy/WP:SOAP.  However, my gut might be wrong.  Lacking a better idea where to ask, I've posted a question to WP:EAR.  I'm not sure if that is the correct location (and said as much).  Since I don't have consensus for changes and I'm not sure about policy grounds I'm going to sit out any significant article level changes for the time.  I would suggest getting rid of the long string of citations in the lead.  It runs against WP:OVERCITE and since it's the lead they should be in the body already. Springee (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the list in the lead is unnecessarily long and can be trimmed to leave a few key references, if others are used elsewhere.--DarTar (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved citations that provide "lists of companies" to the corresponding section, avoiding overciting in the lead.--DarTar (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In cases like Dela where there are many citations a limit of 1-2 is sufficient. It seems like the article contains every citation imaginable.  This is sometimes done to suggest WP:WEIGHT.  It's just not needed.  The article already has a few strong sources.  Any that are weaker and just repeat the same information should be trimmed once things are stable.  Springee (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Are all the cited sources significant? Consider ref 10, GunsDownAmerica. It's linked in the text to say FedEx is being pressured. Different sources are used in the list of companies. Why link to the advocacy group vs WP:RS? Since this isn't an organized movement there isn't a single group we can cite to state the opposition of the movement. Looking at the list of citations there are quite a few low quality sites. Springee (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we gain much by directly citing advocacy groups when there are plenty of third party sources. However, this is an organized movement. (Perhaps you meant that the opposition to the movement is not organized?)- MrX 🖋 16:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is GunsDownAmerica the movement organizer? This NPR article says it's a ground swell movement (presumably no central organizer) [].  Currently GDA is only cited as starting a petition to pressure FedEx.    In the section where companies are listed NPR and NY Daily News are listed as sources.  GDA is not.  Also, if we have a list of companies, why mention them in the text?  I presume some of these issues are related to the relatively young age of the article and the associated issues when things are changing quickly.  When things slow down I would suggest this as part of a general article cleanup.  Springee (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does there have to be a single organizer? It's largely being propelled by student survivors on social media. It's also being organized by various advocacy groups. As far as the other minor content issues, I'm sure they will be sorted out in the coming days.- MrX 🖋 17:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As is they are presented as a group that is joining a groundswell movement by pushing a petition against FedEx. That puts them into a primary source vs secondary source category.  Since they aren't they don't speak for the movement their is no reason to link to them as a primary source since we have secondary sources to do the same.  This is another one I would suggest cleaning up when the time comes.  As an aside, I would also get rid of the 2ndAchceck as a source.  I don't care for the fact that their homepage appears to link to How-To instructions for making suppressors. Springee (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I only linked to 2ndacheck to directly show the NRA anti-gun list remains published online. Look at the statement the ref supports. If someone can find a secondary source discussing the antigun list existing on other websites we can use that. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I not only found RS discussing which companies were targeted, but one RS reporting that Mother Jones is reporting on who is being targeted. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
The details about the companies that haven't joined is far more extensive than those who have joined. Why would FedEx merit a separate section. That is really looking like the intent of this article is advocacy rather than encyclopedic reporting. Springee (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fedex is set out because there is more to say about them. This page is not advocacy Springee. It's reporting on a long term campaign that kicked up a few levels recently. Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is the list of companies that severed ties reduced in size while those that have not is still the same size? Why is the list of companies that haven't severed given more than just a name and reference? Springee (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the article will reflect coverage in sources. FedEx is obviously a subject of a lot of coverage, and Delta is on the rise. I don't quite understand your concerns about the lists. Are you saying that we should add more detail to each entry for the companies that cut ties? If so, I hove no objection as long as we don't write more than a sentence or two for each.- MrX 🖋 01:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When you add so much detail to just a few companies it definitely looks like WP:ADVOCACY. It doesn't look like a neutral telling of events.  This is compounded by some of the sources which don't rise to reliable per WP:RS.  For example, the GunsDownAmerica group and link.  I see no evidence that it's a notable organization nor than the article should be citing their claims.  It gives the false impression that the intent is to promote a cause rather than give a neutral telling.  Springee (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your comments about it looking like advocacy, but can you give an example of a list entry that you feel has excessive and maybe propose alternative text? There is no external link to GunsDownAmerica, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. - MrX 🖋 01:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Citation 13 currently is to GunsDownAmerica. A wiki link was added to the organization's non-existent article page earlier today.  [].  Springee (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I added the wikilink because, after doing a search, it appears that the organization is notable. If you feel strongly about it, you can remove the wikilink without objection. Ref. 13 is not necessary to support the material since it verifiable in ref. 11. It doesn't really matter if its removed, but I don't see the harm in keeping it.- MrX 🖋 02:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Financial Industry moves
Bank of America looking to discuss relationship with gun manufacturers. Blackrock discussing with comlanies they are investing in. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More on BlackRock, Blackstone, and other finance companies in today's WSJ "Firms Reassess Involvement in Gun Industry in Wake of Florida Shooting". HouseOfChange (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Short Reuters article on BoA and Blackrock Idea of having credit card processors prohibit the use of cards to buy assault weapons. like they banned crypto currency purchases a few months ago Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC) From a week ago - the NYTimes editorial that sparked the banks closing off sales idea "How Banks Could Control Gun Sales if Washington Won’t". From the next day Business Insider "Banks are mulling a creative way to enforce gun control even if the US government doesn't make a single change" Good overview of how financial pressure is already being put on gun manufacturers (the nation)  Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is not encyclopedic in nature and should be deleted.
This article is not actually about real concerted "boycott" that is national in nature, but instead this article clearly represents the WISHES of some for a "boycott." This article is political warfare and is not encyclopedic. This article is not about anything real or trackable. A couple of companies ceasing business alliances from an entity, does not create an encyclopedic event. Whoever created this article is hoping "the 2018 boycott" BECOMES real. Delete this article as it does not comply with wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.80.228 (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article, especially the long list of references at the end of the article, you will see that this recently-started boycott is national news being discussed by many reliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Insurance companies
There are now two major insurance companies, Lockton Companies and Chubb Limited, in the list of corporations that severed ties. Compared to companies removing NRA discounts and membership benefits, these fall in a different category since they are discontinuing actual insurance products. I wonder if the paragraph that explains "severed ties" should be expanded to describe this, or if this should be captured somewhere else.--DarTar (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need to separate discount affiliates from other types of companies, like streaming services and insurance companies. As warranted by the extent of coverage in sources, we may need to also cover some of these in prose.- MrX 🖋 15:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MrX I've reorged the page and heading levels to do that. I've put in an insurance section as a level one section. Fell free to expand. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Fed Ex
I worry about the accuracy of some of the statements regarding Fed Ex. Multiple times in the article, statements are listed such as it being "the only major non technology company that has not severed ties with the NRA.[42][17][43]" The wording "only major" I find is problematic because what "major" means is subjective. We should be listing what publications called them "The only major" ones or else we should change the the wording. --Deathawk (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources say "only major company", not "only major tech company". I believe, as the sources obviously do, that major company has a commonly understood meaning.- MrX 🖋 03:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well at this point then we're making assumptions of the reader. I would have no problem if there was a clear distinction, but, considering, Bass Pro Shop, Cabella's and Omni hotels, I'm not really sure that it is that clear. --Deathawk (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the "major company" statement is in the sources but it is not accurate - consider Apple, Google, and now Vista Outdoor with 3 billion in sales. I say remove the statement. No one needs Wikipedia to tell them FedEx is a big business. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The context for FedEx being a hold out was obviously the NRA affiliate discount program. I think we can go ahead an remove the reference to FedEx being the only major company not to cut ties. It's not especially important and it will just confuse readers.- MrX 🖋 04:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Vista Outdoor
I put a version of the Vista Outdoor section on this page in the Vista Outdoor page but ran into some resistence.

We may want to add sections in the Fedex page and maybe other articles depending on availability of sources and weight. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * About Vista Outdoor, I don't see anything about them having a business relationship with the NRA. Instead it says that there's a boycott of their products because they manufacture AR-15 style rifles.  If they don't have business ties with the NRA, then they should be removed from this article. — Mudwater (Talk) 07:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the supplied sources which do not support your assumption. All detail the Vista Outdoor is being targeted because they support the NRA, list the NRA as a partner on their website, and sponsor NRATV. The boycott is actually NOT because they make guns, but specifically FOR the NRA support. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Legacypac. The scope of this article is boycotts, not boycotts of discount affiliates. I think a sentence or two in the FedEx article might be warranted. The Delta Airlines article may warrant a mention also.- MrX 🖋 13:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Headings levels
I tried to organize Companies section into logical headings, grouping the Fedex part under affinity marketing but was partially reverted with an insulting edit summary. Having "companies involved" as a heading means there is not enough levels to deal with the affinity marketing group splitting out severed and retained as subheadings that are visually distingishable and obviously related to the text explanation covering them rather than seperate sections like Insurance and Vista Outdoor that are being targeted for different types of support. The "companies" heading adds nothing to the reader's understanding as the page obviously is talking about companies. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My version: Changed to: with this comment  Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem was that the initial change left too many level 2 headings. Truthfully I can see a compromise, but it should be split between "Companies Involved" and "other companies" or something of that nature. Having four separate heading seemed like overkill. ---Deathawk (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Dick's Sporting Goods
Not clear if anyone was boycotting, but https://www.salon.com/2018/02/28/dicks-sporting-goods-is-doing-what-republicans-wont-do-standing-up-to-the-nra/ Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to boycott Dicks for pro-gun control push
 * Newsweek putting Dicks in the list of companies boycotting guns or the NRA
 * BusinessInsider linking anti NRA boycotts, Dicks, and proNRA boycotts
 * Business Insider excellent discussion on effects of boycotts, political polarizing of the public, etc. Very good source for putting this in context.
 * calls for NRA members to boycott Dicks

The growing NRA counter boycott of companies that have moved against the NRA or gun sales should fit into the scope of this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Walmart has also reacted by raising the age of gun sales to 21. According to the NYT Walmart stopped selling AR-15s and the like in 2015.  []  I'm not sure either was in direct response to the boycott movement but since Dicks is in the article it may be worth including Walmart as well.   Springee (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this directly rated to the boycott though? It's worth noting certainly, but this page us about a very specific subject and I'm worried that including the news about Dick's muddies that purpose. Deathawk (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes User:Deathawk. "Dick’s cited the Stoneman students who have spoken out on television and social media to campaign for gun reform, and for businesses to side against the NRA. “We have heard you. The nation has heard you,” said Mr Stack (Dick's CEO)" Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fair, however we should include that context in the article itself as I do not believe that they were on the list of initial companies,. Furthermore there may be a question about whether we should be placing that section in "Companies involved" as they were not one of the original companies involved. --Deathawk (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see my concerns had already been adressed by the time I made my comment, thus I'm striking it. --Deathawk (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added Walmart action and rolled the Dick's section into a gun dealers section. Obviously Walmart tuned into the boycott and rising anti-gun sentiment with thier announcement. Putting them in their own section sets it apart from the affiliate marketing companies. This is an evolving situation were there is no set list of participents. Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Deathawk as for "companies involved" see the Section Heading issue above. I tried to change that. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality assessment
According to ORES (WMF's machine learning service), the most recent revision of this article put its squarely within the B article quality class.--DarTar (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Backlash?
I've been negative on this article but I will hand it to people that many of the issues are being addressed. I would note that there are several news stories noting a backlash related to this boycott. I think it should be mentioned in the article in the interest of NPOV.
 * New York Post - more of an op ed than news report []
 * Fox News opinion []
 * Several sources have picked up a poll that shows a net drop in favorable association after severing NRA ties. [], [], [], []

It would probably be worth having a section that tries to gather both positive and negative feedback/sentiment related to the movement. Springee (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current "Response" section of the article seems to be a good place for that sort of thing. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's not include random opinion commentary from media pundits, unless other sources have taken note of those comments. The polling information is worth including. - MrX 🖋 02:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already added a bit about the counter boycott in Responses a few hours ago. There is little info out there right now to work with so far on the counter boycott but that may change. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * While a number of sources make it sound like the GA legislators just pulled Delta's jet fuel tax incentive out of the blue, we should probably make it clear to our readers that this was an incentive that has been debated quite a bit over the years. The anti-NRA spin might just be the straw that broke the camel's back.  Here is an article from the day before the shooting talking about the tax credit [][][].  If you want a conspiracy angle, this might be the NRA lobbyist putting pressure on politicians to reject what was otherwise a very close call on a tax incentive. A number of articles have also pointed out that what ever the NRA discount was, this wasn't a widely used discount.  Only 13 NRA members used the discount last year. []  Based on this story we also might look at removing Cagle's comments as they seem to be motivated by a local political campaign rather than the broader issue (see the last link).

The sincerity of some of the companies that have severed ties should also be mentioned. Many were in a position where it wasn't expensive to sever ties. Delta, minus the tax breaks which were in flux anyway, clearly didn't lose much NRA business. Fedex is cited as having a rather extensive business relationship thus severing ties would be more than just a political gesture. []. Springee (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I'm not sure about not losing business. Delta's move annoyed some NRA members. I can't see how a member discount would be useful anyway on air tickets given how they are priced. So yes it was a symbolic move. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to comment about the huge surge in NRA memberships (@500,000 at last count) since David Hogg and company urged these boycotts?2600:6C44:4A7F:F673:5DC8:433F:148F:BE5 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if a RS reports it and includes the connection between the subject of this article and the increase in memberships. Simply including it would be WP:SYN. Springee (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Closest I have seen is Time talking about it. Not much else making the connection in the main stream sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the NRA membership numbers are unverified any claim of a surge is questionable. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If RS's are reporting it we shouldn't question it unless we have strong evidence on which to question the RSs. Here are 2 sources that tie the surge in donations to the boycotts. [][].  This one is more oblique [].  Quite a few sources have said that donations increased so there is no reason to doubt that.[] I think that may be sufficient for inclusion in the reaction part of the article (which really could use some work... but I'm not raising my hand).  Springee (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Assault rifle vs Assault weapon
I have noticed the sources going back and forth between assault rifle, assault style rifle, and assault weapon. Technically difference between the two is the capability of the assault rifle to fire fully automatic, where as the assault weapon is semi-automatic only. Which is in line with the APs stylebook on the terms. For this article unless specifically quoted, I purpose changing assault rifle and assault style rifle to assault weapon to more accurately describe the items they are talking about. PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we could follow the AP style guide, but my preference would be refer to them as semi-automatic rifles.- MrX 🖋 18:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that suggestion, easier for non-gun people to understand the difference. I would be up for that. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We should avoid the generic "semi-automatic" rifle (or weapon). The issue is military grade "assault" guns, which function quite differently, with a big difference in effect. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you would prefer assault weapon? PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely prefer "assault weapon".--Jorm (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jorm, you restored a reference to "assault rifle" to the article earlier today. I would suggest stripping "assault rifle" from the article since that is a well defined term and the guns involved aren't assault rifles.  Springee (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee, doing this, which is the verifiably correct terminology, does not fit the narrative of the editors with authority to promote their agenda.Mike03car (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing "assault" or "military style" or "assault style" or "weapons of war" about the AR-15 or other semi-automatic weapons such as used in Parkland and Las Vegas. ALL of those references should be STRICKEN from the page, or at least stated as being incorrect assumptions. Listen to the Nuge: Mike03car (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the ramblings of a draft dodger are not a reliable source.--Jorm (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example of personal bias interjected over factual expertise and taking away from Wiki claims of neutrality. I served 24 years in the United States Air Force after my Dad's 21 in same, but I don't let Ted's probably getting out of being selected get in the way of what are the straight-forward and easy to understand facts.  Did you even listen to it?  If so, that was very quick listening (unless you heard the entire segment earlier during the past 9 days).Mike03car (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

NRA anti gun list
Why is this section in the article? What is the relevance with respect to the topic? None of the sources tie it to the boycott. Springee (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Context and history. Also the NRA or supporters of it are calling for counter boycotts so showing the history of boycotts is important. I'm tiring of your pro-NRA advocacy User:Springee. This is an area under discretionary sanctions. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Have removed this section, as it is WP:OR and WP:SYN material, being related to events occurring before the 2018 NRA boycott. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A review of User:Miguel Escopeta's recnet contributions show NRA whitewashing. I remind this user that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was restored by . Barring BLP violations any deletion should only occur after a consensus to remove. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Weight this material has none. The sources don't connect to the article topic.  Miguel is correct about wp:syn and OR.  If this material is to stay it needs to have some externally established weight for inclusion.  Legacypac, you are correct about DS applying to the article thus I'm bringing this up here.  We should also AGF in part because of the DS.  Claims of white or black washing are not in that spirit. , since you restored the material under discussion can you say why it should remain? Emir, since the article is new I'm not sure if this is an example of consensus required for inclusion or removal.  It would be best if we can make policy/guideline based arguments. Springee (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually this article does not have a DS banner but I presume it would be under DS, which states that challenged edits shouldn't be reverted without consensus. I agree policies and guidelines should be used to determine consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually background is important. The sources talk about a counter boycott, so the history of the NRA blacklisting brands is relevant. Anyone reviewing edit histories can see which editors are whitewashing and even the big name media is picking up on the effort of these editors. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The material has no weight per external sources. It's wp:syn to claim it as background for this topic.  As you said earlier, the article is subject to DS.  Accusations of white washing are not ok.  If no one can come up with a policy based reason for the material to remain it should be removed. Springee (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've started a WP:ORN topic related to this material. [] Springee (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So far the ORN consensus is remove... but only myself and Miguel have weighed in.  and, please add your arguments for inclusion to that discussion since you are the two editors who favor inclusion.  If we don't get outside voices I'll close the ORN and look for other avenues to get uninvolved editors to weigh in. Springee (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been a week since the last post here. At WP:NOR we got some feedback which was for removal.  I'll wait a few more days then, absent additional input, remove the material per WP:OR.  Springee (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very clear how you edit to remove anything that does not fit the NRA narrative like the NRA is complaining about a boycott after they have targeted their opposition and even nearly put Smith and Wesson out of business with a boycott. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate the NRA as much as anyone, but there are rules against throwing stuff into an article that is unrelated to its topic. Unless you have some good secondary sources connecting the NRA anti-gun list to the topic of this article, then that section does need to be removed. You yourself are making the connection between the two topics, not the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been 10 days since the NORN question was posted. Uninvolved editors agreed the material inclusion was OR. The same here. The editor who restored the section hasn't weighed in on the matter. Per consensus and policy I've removed the material. Springee (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

HEADS UP... ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions apply here
Notice the template near the top and be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

NRA game dropped from Apple store, but not by Apple. Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead and Photo
Just a couple of observations as a reader
 * the Lead is supposed to summarise the key points of whole article. I don't see a sentence covering the NRA's response (and the Canadian detail seems out of proportion)
 * the photo is odd as it describes Dana Loesch as a "prominent figure in the events of the boycott", yet she isn't mentioned in the article. Davidships (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Loesch's total tone deaf response as an NRA spokesperson sure did not help. Should be in the body too. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of Loesch seems odd to me as well. I would think one of the student activists would make more sense but either way the photo should be tied to the text.  A statement like "prominent figure in the events of the boycott" should be sourced.  Springee (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah seems a little odd to have a picture of her with no mention of her at all in the article. Does not seem to fit in. PackMecEng (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Emma Gonzalez perhaps or the NRA logo. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be good with either of those. Seems reasonable. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a picture related to the #NeverAgain movement would be more appropriate. Here’s Bloomberg BusinessWeek making the connection:


 * The #NeverAgain movement has succeeded in putting politicians such as Senator Marco Rubio on the spot and focusing national media attention on the epidemic of gun violence. But the most immediate and dramatic effect of the students’ anti-gun activism has come not in politics, but in business. Corporate America, or at least the segment with business ties to the National Rifle Association, is rapidly deciding that the association is toxic. Source: Why Corporate America Is Fleeing the NRA
 * Loesch is included in the boycott discussions, but it's less direct, as part of NRA "lashing out" in response:
 * To those saying #DumpNRATV: "The #NRA has been the biggest defender of free speech. I find it interesting that those individuals who simultaneously preach about free speech want to silence the speech of the millions of people who make up NRA membership." –@DLoesch #Truth
 * “Many in legacy media love mass shootings,” NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said Thursday at a conservative political conference. “Crying white mothers are ratings gold.” Source: NRA lashes out at boycott movement as United, Delta and other corporations cut ties.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

FedEx severed ties?
FedEx was recently moved into the severed ties section, although not because of the 2018 NRA boycott (or recent mass shootings), but because of its recent decline in business with the NRA among several other business with the program they had. That being said, is it appropriate to list the company in that section? The placement would seem to misled readers since its the first appearance in the article, and the mention of it doesn't coincide with the gun debate according to sources and statements by the company. (1 – Reuters), (2 – The Hill) (3 – The New York Times)  Adog 104  Talk to me 01:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. RS say the split was part of FedEx purging a number of businesses/organizations that didn't have sufficient volume to qualify for the discount.  That should not be seen as a drop due to the boycott.  Springee (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Assault weapons"
There has been some dispute over whether this is a neutral term or a if it's a pejorative in violation of NPOV, such as the edit here. This issue has come up before. "Assault weapons"is are clearly a neutral term, is frequently used in RS to describe such weapons, and the content shouldn't be removed, although I welcome other thoughts on the matter. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would generally avoid using "assault weapon" in wiki voice primarily because it is a very poorly defined term. Depending on which law you pick weapons that are commonly considered "assault weapons" may or may not qualify.  However, this case isn't as clear cut since many people/organizations have criticized the NRA for opposing "assault weapons" legislation and typically the specifics of the legislation are not clear.  I think the text in question could be cleared up if, assuming RS support, it said the NRA was criticized for opposing [more specific description] but I don't know that semi-automatic rifle is correct in this case.  Again, definitions, a semi-automatic rifle includes examples like the Rugger 10/22 which is typically not seen as an "assault weapon" under most definitions.  Perhaps a compromise would be to hotlink to the Assault weapon article since it talks about the politics associated with the term and the ambiguity related to the definition.  Perhaps we could add something like "commonly refereed to as assault weapons"?  Given an either or choice, I would pick "assault weapon" vs "semi-auto rifle".    Springee (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestions at the end, and believe we could combine two of them. I think "commonly referred to" with a hotlink that explains the ambiguity is the most encyclopedic approach. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet /. See. —  Newslinger  talk   13:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Miss Sloane movie
What is the group on Wikipedia that discusses gun violence in America? Infinitepeace (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)