Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 4

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


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

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


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

Does Niteshift36 want to elaborate on why he removed this text? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I argued from the RFC I still feel the same. It is a largely undue minor viewpoint in the NRAs history. PackMecEng (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding ping for original revert. Also the section title "Historical racism" is to charged and misleading. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Try again sport. I've about had enough of your immediate "false" this and "bullshit" that. Start assuming some good faith or we can start discussing that someplace else. A random admin gave an interpretation. He closed the RFC as "no consensus to add the subsection suggested by Snooganssnoogans asked to include." He mentioned that there wasn't necessarily a prohibition of the material, but quite clearly said that including it in other forms was a separate editorial decision. That should be a strong indicator to you that you need consensus before merely rewording your original crusade (again as a separate section I might add) and then pretending like there was never a RFC. 15 editors opposed it. 10 supported it. a few said length was an issue. Once again, there should have been a strong indicator to you that you need consensus before merely rewording your original crusade. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "then pretending like there was never a RFC"... this was my edit summary: "created a subsection on "Lack of advocacy for black gun owners". this is a condensed version of a larger text which did not receive approval in a RfC, but which numerous commenters expressed support for a briefer version.)" Are you going to retract what you just said? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Right after you retract all your bad faith allegations and characterizations of reasons. being "bullshit". Not holding my breath for you to suddenly act civil. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we just have another RfC or a straw poll to resolve this without the hair pulling? I have not looking into this particular material, so I have no opinion one way or the other at this point.- MrX 🖋 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The sourced section seems fine. You don't have to go past last week to see the suggestion of racism at the NRA. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the text under dispute here doesn't even accuse the NRA of racism (even though RS frequently covers such criticism - here's the NYT last week: "they often side with Mr. Trump in divisive cultural disputes — some of which have potent racial undercurrents — like his feuding with Black Lives Matter activists and the professional football players who knelt during the national anthem... [NRATV's] Its guests and hosts are not shy of trading in racially charged language and imagery."). The text only notes that the NRA has been accused of being reluctant in advocating gun rights for black gun owners. It is so uncontroversial yet it's being vetoed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the same passage you tried to force in last week under other pretenses. Can you at least pretend like you don't have an agenda? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on the NRA in the 1900-1930 era but given Jim Cow, Confederate Monument erection, KKK and voter supression efforts in that era the prof's statement appears undoubtedly true. No votes, no rights, no guns... Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , would you please not attack the motives of editors and would you please properly indent your comments? Thanks.- MrX 🖋 20:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did indent and, given the context, the context isn't a personal attack. Odd that I don't see you policing his incivility. Must have slipped under your radar.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I struck through it for you. Maybe you can try policing both sides for a change. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- what is the basis for the objection to this material? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The same basis as the failed RFC to include this material. Simply shortening it because a random admin suggested it doesn't mean the consensus wasn't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This material looks OK to me. Not sure what the objection is. Neutralitytalk 13:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. The content could be improved. I don't like citing anonymous "critics" without some kind of in text attribution for why we should care about these particular opinions. Wording like "touched off a wave" is overly colloquial and figurative, and I tend to think the Castile sentence could be moved to a footnote, and we should prefer sources that summarize the big picture rather than referring to particular events, especially when those sources are especially close to the event chronologically so that they have to themselves be treated with a grain of recentism salt.
 * Having said that, both you guys need to calm the down about four notches, and if you can't discuss content instead of contributor on this subject you should both consider editing something else for a while. (Also consider that you shouldn't be surprised if your own comments and edit summaries manage to pop up on an RS somewhere when we're editing an article that is this this high profile and politically topical.)  G M G  talk   13:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The main objection would be an argument of undue and leading section title. The same stuff discussed at the RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the title could be more neutrally worded.  G M G  talk   13:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I restored the material with this edit. It's a well-sourced, brief, and WP:DUE content. I don't see a policy-based reason to exclude this materials. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy based reasons cited above are largely undue. Also leading section title, issues in the writing, and sources. I have undone your addition of content without consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018
2601:150:100:D2A2:87E:ADBB:4E38:89C5 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC) The NRA has added a department "National School Shield" to its portfolio.
 * ❌ - Please present reliable sources and get consensus before submitting an edit request.- MrX 🖋 14:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018
The section under "Criticism" labeled "Mass Shootings" is misleading and implies that the NRA could be or perceived as responsible or partially responsible for shootings in the USA. The NRA has no control of legislation as it is done by legislators and legislators are elected officials. The mass shootings section on the page is misleading and gives the readers an implied bias. FrancisCastiglione (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ the NRA is the leading lobby group against any form of US gun control and a major donor to political candidates that support their pro-gun positions. Therefore the poorly defined requested changes are not appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

NRA Russia Connection
NPR investigative piece Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned in the related section above. Springee (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"Media campaigns" section
Speaking of the “Criticism” section here: I think we should remove the entire “Media campaigns” subsection. It is not really about “media campaigns”; it is basically an extended quotation from ONE video advertisement, along with criticism of that ad by two people. IMO this is UNDUE excessive coverage of a single issue, masquerading as a section about a broader issue. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would trim the quote, but keep the secondary-sourced material. The section could be easily expanded. For example, NRA-TV is not discussed in the article at this point. Here's an in-depth piece from The New Yorker:
 * Watching NRATV: "...the reiteration of sound bites intrinsic to this life style spills over from NRATV’s simulations of a news desk and into a flow of programming in which film of outdoor recreation, chronicles of Second World War battles, and adrenaline-pumping self-defense demos all swirl together".
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


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


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


 * Any time you find yourself saying "Delete because UNDUE", please go and re-read NPOV. The policy which defines undue weight says you shouldn't delete content merely because it isn't neutral. The policy says you should fix it. It says, "here is how to recognize due and undue weight, here is what you should do about it". A little research shows that this topic was covered by many sources, not just the one or two cited. Too few sources is fixable problem, not a reason to delete all of it. Relying too much on an extended quote can be corrected. If "media campaigns" is too vague a section title, fix it by changing the title. Here's some more coverage of this ad: Washington Post, CNN, Esquire, Business Insider, Salon, Mother Jones, Newsweek, Washington Examiner, Time, AV Club, AIM, Moyers, Vanity Fair, Fast Company. You can find many other sources if there aren't enough to your liking here. If you don't wish to fix it yourself, you can tag it for maintenance. But delete it all? No policy is telling you that you should be doing that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Copycat media coverage all around a single point in time doesn't mean some minor aspect of the subject should be included in the article. Per WP:BALASP
 * An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
 * The criticism of that add appears to be isolated to just after it happened (WP:RECENT) or a few attack articles in the last month. WP:SIZE says we should be targeting 30k-50k of article text.  This article is quite long at 130k (not all is prose).  Per WP:SIZE we should be considering trimming the overall length of this article and creating child articles (perhaps NRATV should be one).  Again, 147 year old organization.  There more significant things we could be covering here. Springee (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Copycat"? That's just your opinion. Like when all the newspapers ran stories about D-Day? Copycats? When something is covered in many, many sources, it's the sources telling you it matters, whether you like it or not. Defer to the sources.WP:SIZE is another editing guideline, like the WP:NPOV policy, one should read carefully before citing it as a reason to delete. Maybe you want to start spinning off sub-topics, per WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Recentism isn't even a guideline, let alone a policy. If this article has too much recent events coverage, then fix it by expanding the coverage of past events. Your opinion that this should be deleted is your opinion, but you can't really lean on policies and guidelines to justify it.   --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you claim that people aren't following policy but I cited policy that doesn't support the inclusion. You've made you arguments.  I've made mine.  I suggest we let others weigh in.  Springee (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy does support inclusion. It's well cited across a broad range of sources. You're not "making your augments". What you're doing is claiming policy says one thing, when in fact, as anyone can see for themselves, policy says something quite different. It's an important distinction to recognize. The words saying we should delete this are simply not there in any policy. The words in the policy pages say plainly that if the problem is NPOV, then the remedy is to fix it, not delete it. Both of you have assured us that the problem is NPOV, therefore, fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN, it is a big section for a single issue with not a ton of coverage. PackMecEng (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be the real problem (and solution) is in WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Having a garbage dump at the bottom of an article, whether nameed "Criticism" or "Pop Culture" or "Trivia" or "Miscellaneous", turns into a mess if enough time goes by. Treating this one advertisement as an event in of itself, to only cover the criticism, looks weird and loses the context. If you think about this as one part of the history of the NRA during the 2010s, it become only one facet of the push and pull of events during that time. You could say the same of the 1995 factoid about G.H.W. Bush resigning. It's pulled out of historical context. Move it up into the history section, and describe what the NRA had been doing in 1995, and it starts to read like a real encyclopedia article instead of these isolated sections where blips in the news media get a paragraph here or a sentence there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that! So much of this article reads like a context free dump of what ever someone found at the time (see the 2008 NYT Obama mention in the politics section).  A higher level context and structure would really help.  Springee (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Here are the sections I used:
 * 1) Formation (i.e. early history)
 * 2) Advocacy programs
 * 3) Historical revisionism (i.e. propaganda campaigns)
 * 4) Transition into right-wing extremism (i.e. later history)
 * 5) Dissolution
 * 6) Assessment and legacy

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


 * While I would protest any comparison between the NRA and a neo-nazi group, the suggestion of a structure is a good start. Can you take it a bit further?  What primary headings would you include?  It would be great if this article were more cohesive.  Do we have other advocacy organizations that might provide a template?  Perhaps one of the environmental groups like Greenpeace? Springee (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No comparison to the neo-Nazi group was intended :-); it just happens to be an article that I wrote almost from scratch. But, like the NRA, HIAG was a controversial group, with an interesting evolution of its goals and tactics. They do seem similar in terms of lobbying and propaganda, though.
 * I'll give some thought to the subheadings. Meanwhile, I would welcome other comments / suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is probably sufficeint consensus to merge the sections of this article, per WP:STRUCTURE, WP:CRITS and WP:POVFORK. Just put it all in the order it happened. Editors disagree about everything but they can at least agree when something happened. That's good enough.The most simple minded section names could be,  ,  , etc. Or whatever time period you like. Or you could name the eras  ,  ,  ,  ,  . Whatever. The point is to put everything in chronological order. I would predict with confidence that if we kept every cited fact in this article, but presented them all in chronological order, more than half of the entrenched NPOV disputes about this topic would evaporate. The talk page would become almost peaceful. Anything that looked like it was given too much weight could be surround by contextual details, background, outcomes. For example, instead of arguing "this event was inconsequential!" we would see that literally, in the chronology, the even had no consequences. That's the beauty of writing a straightforward narrative instead of slicing the subject up by POVs, such as separating lobbying or criticism from the rest of NRA activities.Start with boneheaded decade name section headings, and once the content is there, more colorful heading will practically write themselves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good way to handle much of it. A lot of the politics and controversy type material could fit in that structure.  How would you suggest including something that has been an issue over a number of years?  For example opposition to universal background checks and/or assault weapon laws?  They would fit into a post 1968 time period (I picked 1968 because with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 the NRA started shifting away from gun control to gun rights - the reasons for that shift would be great material for this article if we could find good sources).  I'm not certain a chronological order is best but your point about "we can all agree on it" is compelling. Springee (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's like they had a cease fire in the Korean War, and then the lack of a peace treaty was an issue decade after decade. But for years at a time everyone could ignore it until an event occurred, and then there would be lots of coverage about the event. Then back to other things. Typically these events are when a law is being debated, and the NRA makes their position well known, and there are reactions. Then the law either passes or doesn't and we look for consensus among historians as to what happened. Then on to the next event. I would expect that some parts of this will get really bogged down in small details. Once the content has been rearranged, those parts are good candidates to spawn off sub-articles so they don't detract from the main thrust of this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This article looks highly biased in favor of NRA
Its officers. It's safety program. It's legislative efforts. Etc. Etc. A person reading this who has not been following the news recently might think all is well and rosy with the good 'ole NRA when the truth is that there is terrific anger following these mass shootings, like maybe more than half of the US population. That is, anger among the people still living who haven't yet been shot. Maybe a POV tag is needed at the top.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a Criticism section. Things can always be improved, but this can't be turned into a hit piece against the NRA either. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the criticism section is safely buried deep in the article text. Of course we need to be fair, but the way this article reads right now is like a pink party dress covering up Charles Manson.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So if the page doesn't say the NRA is a tool of Satan, if not, indeed, Satan, you won't be satisfied?  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these exaggerations are going to help. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I share the concerns expressed by the OP. Let's work on making the article more neutral. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "more neutral" is something that will require more detail. While there are a lot of accusations leveled against the organization it's not clear how many of those are based on sound reasoning vs emotion.  This is a politically charged topic.  It's possible we will have people who agree the article is biased but in opposite directions!  Anyway, it may be true but specifics are needed here.  Springee (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of issues that should probably be addressed with greater thoroughness: (1) NRA $$$ going to candidates and politicians -- will these donations have a negative effect on their reelection prospects? (2) will NRA positions change because of these shootings? (3) money flows coming into the NRA -- from where, from who (gun manufacturers? hunters? etc), how much? how will these change after these shootings? (4) how will the NRA react to increased public anger following the mass shootings? These are a few issues; there are many more; right now, the article looks like it was written by NRA public relations people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All of those questions require predictions and, I'm not certain they're even appropriate for the NRA article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then same issues, but use past tense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Except we keep trying to force the Douglas High incident into it. You can't talk about it being long-term, then focus on the most recent event. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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


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

I don’t see its inclusion being WP:RECENTISM; it’s not a passing topic and seems highly relevant. See for example: "NRA CEO says legislation regulating guns won't prevent mass shootings: In rare interview, Wayne LaPierre decries effort to 'politicize' the Las Vegas shooting", Politico:
 * House and Senate Democrats have renewed efforts to put legislation expanding background checks, among other things, to a vote in Congress in response to the Nevada shooting that left at least 59 dead and more than 500 injured — the deadliest of its kind in modern U.S. history. LaPierre said the backlash compelled his organization to make the announcement on Thursday. “The other side has been so outright trying to politicize this tragedy that we did feel the need to speak out today on this whole bump stock issue,” he said.

So even the NRA is acknowledging the backlash. This content is pertinent in the lead and summarises the body of the article, which includes a discussion of this topic. I plan to restore the edit; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One well-referenced sentence in a lede section packed with pro-NRA stuff is only a first step in trying to remove the POV in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources listed above are:
 * 1 - USA Today
 * 2 - Hindustan Times
 * 3 - AJC

ref names with no links were a bit confusing. But all those sources are specifically Emma Gonzalez not the sources themselves. They all also just focus on this shooting, no mention of repeated mass shootings. I would probably dump the Hindustan Times as not a very strong source. PackMecEng (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not a passing topic" It is when you use it as a stick to beat the NRA with only days after it happened. If you were trying to put in a reference to, frex, Columbine, you might get less resistance--if you hadn't decided to do it now; now, it's just an excuse. And "removing the POV" looks a lot like introducing your own anti-NRA, anti-gun POV, which is the typical attitude on highly-polarizing pages like this one: true neutrality isn't the goal, an opposing POV is.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  04:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of real neutrality. What I'm saying is the article in its current state is highly skewed to be pro-NRA. Criticism is buried. The lede paragraph doesn't even mention that there's any criticism when arguably more than half of the country is upset with the NRA following these school shootings. This article makes Wikipedia look amateurish, like a propaganda machine. Further, I truly believe this article hurt the NRA supporters who, if they read this, and didn't read anything else, would think all is well and good, and in the real world, will find out how much real anger is directed at them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thing missing from the lede section is identifying the organization's real supporters are. Is it gun-owning citizens who truly believe that every person should own a gun? Or is it the gun manufacturers who don't mind gun deaths if it leads to more sales? My sense is the gun-makers are largely absent from the lede, and their support of the NRA, even in light of repeated mass shootings, needs to be in there, along with the fact that a majority of the public wants better gun control regulations, and the NRA opposes it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ♠"following these school shootings" That's recentism, & as a result, it doesn't belong in the lead. This isn't the New York Times, & even less is it an anti-NRA platform. Using the latest shootings as an excuse to beat up the NRA is POV, no matter how popular a sport it might be just now (or ever).
 * ♠"[gun makers] who don't mind gun deaths if it leads to more sales" You say that, & then claim you want neutrality? Your definition evidently fits what I expected before: a screed against the NRA as fascist & bloodthirsty. Since gun makers aren't NRA members, their notional desires are irrelevant. So are your views on their objectives, which, I daresay, are sharply skewed from the reality. You're blaming the gun makers for the actions of the shooter. I defy you to show a causal connection.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Recentism? Maybe Parkland happened last week, but what about Sandy Hook? Columbine? What about Las Vegas? These happened months, years back, and aren't so "recent". Further, I'm not blaming anybody for anything -- rather, what is missing from this article in a large way is the sources of the NRA's funding. Along with the fact that huge swaths of the nation are coming to see the NRA as complicit in all of these deaths, with commentators referring to it as a terrorist organization. What needs to be represented in this article is the depth of anger directed at the NRA. Like it calls itself a "civil rights" organization, omitting the fact that its policies result in the substantive curtailment of the ultimate "civil right" of letting people live.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The NRA had nothing to do with any of those shootings. The closest the NRA has had something to do with shootings at all is Sutherland Springs church shooting when a NRA instructor stopped the shooter. Also calling one of the oldest civil rights organisations in the country a terrorist organization is rather odd. If you have some RS with the anger and terrorist stuff lets see them and we can go from there. PackMecEng (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for righting great wrongs.  G M G  talk   14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is a vehicle for fixing up biased articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "It's not a passing topic" It is when you use it as a stick to beat the NRA with only days after it happened -- the piece from Politico that I listed was from October 2017. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do get the feeling that it has been edited to almost "praise" the NRA. It seems to say that the NRA promotes gun safety. In Britain, we found that the best way to ensure gun safety is to have next to no guns. And yet this article seems to be promoting the NRA's goals to arm effectively everyone. Lamb104 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion about bias
(continuing thread) If we step back a bit, and try to look at this article from nonpartisan eyes, let's suppose that the people here, who are arguing for the article's status quo, are good people, who believe in gun rights, who think the NRA is a good organization serving a useful purpose, and so forth. I ask: are they really helping the NRA? Or are they actually undermining it here, by surrounding it in a bubble of public relations cruft? The real world is the real world, and frankly most of the country is angry about the repeated shootings (Parkland, Columbine, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech etc etc), and they do blame the NRA as complicit in murder, by advocating policies which make it easy to purchase guns, by working against things like background checks, and so forth. Now, does it really help pro-NRA people, reading this article, to shield them from the reality of public opinion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct approach is not to assume that just because you're approaching things from a fairly obviously politically motivated standpoint (and this isn't the first time I've called you out personally for doing exactly that), that everyone else must also be approaching things from some other equally but opposed politically motivated standpoint. Believe it or not, most of us are actually here to build an encyclopedia and nothing else.  G M G  talk   17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone here has biases. You do. I do. Everybody. But my point is this article in its present state is HEAVILY biased to favor the NRA.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ♠Yes, you do. The problem is, you want to impose your bias on the page & call it "neutrality", which is pretty much what I suspected to begin with. You'll continue to claim "bias" until the page is slanted to your POV, even if it's not actually neutral. That isn't going to happen.
 * ♠Should the issues you raise be discussed on the page? Yes. Claiming the NRA is complicit in mass murder does you no favors. And making out editors who disagree with you are dupes, or shills, is one step from attacks on our integrity, IMO. Does it not cross your mind anybody who disagrees with you might have legitmate doubts about the efficacy of the "solutions"? Or legitmate complaints about media characterizations of gun owners or the NRA? Or legitimate arguments about why "universal" background checks won't happen (& it's not because NRA opposes them, either)? No, you can't see past your certitude NRA is a Satanic organization & everyone who agrees with them is a heretic deserving of being burned at the stake.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm an atheist, I don't believe in Satan or heresy or any of that, so I don't know why I am being accused of anything along those lines. My sense is this article is owned by pro-NRA people, and nobody seems to be even listening to my very reasonable suggestions, about providing both points of view, so guess what, people, you win, I won't edit it any more. Bye bye.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, User:Trekphiler, you really need to watch it with the personal attacks. "Your definition evidently fits what I expected before: a screed against the NRA as fascist & bloodthirsty.", "No, you can't see past your certitude NRA is a Satanic organization & everyone who agrees with them is a heretic deserving of being burned at the stake." Even if Tomwsulcer is clearly not a fan of the NRA, you've made it fairly obvious that you're not a neutral party in this either. Don't accuse others of having a battleground mentality when you're doing the very same thing yourself. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one trying to change the page to reflect my own bias. I'm happy to leave it alone, & let other editors tinker with the details. I'm not willing to let somebody with an obvious anti-NRA POV have control of it.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  10:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tomwsulcer was reverted and challenged by others who were a lot more civil. Criticizing an organization is one thing, but WP:NPA is policy. I get it, it's sensitive stuff, but I don't think what he said warrants all the references to Satanism, the inquisition and fascism. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, everyone's criticism of him was highly warranted. Right on target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.53 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF
Comment -, you appear to be the only editor at this point advocating for the restoration of this self-cited material. The PFD you cite is written by a PhD student. In any case, it states: "Outcome measures on the effectiveness of the Eddie Eagle program are limited to anecdotal testimonials provided by adults who have reportedly witnessed a change in children’s behavior after completing the program and internal data collection. No peer evaluation has been reported to date.[4]" Per ABOUTSELF, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, (...), so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving...". Devoting substantial real estate to NRA's statements about itself, in this already quite a long article, would be "unduly self-serving". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article I cited was published by a peer reviewed publication. It doesn't matter if the author was a student.  If you check, many peer reviewed articles are actually published by PhD students.  I'm not citing it to prove the program is effective, only to say that it was covered by something other than the NRA.  The same with the CT news story.  It's very questionable to claim that the NRA's statement that they offer training and education programs is "self serving".  Yes, I'm currently the only one advocating for this but you only recently removed the material.  Perhaps a RfC regarding the removal or posting the question to a noticeboard is in order.  Springee (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then, given what seems to be a pretty overwhelming consensus on talk, we can take it down for now and you can start an RFC or seek second opinions if you believe they're likely to help; or we can try to seek some sort of compromise. As I said above, the most obvious point to me is that it definitely doesn't belong in the lead, at least with the sourcing it has now.  It doesn't reflect any part of the article, and it doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy bit of trivia given the minimal coverage from secondary sources.  Putting it in the second or third sentence of the lead is absurd; leads have to reflect the article.  Ideally, each sentence will have a paragraph (or multiple paragraphs) expanding on it via multiple sources; but at the very least, we can't just drop random tidbits into the lead without more extensive coverage in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, that's undue in the lead. The obvious place for this material to go would be to National_Rifle_Association, as a holding cell of sorts. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * RfC started. The material has been in the article for 14 years.  It seems crazy to think other editors just overlooked removing the material.  Springee (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned below, your RFC doesn't mention whether it should go in the lead or not. Can I take this to mean  you're conceding that point and would accept a mention eg. in the section on NRA activities instead?  I'm concerned that someone might try to take a positive answer in the RFC to mean it can go into the lead, which obviously wouldn't be acceptable given the current wording.  If you intend to argue that point, you need a separate RFC for it (since the previous one has already gotten started - I would have preferred for you to have mentioned that aspect of the controversy in it to begin with, but now that it's already attracted !votes it's too late.)  I don't want to come across as too harsh on this particular point, but I'm alarmed that you started an RFC that didn't mention the lead at all when, by my reading, a reasonable compromise was about to be reached where we would include secondary sources and move it out of the lead. I think you could get much of the opposition to come around if you conceded those two points (use secondary sources, and don't put it in the lead), but the RFC mentions neither aspect of the controversy, only whether it should be mentioned anywhere, at all - that misses two of the main points of contention! And if you're not conceding those two points, it means the RFC isn't very useful (and won't resolve anything) unless the Support !votes randomly decide to weigh in on those aspects, which it looks like most of them haven't. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

NRA School Shield
I removed this recently-added material as self-cited and unduly promotional:
 * The NRA's National School Shield program, an "initiative focused on improving school security in an effort to help prevent national tragedies at educational institutions in America", receives funding for projects and training opportunities for school districts in need through The NRA Foundation.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Given that we already have a RfC about similar material why don't we try to wp:fixit rather than delete first. These are basic claims that should fall under WP:about self but it isn't hard to find sorces[]. Springee (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be fixed by citing WP:INDEPENDENT sources.- MrX 🖋 20:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that basic claims, not claims about the impact/success/etc but claims that the program exists need independent sources but I'm sure we can find them so it isn't really an issue. The material should be tagged as cn so it can be fixed.  Springee (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "...in an effort to help prevent national tragedies..." is rather non-basic. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, tag it as cn then let people try to fix it. That is the more collaborative way to handle this.  Springee (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee will you ever stop with the NRA agenda promotion? This School Sheild thing has been around a while. If it is put back it needs to be properly counterbalanced with criticism of the NRA's proposals. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Material that is improperly sourced or WP:UNDUE should be removed. Also, WP:ONUS.- MrX 🖋 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Springee, I'm curious as to why you removed the material here: "VPC is a anti-gun group and a self published source thus the addition violates RS and WEIGHT". Why didn't you tag and let others fix it? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is ample evidence the NRA nearly bankrupted Smith and Wesson via boycott because they agreed to some limited controls on guns. Eventually the new company owners gave the NRA $1 million dollars to end the boycott. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Any inclusion of school shield should include this Mother Jones source and similar Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same issue that is listed above which is close to a snow close include. It is non controversial and at this point getting disruptive with how consensus is going. Also your Smith & Wesson example is unrelated in almost every way to the situation here. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. PackMecEng (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That the language of "...improving school security in an effort to help prevent national tragedies..." is perceived as "non-controversial" is surprising to me. Do you find this phrasing appropriate? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole School Shield idea is vsry controversial. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is some scholarship on the subject (note, these are not endorsements of the policies). The program has received a lot of criticism so we should include it. [][]. Here is a program put together by the program around it's inception [] - a good source for who was involved and what their objectives were. A recent article (post FL shooting) about the program by the AP []. Springee (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, not being controversial is not a ticket for inclusion anyway. Can we just stick to the content guidelines that we use at every other article?- MrX 🖋 01:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, that would be WP:ABOUTSELF which covers sources from the organisation about themselves. Which this does, and is a practice used in most wiki pages for organisations. PackMecEng (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't fill up articles about organizations with mission statements, promotional statements, press release material, product announcements, and other self-serving material. "focused on", "effort to help prevent national tragedies", and "opportunities" are promotional (and self-serving). - MrX 🖋 01:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend looking at the Southern Poverty Law Center or NAACP articles then. Also it is quoted not listed in wiki's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If other articles have self-referenced promotional material, you are welcome to fix them. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting anything.- MrX 🖋 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Membership
User:Miguel Escopeta removed the first part of "According to the NRA, membership surpassed 5 million in May 2013." yesterday with the edit summary "the cite is all that is needed here for readers to determine veracity". I tried to verify it and it doesn't appear to be that simple. The source used only attributes the claim to NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre. When I looked online, I found the following information in a Washington Post article from last monday: But nobody really knows exactly how many dues-paying members the NRA has, because it doesn't publish annual membership figures beyond periodic allusions to “five million members” — see, for instance, the quote from NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre prominently displayed above the group's 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference booth in the photo at the top of this page. So with that new one from last week and the one from 2017 used in the infobox, we now have three claims of 5 million members made by LaPierre over the last 5 years. While that's certainly possible, it highlights the fact that the number is neither official nor probably very precise. The article also notes that the NRA home page said it had "nearly 5 million" in February (it currently says "more than 5 million"). And from yesterday's Time: <BLOCKQUOTE>NRA executive Wayne LaPierre announced [in May 2013] that the organization’s membership had reached 5 million, although that claim is impossible to independently verify since membership rolls and figures are not publicly released.</BLOCKQUOTE> One interesting article on Mother Jones shows how volatile reports of their membership were in a graph from 1993 to 2013. "After the late ’90s, reports of its size start to spread out like buckshot from a sawed-off bird gun." Since there appears to be a lot of confusion regarding the exact numbers and they appear to fluctuate heavily (there are already mentions of a spike since the last shooting), what do we do with this? PS: I can't access any of the NRA-affiliated websites. DDoS? Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored the attribution as per the source provided: original diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a similar one - Washington Post as well, but again notes inflating the numbers. Washington Post
 * Two other things.. here is a link to previous archive from discussion in 2013 on membership (if useful for reference) here
 * And I was also poking a bit and wonder if the board membership and turnover deserves more due attention? Few things noted here is that the board member list is not publicly released and the turnover of board members is around 25 of the 76 board seats turn over each year. link
 * Note that GQ link I wouldn't suggest adding for since it seems to be a fluffy opiniony-like piece, but regardless brings up a few fair points. Shaded0 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like enough for a small subsection "Membership" with links to various claimed numbers and a statement thst RS state they can't verify the claims. If I ran an advocacy group amd wanted to seem important I might count every "member" including multiple people in a family - living or dead - who ever signed up. Not saying that's what's happening but no one is able to verify the 5 million member claim. 5/245 million American adults = 2% of the population are NRA members who send in $40 a year or $140 every 5 years ? The NAACP claims 300,000 members but AARP claims 37 million in contrast. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

NRA Civil Rights organization
According to the article, the NRA was founded in 1871. which means it is the oldest standing Civil Rights Organizations in the US. Should that be mentioned in the lead?100.2.251.53 (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. - MrX 🖋 01:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

May I get a reason?100.2.251.53 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC) A one word answer seems dismissive.100.2.251.53 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Within the United States, the National Association of the Deaf founded in 1880 with the express intent of promoting the needs and rights of deaf people in the United States, making it the oldest and longest continually operating private civil rights organization in the US. The NRA was founded in 1871 and came to work on Civil Rights in the 1930s, so while it is the largest and earliest founded organization that is involved with civil rights, to call it the oldest Civil Rights Organization is not the best phrasing.  The wording from NRA About the NRA, a brief history is "The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization."   In the larger sense of course, the oldest civil rights organization in the United States is the government of the United States (since the Bill of Rights, 1789), and outside the United States-centric view there is the British Government (Bill of Rights 1689, and Magna Carta 1215),and the Roman Catholic Church.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry IP, I didn't mean to be curt. The link after my answer shows that the claim by the NRA is disputed. We are discussing this in the next section down.- MrX 🖋 01:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Language calling NRA “the oldest continuously operating civil rights organizations.”
This is a distortion of the language in the cited reference. I came to this page after seeing this claim being made on fox and friends weekend edition.

The quote from the source, Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues calls it “the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization.” Civil rights concern equal treatment under the law of parties that may be different b/c of race, gender, disability, etc., while civil liberties are those rights guaranteed by (in the case of the United States) the Constitution. This is a distortion of the facts and should be changed. Vautrinjr (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC) — Vautrinjr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I agree, but some adopt a broader definition of civil rights. However, since this appears to be WP:UNDUE, let's just take it out.- MrX 🖋 14:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's just take it out? What that says is "let's ignore all the other conversations about this topic". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the NRA is definitely a civil liberties or civil rights organization - and it does claim to be the oldest operating... This Salon piece contests this on the basis that while the NRA was founded in 1871, it didn't begin lobbying until 1934, and thus the NAACP (1909) and NAD (1880) pre-date it. Since the NRA is claiming this (and the claim is being repeated by various sources) - we probably should cover the merits of the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a little dubious of the Salon article, since it is a reprint of this Media Matters blog post and should not be used for statements of fact. PackMecEng (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

My contention is that civil rights and civil liberties have different, distinct meanings. The language used on the page does not agree with the citation. As a IRS 501(c)4 organization, it is exempt from taxes b/c It is a “social welfare organization.” And while some would question this allowance by the IRS, it also does not mean civil rights. Vautrinjr (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC) — Vautrinjr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't care who would question the IRS, the NRA protects a civil right. Whether you like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is a civil right. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw an interview on TV. I decided to fact check using Wikipedia. The language that the interviewer used was on the Wikipedia page, even though that is not found on the NRA’s website. And the citation does not confirm the fact presented. Vautrinjr (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC) — Vautrinjr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It looks like the recommendation to remove language I am disputing entered by user MrX has been stricken from this talk thread as have some of the entries I made regarding the citaion [6] and the language used, which is not something cited by NRA website and appears to be erroneous. Calling the NRA a civil rights organization appears to be a fabrication without documented basis. Maybe this talk page is not th eappropriate forum to raise issues about validity of information being presented on Wikipedia. But why that unsupported claim remains on the page seems to be a deliberate misleading of the public. Vautrinjr (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC) — Vautrinjr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

The first words after the name in the NRA site are "America's longest-standing civil rights organization". I disagree gun ownership is a "civil right" in the sense we normally think of it and that they are the oldest organization. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree. It is an individual civil right, just as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. My own state even disagrees with you. If a convicted felon wants to own a firearm, they have to apply to the Office of Executive Clemency to have their....wait for it....civil rights restored. "A Pardon or Restoration of Civil Rights with no restrictions on firearms must be issued by the state where the conviction occurred."

On a simple factual basis the claim is false. The Howard League for Penal Reform dates back to 1866. The Reform Club dates back to 1836 but isn't really political any more.©Geni (talk)
 * The NRA is referring to American civil rights organizations, Howard League for Penal Reform and Reform Club are both based in the UK. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * however the sentence in the opening paragraph is making a global claim not a US claim.©Geni (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that should be corrected to be more clear that it is a American civil rights group. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this is about an American org and even hatnotes that fact, the presumption is that it's speaking about the US. But we can add something like "the nation's..." in front of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Lots of topic drift in this conversation. The lede misquotes a source, substituting "civil rights" for "civil liberties." If you think those terms mean the same thing, then by all means have that discussion in the talk pages for the civil rights and civil liberties articles. In any event, I corrected the misquotation. (I'm curious if anyone will actually object to that.) Cinteotl (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Like where it says "Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights"? or the article Civil liberties in the United States that starts with: "Civil liberties in the United States are certain unalienable rights retained by (as opposed to privileges granted to) citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted and clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States and lower federal courts. Civil liberties are simply defined as individual legal and constitutional protections from entities more powerful than an individual, for example, parts of the government, other individuals, or corporations. The liberties explicitly defined, make up the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy"? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the objection/reason, seeing as the second amendment is literally what was mentioned above, for people to refuse to acknowledge "gun rights" as either a civil right or liberty -if not both. Fixthelastmile (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


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


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


 * Can anyone provide a few strong sources (not original research, editor opinions, and conjecture) that say that "the NRA is the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization"? If not, this needs to be removed post haste per WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 14:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from the 2 RS's already in the article? I wonder what percentage of your responses use either DUE or NPOV as reasoning? It sure seems like a lot. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If two sources are enough to put something like this in the lead, why are there objections to including content in the article when they have 11, 10, and 17 sources respectively? - MrX 🖋 17:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean the sources that start playing the "well that wasn't their original purpose" game, as if any of them were there? Dave Kopel says it as well . Add that source. We also have a lot of RS's repeating the claim, attributed to the NRA. If you can count RS's repeating the claim of McClatchy reporting on 2 anonymous people, why wouldn't it count for others repeating the NRA claim? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We have four content disputes with 2, 11, 10, and 17 sources each. For some reason, the content with two sources is in the lead and the others are not even in the article. That's wrong.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The text in the lead are attributed to the NRA. The article says the NRA claims and puts that claim in context.  Springee (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this is clearly WP:UNDUE in the lead (even with attribution). I would not object to it in the body so long as it is clearly attributed. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. The purpose of the lead, per WP:LEAD, is to summarize the body of the article; what part of the body does this summarize?  We can hash out whether it goes anywhere in the article, and if so where and in what depth, but it obviously doesn't belong in the lead.  At best it's a single quote by a not-particularly-prominent source. I'd also add that there are WP:WEASEL issues - we need to say who is calling them this, not just "they have been called this by vague anonymous people." --Aquillion (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018
Remove "Total U.S. deaths by year in mass shootings: 1982 to 2016" graph. It does not reference the organization or does it provide any information to do with the direct actions of the organization. This graph would be more informative on a page for "Mass shootings" or a page for "Assault Weapons Ban." A Jasenwise (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support removal as WP:SYN since the material isn't linked to the topic. However, given the nature of the edit I think additional consensus is advised. Springee (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The NRA and mass shootings are intricately linked topics [www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/2/22/17040166/nra-mass-shootings-guns]    and many many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * The topics are linked but that graphic and the NRA need to be linked by at least one RS and preferably more to establish WP:WEIGHT. Springee (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Upon further review, the source for the chart doesn't link it to the NRA. I would propose removal as WP:UNDUE. Springee (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the image as WP:UNDUE per the reasons above. Springee (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence saying the organization is only focused on gun rights
, recently reverted an IP edit [] that had noted the NRA's training/safety mission to the first sentence of the article. The addition was poorly done so I think the removal was proper. However, and in part based on the discussion above, I think we shouldn't limit that first sentence to only the gun rights aspect of the organization. The NRA does run a number of programs related to firearms training, shooting events, etc. Should that material also be part of the opening sentence or should the opening sentence be changed so that it doesn't limited the scope of the organization? Perhaps something like, "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights and firearms related activities and education" Well, I actually don't like that much but I'm trying to come up with something that doesn't conceptually limit what the organization does even if the advocacy is the most significant part. Looking for feedback and ideas (even if the feedback is leave it as is). Springee (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * K.e.coffman's edit was good. The NRA is best known as a gun rights organization. Other authoritative works describe it as such. See first sentence of Encyclopaedia Britannica: "National Rifle Association of America (NRA), leading gun rights organization in the United States." Neutralitytalk 03:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add that the lead sentence does not say that the organization is "only" focused on gun rights. Neutralitytalk 03:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sick and tired of vague statements like "The NRA does run a number of programs related to firearms training, shooting events, etc." What is "a number"? If you were to rank the annual expenditure on firearms training by every organization in the US, where precisely would the NRA rate? Are they the number one trainer in firearms in the US? The 2nd? Or the 40th? Doe the NRA train more or fewer shooters than the US Marine Corps in an average year? What about 4H or the Boy Scouts? How many people do they train annually? How many shooting events do they sponsor? How many shooting events are sponsored bu non-NRA groups? Does the NRA sponsor 500 shooting events every year, and the next largest group sponsors 37? Or does some other group sponsor 800 events and the NRA sponsors 20? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯<P>I don't like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Maybe the NRA dabbles in this and that to make it seem like they are more than just a political pressure group. Or maybe they are a central feature in the day-to-day operations of gun enthusiast activity nationwide. Which is it? Don't tell me "a number" or "many" or "a lot". Tell me how many and whether or not that is more or less than the competition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you can't call BS. You can say the number is unsupported but I think the pbs reference I added above adds at least some of support, "50,000 certified instructors training 750,000 gun owners every year." From the NRA directly they claim to sanction 11,000 shooting events per year and 50 national championships []. You would be right to say we should try to find sorces to support these claims but "calling BS" is condescending. Springee (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to put this in perspective, does anyone know what percentage of the NRA's budget is spent on safety and training? It would also be helpful to know what percentage of their budget is spent on lobbying activities, including advertising and political contributions.- MrX 🖋 12:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We could look at the the distinct NRA organizations and their missions and budgets. The NRA-ILA is the policy/lobby arm.  It's pretty easy to find articles about their spending.  The NRA Foundation (a legal charity vs non-profit) claimed $35m in their 2016 annual report [].  I'm not sure about the main NRA budget (the NRA is actually 3 legal organizations, something I didn't realize before these recent edits []). Springee (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. It underscores something seriously lacking from this article: financial information, and I'm pretty sure we should not be getting that information from guns.com.- MrX 🖋 13:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Guns.com can be a valid source. It depends on the author. If the article is staff, yes. If it's a guest, probably not. No different than an op-ed piece in a print news paper. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's invalid SYNTH - while I'm sure one can hunt up some data, that would not be following the WP:WEIGHT and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. One should just follow the cites and try to match what the coverage is.  My impression is the bulk of coverage about contests and safety training is prominent -- Washington Post just did a coverage as contrast piece to the march for gun control - but financial data other than the potential Russia gave them money is boring and just not widely done.  Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Certifying instructors and then counting all their students does not mean the NRA trains 750,000 people a year. If a university graduates 100 teachers and they go teach 3000 kids that does not mean the University provided 3000 kids with education the next year. Let's get the numbers but let us be careful with presentation. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Counting all their students doesn't tell us how many were trained? If a NRA instructor teaches a class under the auspices of the NRA and issues a NRA certificate of completion, how is that not the NRA? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the instructor is not paid by the NRA, then the students are not trained by the NRA. Simple. - MrX 🖋 13:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. The instructors derive their credentials from the NRA. Some states, including my own, even specify NRA instructors as being accepted. They are essentially an industry standard. If I am a NRA instructor, I don't issue you a certificate of "Niteshift's training", I issue one from the NRA, with their logo, their backing. The instructors are an agent of the org at that point. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's that simple. The NRA is not training 750,000 people.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Florida State Seminoles scored 723 points in the 2013 season and most football statisticians would agree with that, but based on your standards, they didn't. A number of individual players did the actual scoring and since none of them were paid by FSU, those points weren't scored by the team. Next you're going to tell me that the US Army didn't win the Battle of the Bulge, it was a group of individuals. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of lede section
The lede section is seriously biased -- it omits important information about NRA contributions to Congress, which gets buried below when it should be in the lede section, and it paints the NRA in an unbalanced way, emphasizing non-issues like marksmanship and magazines. More than half of the country feels that it doesn't represent gun owners, but rather, that it's a propaganda arm of the gun industry -- issues like this are not covered properly in the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget the all-important 76 board members. I agree that far too much emphasis is put on activities that the NRA is not notable for, and far too little on the political activities of the organization.- MrX 🖋 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I didn't necessarily oppose information about lobbying being in the lead. It probably does belong there in some form. But the focus is on specific election cycles and trying to link it to individuals. In the current political climate, it looks like a hit list and we're not seeing other lobbying groups, ones that spent even more money, being treated the same way. Your addition looked less like a neutral improvement and more like a point being made. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Lack of "notability" is not a reason to omit any content or facts from an article or the lead. Notability is a standard used in AfD discussions to decide whether or not a topic should have an article. While the lead should briefly summarize why the topic is notable, and mention major controversies. Beyond those two things, the lead should try to summarize the contents of the article in a few paragraphs. This includes "non-issues like marksmanship and magazines". Not everything about a topic has to be an "issue". Per WP:OBVIOUS, the first thing you need to do is tell readers in plain English what a thing is. That means saying the basics of what this group does and what it consists of, even if those things are not lightning rods of debate and filling the headlines every day. The NRA as a political beast is of great importance, but we can afford to give facts about the other aspects of the group.<P>This stuff about training and non-political activities comes up again and again. What we lack is quantitative information on how much of the NRA's budget is spent on that stuff. How many training classes or programs take place in a given year? How many people participate? We wouldn't have to debate how much attention to give this or that if instead we could say straight out how much of these activities happen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess you were responding to me. Notability in this context is synonymous with significance. A magazine and the number of board members are simply not significant. They are operational details. I do agree with the last part of your comment though, and have made a similar point a few sections up.- MrX 🖋 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove tag: The concern that the lede should mention the lobbying efforts of the NRA is reasonable. Fortunately that was already in the lede and is still in with additional clarity vs what was their yesterday. []. It appears the only reason for the tag was that a link to a list article noting the 2016 congressional recipients of NRA campaign funds was moved from the lede to the section of the article covering the 2016 election.[] What isn't clear is why such a small change took the lede from acceptable to NPOV. Tomwsulcer, do you have any specific suggestions? Currently the NPOV tag hasn't been justified and should be removed. If you have a specific change why not suggest it? Springee (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep tag. Springee, can you state why you think the lede section is neutral?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of WP:ONUS you need to justify the newly added tag. The intro is brief but seems to cover all major aspects of the organization.  Springee (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've raised my objections above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead isn't perfect, but neither is the whole rest of the article, and this POV tag isn't helping. Add a sentence about campaign contributions if you like, and remove the POV tag. There are more pressing structural and balance issues in the article as a whole than the lead section. A really good use of anyone's time is researching the missing information on this topic rather than focusing on the minutiae of what is and isn't mentioned in the lead. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove tag. One statement really stood out to me: "More than half of the country feels that it doesn't represent gun owners, but rather, that it's a propaganda arm of the gun industry". Great, some people polled have an opinion, but does that really matter? Isn't it more relevant what members think? Asking someone who believes in strict gun control what they believe the NRA 'really' represents seems like asking a Muslim for his opinion on sacred Hindu texts. Once again, I haven't opposed touching on the matter in the lead (and it is a lead, not a lede). My issue is the focus on the current cycle and the targeting of individuals.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include a paragraph or two about investigations into the possibility that Russia contributed to the NRA to help elect Trump?
There has been increasing coverage in news sources about investigations into the possibility that Russia contributed to the NRA to help get Donald Trump elected. See above for the previous discussion.

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

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


 * Survey


 * Yes. In previous discussions, some editors have argued that we ought not mention this because the investigation has not been concluded and has not resulted in verdicts of criminal wrong-doing. But that's irrelevant. What matters is that the investigation is the subject of extensive RS coverage. Wikipedia would, for instance, not keep out text on Hillary Clinton's email scandal, and the sexual harassment investigations re: Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein and Roy Moore, just because these investigations are on-going and have not resulted in criminal verdicts... what matters is that they were extensively covered by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A very short paragraph. This has been getting coverage. However, per WP:RECENTISM (we're not Trumppredia or TrumpGatePedia), it should be limited.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Not yet. At this point, there is an investigation begun. Investigations are begun as a result of a complaint all the time. In this case, an advocacy groups (who actually presented no evidence) made a complaint. The job of the FBI is to investigate. If there are charges that result from the investigation, the conversation may be very different. If there are convictions or penalties, this conversation may be very different. But at this point, the mere fact that an investigation started, is not that notable (except the pile on the F the NRA bandwagon). I'm not saying it will never be here, but we need there to be an actual determination of something before we start making the implication. Remember, almost everyone involed here is a living person. In addition, we all know that once it's in here, it will never get removed, even if the investigation shows no wrong-doing. There will be shrieks and howls about "whitewashing", "censoring" and "it was already decided". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The obvious thing to do if the investigation shows no wrong-doing is to add text that says precisely that, just as we would add similar text to every major investigation that concluded without an indictment or verdict (e.g. Clinton emails scandal). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Clinton email scandal involved not just an FBI investigation, but House hearings, State Dept investigations, IG's, Senate committees and more. That's much, much different than "opened an investigation". Your answer shows exactly what the problem is: We react to merely opening an investigation and you plan on it staying forever, even if it goes absolutely nowhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: indictments and verdicts are no longer the threshold that you set for inclusion? We can suddenly include investigations even if we know for a certainty that they concluded with no evidence of criminal wrong-doing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. You know it. Stop pretending I did. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes but very short. Some of the sources listed in this RfC are unreliable opinion sources and don't really speak to the issue. However the FBI investigation, which was first reported on by McClatchy, has received heavy media attention. I disagree with Niteshift36 that some sort of "actual determination" be made before we include anything in our article; that would go directly against core policies and require us to remove massive amounts of our current events content across the encyclopedia. That being said, this is a recent investigation that may lead to nothing, and there are lots of of more noteworthy things about the NRA, so I think it would be undue to have more than, say, 2 sentences at this point.  --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It would not go against our core. BLP does apply here. We don't list every time some notable person has the police come to their house to investigate a noise complaint or some other crime, even though numerous reliable sources will cover it. As the OP has demonstrated above, the intention is to leave it forever, even if there is no evidence of wrong-doing. There are certain types of complaints that are required to be investigated, even if there's no evidence. Right now, you only have evidence that someone made a complaint and it's being looked at. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The doctor is correct. WP:NPOV requires that we cover material in proportion to how it's covered in reliable sources. There is no Wikipedia policy that relates content to the stage of an investigation. This material is especially relevant in the larger context of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, and the Pro-Gun Russian bots.- MrX 🖋 20:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep saying the NPOV requires us to cover but that's not entirely true. No, there isn't a wikipedia policy that relates to stage of investigation specifically. There also isn't a wikipedia policy for a lot of things. We adapt what is there. Once again, your teammate has already shown his intent to have the material there forever and merely add a line at the end if nothing is found. This whole thing smacks of RECENTISM and borders on being news coverage. Rather than wait a few weeks to see if there even is something, you insist that it be now, which is a non-encyclopedic view. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes - A few sentences in the history section are warranted based on a number of excellent sources that have covered this. The material can be expanded if the investigation yields tangible results.- MrX 🖋 17:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly - I could see something short and to the point with it. But it really depends on the exact text and sources. Some of the sources listed above are certainly not useable for this. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Weight because this article spans an organization that is over 100 years old and has been involved in many politically charged debates. The Russian investigation is casting a very wide net.  No doubt that, like the McCarthy days, a number of people/organizations will get caught up even if they did nothing wrong.  Currently there are no specific charges and if nothing comes of it then this certainly doesn't pass a test of weight given the scope of the organization.  We also need to consider WP:Recent.  Yes there have been some stories but how many are doing something other that repeating the same limited information?  Thanks to the web it doesn't take much to put out a regurgitated story.  Wikipedia wants encyclopedic articles and tells us to think about what will be relevant in a decade. As is the story doesn't pass that test.  Some have said,"what of it does?".  That violates WP:Chrystal.  Springee (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that the Wikipedia articles for figures and organizations who were victims of McCarthyism do cover the persecutions and investigations that they had to suffer, so it's a bizarre comparison to make. Had NRA been under investigation by the FBI for working on behalf of the Soviet Union or for its alleged communist beliefs, it would undoubtedly be in this Wikipedia article. That's kind of the point. Whether the investigation is ill-founded or not is irrelevant to whether it bears mentioning. Do you believe that we should remove text in Clinton Foundation and Jane O'Meara Sanders that notes that these subjects are currently under investigation by the FBI? Why is the NRA so unique? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How many are 147 years old and been involved in countless debates, discussions, controversies etc? Springee (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How in the world do eleven reliable source not establish due weight? The age of the subject is irrelevant to this discussion, since we are not writing a "History of the NRA" essay. If the standard for this article is that eleven sources is an inadequate threshold for inclusion, then there is large amount of material that needs to be culled from the article. Please let's please use consistent content standards.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral but don't support anything until there is specific wording proposed. In my experience, these type of RfC's about whether something in principle should be in an article tend to be interpreted later as "my version in particular should be in the article per that RfC". We ought not be in the business of allocating two paragraphs worth of real estate for whatever gets put there like we're the city zoning commission.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   19:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support, but only a couple of sentences, which I think would be sufficient. I'd rather see more coverage of NRA-TV, or even a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - That's about Russian Interference in the elections, not really about the NRA, so a bit WP:OFFTOPIC. And it is already at the there so it does not need to go here.  (It's also a cite in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections).  Though there really isn't much news there at the moment -- just one source claims he's told FBI is (or was) investigating.  Seems kind of obvious FBI would investigate for such possibilities as routine part of the task.  Also seems much ado about nothing at the moment.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... Did you happen to notice that 10 of 11 sources have NRA in the titles of the articles, and the one that doesn't actually mentions the NRA 10 times? Of course this is about the NRA!- MrX 🖋 12:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * user:MrX -- It was more noticeable that articles said "Russia" more than "NRA", and "Trump" more than either. Again, at the moment we have only reports of looking for a Russian money trail thru possible a third parties, an expectable thing FBI could  look for at any/all Trump donors -- but not any actual event let alone something speaking about the NRA organization or history or impact at the NRA or anything focused to the article topic of the NRA.  So just not much here and it's more about where the Russian investigation is looking than about NRA.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. So in WP terms, this is WP:OFFTOPIC as not about the WP:ORG. Also seems more than a bit wispy at the moment, so is running up against WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTRUMOR.  While a news website chasing ratings be fine with mentioning routine checks as if they were special or speculate on potential things, an encyclopedia should not go here.  Markbassett (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support a paragraph, but we can wait a week. More sources and more info will be available. Start preparing what you'd like to include and start a section here for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - it looks like more material has come available on this. See, e.g., This article published today: "Congressional investigators have learned that a longtime attorney for the National Rifle Association expressed concerns about the group’s ties to Russia and possible involvement in channeling Russian money into the 2016 elections to help Donald Trump." This is significant. Neutralitytalk 00:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the same take as BullRangifer, above: Draft something here, work on it as sourcing develops, and only include it when we're more sure we should do so. There may be something here, but this is too speculative at this point.  It's all primary sourcing and pseudo-secondary sourcing – i.e. usually secondary sources simply parroting what primary sources are saying (sometimes themselves doing likewise, e.g.: unnamed "congressional investigators" saying someone from the NRA "expressed concerns" about alleged ties and involvement.  This is what is known as the telephone game. See the 1–10 list of sources and their nature and their own sources near the top of the "Extended discussion" section below. It's all either opinion or its cannibalization of a single "source" which doesn't itself do anything but repeat what unidentified parties said someone else said.  This is not  good enough. Yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a brief mention somewhere in the political activity section. It's a well-cited aspect of its recent political activity that is treated as significant in the sources, so it should probably be brought up somewhere in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, possibly with a, or related template. François Robere (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) What's the big hurry? It seems like this might reach critical mass and stabilize at some point (or it might not) but the fact that at least twice during the run of this Rfc, it's been seen to be  necessary or advisable to issue "Update"s to add whatever the latest source was saying, seems like the definition of WP:RECENTISM to me.  The world won't end if this topic isn't covered right now, and the news about it seems to be changing as we vote.  People don't come to Wikipedia for breaking news, and we don't have to, and shouldn't, provide that service.  While we're discussing how many paragraphs we should use for how many reliable news sources dancing on the head of a pin about some murky breaking event, the Cincinnati Revolution, which was a crucial, defining moment for the modern NRA and should have an entire section (or an entire article) is covered in two sentences.  This is is wildly UNDUE. Have a little perspective; improve the article in other areas, wait a few weeks, months, or whatever it takes, and then add something about this topic, if it deserves it in retrospect. We can't cover every breathless story reporting on unnamed sources' unconfirmed allegations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but brief. It's clearly relevant. It's clearly also not worth more than 1 or 2 sentences until there's more to it. I would expect something like, which feels like a simple statement of fact without endorsing or disputing the "reports surfaced". — OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but brief as above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at what the sources actually say. Almost all of this derives from the original McClatchy article. The claim that there is an investigation was published in January 2018 based on "two sources familiar with the matter have told McClatchy". Two unnamed sources. People with actual names from the NRA have denied ever being contacted. In the end, the only source who actually says it, bases it on 2 anonymous people and the others just repeat that McClatchy said so. People with actual names from the NRA have denied ever being contacted. Yet we keep acting like it's a confirmed fact and that many sources have reported it. Many sources have reported that one source said it.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Extended discussion
 * Question: Which reliable source actually confirmed the investigation? I keep seeing references back to the McClatchy piece, which cites unnamed sources "familiar" with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) ABC News source: Based on McClatchy report
 * 2) Daily Beast: Based on McClatchy report
 * 3) Newsweek: Based on McClatchy report
 * PBS: says "reports said".
 * CNN: "is reportedly"
 * 1) The Week: Based on McClatchy report
 * 2) Bloomberg: Based on McClatchy report
 * NYT: Never specifically says the FBI is investigating this
 * 1) Snopes: Not a RS
 * 2) CNBC: An op-ed piece by people from an advocacy group.
 * Snopes is generally considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purpose. It doesn't matter if the material originates with the McClatchy Report. If anything, the fact that these reliable sources cites the McClatchy Report means that it's deemed at least somewhat reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Investigation of this magnitude don't generally happen without there being some evidence of wrongdoing.- MrX 🖋 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we're not trying to identify a RS, USEDBYOTHERS isn't really relevant here. Usedbyothers also means "we didn't say it, they did". Investigations of what magnitude? We have 2 anonymous people "familiar" with the matter that say there is an investigation. There is no actual, verifiable evidence that it exists except everyone saying "those guys reported....". And if you think that investigations happen without actual evidence, you clearly don't know the justice system. For example, if the FBI gets a complaint about a violation of civil rights under color of authority, they must investigate it. Even if there isn't one shred of evidence, merely a complaint filed. 2 months have gone by and you haven't shown a single source that goes beyond "some dudes told us" Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that matters. If you want to analyze evidence and know the identities of anonymous sources, you can become a journalist, join the FBI, or start a blog. We write what is verifiable in our sources.- MrX 🖋 20:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It does matter and I strongly suspect it would matter to you if it weren't supporting your personal POV. What is verfifiable? That two people said it, one source reported it and everyone else said "McClatchy said it". In relaity, we have a single source actually making the claim . The other sources point back at them. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We must still keep in mind WP:NOTRUMOUR, as it says Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The McClatchy Company DC office does some excellent reporting. It takes work to cultivate sources and report the news. Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They do good work. Nobody is rejecting them as a RS. But when we look, they are the sole source, based on 2 anonymous sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NPR has an extensive piece on Kremlin ties to the NRA today: "Depth Of Russian Politician's Cultivation Of NRA Ties Revealed". NYT had a piece in Dec 2017: "Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And neither of those sources claim to know there is a FBI investigation, except by virtue of what the original single source reported. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that all these sources are making this information up?- MrX 🖋 19:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How on earth do you get that conclusion. I'm saying none of the sources are taking responsibility for the information except McClatchy, based on 2 anonymous sources. All the other sources report that someone else said it. Protects them from being wrong later, having to correct anything or even having to report on a conclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow Snoogs that's a bombshell, thanks for the link. It puts the McClatchy-reported investigation into a broader context that I think should be reflected in our content. FWIW it looks like the first outlet to connect the Russia-Torshin-NRA dots was ThinkProgress. I don't consider them a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes but it's an interesting read especially in light of the fact that it way preceded the current investigation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But you're missing the point. That "bombshell" doesn't say there is an FBI investigation, which is the topic here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


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


 * User:Niteshift36 Not that the topic belongs in this article, but single sourcing should be reflected in article text by leading with the source name, such as "McClatchy reported" or "According to McClatchy", similar to how the other reporters signal that. Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to believe that the bigger sources can confirm any of it themselves. Everyone relying on a single source publishing 2 anonymous sources should be troubling to us....well, not to some given the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Since this RfC was started 12 days ago, there has been continuing coverage of the Russia-NRA-Trump connections:
 * That makes 17 available sources for this content.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful. Which of those sources is stating that there is an FBI investigation and basing the statement on something other than the report from McClatchy and their 2 anonymous sources that are "familiar" with the investigation? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Such remarks are not reflective of any Wikipedia policy, and their repeated use on this page is starting to resemble tendentiousness.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do reflect policy and your repeated attempts to sound like you're in a position of authority resemble a lack of good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes 17 available sources for this content.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful. Which of those sources is stating that there is an FBI investigation and basing the statement on something other than the report from McClatchy and their 2 anonymous sources that are "familiar" with the investigation? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Such remarks are not reflective of any Wikipedia policy, and their repeated use on this page is starting to resemble tendentiousness.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do reflect policy and your repeated attempts to sound like you're in a position of authority resemble a lack of good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Such remarks are not reflective of any Wikipedia policy, and their repeated use on this page is starting to resemble tendentiousness.- MrX 🖋 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do reflect policy and your repeated attempts to sound like you're in a position of authority resemble a lack of good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Since this RfC was started 18 days ago, there has been continuing coverage of the Russia-NRA-Trump connections: There are more sources, but for purposes of this RfC and adhering to WP:NPOV, this brings the total to 25 sources.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FEC reviewing whether NRA accepted illegal Russian donations in 2016: report - The Hill
 * FEC probes whether NRA got illegal Russian donations - Politico
 * FEC Reportedly Investigating Whether Russia Used NRA to Funnel Money to Trump - Slate
 * Report: FEC Investigating Whether NRA Got Illegal Russian Donations - Daily Beast
 * Report: NRA Lawyer Expressed Concerns About Russia Ties - Daily Beast
 * Report: FEC Probing Whether NRA Took Russian Funds For Trump Campaign - Huffington Post
 * Lawyer who worked for NRA said to have had concerns about group’s Russia ties - McClatchy
 * Once again, the question put to you is which sources are stating that there is a FBI investigation and not basing it off of the single McClatchy report? Have any of these sources actually corroborated the existence of an FBI investigation themselves The sources you shared are now talking about the FEC. I'm presuming you know that is a completely separate agency, don't you? This RFC started with an alleged FBI investigation being included, not FEC. The FBI would investigate criminal complaints, while the FEC could be investigating mainly rule violates. HTrying to equate both doing an "investigation" and acting like it's the same thing is dishonest. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Side note
For what it's worth, participants in this RfC may be interested in contributing to Paul Erickson (activist), or perhaps starting a closely related page, Maria Butina. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Side side note. This is a related thing that happened. As per usual with John Oliver, I assume this will be followed by a deluge of media coverage.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   11:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but very short. (for reasons already mentioned by others)until the investigation is complete. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

, I reverted your recent edit to the article. The sentence was neutral in presentation but there are two issues. First, there is an open RfC related to the content. Second, the lead follows the body. Since the weight of the material is part of what the RfC is questioning it seems unlikely the material should fit in the lead vs somewhere in the body of the article. I don't see that you have added your voice to the RfC (this section). I would suggest you do so and propose your text as a possible entry to the body. Springee (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the RfC -- you provided no link -- the material added by me here is neutrally-presented and referenced with three reliable sources which you removed from the lede section so I added it to the body, as you suggested in your edit summary.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is right above this section, Talk:National_Rifle_Association. We should wait until that is closed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have included a link. This is a subsection of the RfC discussing section but it's quite a ways down.  I didn't suggest adding it later in the article but I do suggest you propose it as part of the open RfC.  Springee (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the NRA's actions under the Trump presidency
Should the following text be added to the "political involvement" sub-section (which is in the "Criticism" section)?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Survey

 * Support - The text provides an overview of the NRA's political involvement under the Trump presidency, and is therefore of long-term encyclopedic value. The New York Times is a reliable source. The text is short and sweet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This isn't Trumppedia even though it feels that way some times, WP:RECENTISM. The section under "Elections" is also overly long (in relation to 2008 and 1980 - who each receive a line or so, while 2016 gets 4.5. Mentioning they aligned with Trump is enough. The NRA has been deeply involved in politics for ages - they have been criticized for ages for quite a few different people they support - which is what this article should cover and not be yet another place to cover Trump.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's not at all clear why we should devote ~100 words to Trump based on a single NYT article of no apparent individual importance. I would also note that the proposed paragraph consists of 41 words worth of direct quote, more in direct quote alone than we have about the Obama administration in the same section in total. Having said that, the the passage in the same section on Obama also singles out a single NYT piece to lean on rather than summarizing... really anything at all.
 * For whatever it's worth, pretty much the whole political involvement section seems an awful lot like a catchall for whatever it is certain individuals wanted to put in the article but didn't fit anywhere else, and I would be completely fine moving the content on Bush 2 to the membership section (since his resignation is fairly undoubtedly worth mentioning) and then removing the entire rest of the section all together. I don't see that it makes much sense to have a political involvement subsection when half the article is about political involvement.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A random, non-notable reporter decides to link different events and do a little synthesis of his own (no, not the Wikipedia policy of synth) to paint a picture he desires. This isn't an article on Trump, it's the NRA. This takes the most recent issue and gives it more attention than it merits. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not realize that sources were not supposed to engage in synthesis... maybe this "random, non-notable reporter" missed the day at journalism school where they covered "synthesis". It must be a mistake that all those household names who work as reporters at the NYT don't make... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I told you before, I'm not talking about the Wikipedia definition of the term, so please, stop acting like I am. I'll ignore the rest of your sacractic nonsense, lest your teammate Mr. X get all self-righteous again and act like I'm the only person in this conversation who isn't being all sweetness and light. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify for us why it's problematic for a source such as the NYT to engage in synthesis (not the Wikipedia definition of the term)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've found that trying to explain it to you is usually a waste of time. My !vote is there. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Trump's relationship with the NRA is well-established. There are quite a few sources that cover the NRA's unusually high spend to help get Trump elected, their nearly-lockstep alignment on issues, the recent meeting between Trump and the NRA that didn't make it to the published schedule, and now potential contributions from Russia with love to the NRA and Russia to help get Trump elected. I think the material may need some wordsmithing, and is probably too short, but for now this is a good start, per WP:DUE.- MrX 🖋 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we look only at recent news cycles, issues can seem bigger than if we look at the longer-term view. Something about forests and trees..... Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Trump's relationship with the NRA have been covered extensively for at least two years. That's not what I would consider recent news cycles.- MrX 🖋 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Has it really? And this passage isn't talking about his pre-office days. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - At this point WP:UNDUE and to WP:RECENT. Also looks fairly WP:POV to push a insignificant viewpoint. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose but. The proposed paragraph technically fails verification and is a bit misleading. The source doesn't say the NRA has aligned closely with Trump, nor does it say it "attacks the enemies he attacks." That language is about NRATV, not the NRA. Moreover the specific calling out of BLM and the NFL issues seems undue. That being said, there is noteworthy material from this source, specifically: Critics of the N.R.A. say that they have observed a shift in the organization’s tone since Mr. Trump was elected that is much more pugilistic, and that NRATV is where the most outrageous commentary occurs. This change, they say, seems to reflect the fact that like many organizations on the right, the N.R.A. believes it has to guard against complacency among its members with a friendly president in the White House. The NRA's positioning since the 2016 election is highly significant and has received a lot of coverage. It merits a full paragraph, preferably drawing on more than just that NYT source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as is DrFleischman and PackMecEng hit or both of my concerns. As is the material is Undue coming from a single source that is as much editorial as anything.  However, the relationship between the NRA and a presidential administration is Due and in that capacity such material may have merit but not as written. Springee (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose don't see what is said in source. What we really need is to stop using news articles as sources.--Moxy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – relevant to the topic, taking suggestions by DrFleishmann into account. NRA has become a media company, in addition to being an advocacy group. BTW, sources are *expected* to engage in synthesis, i.e. analyze the subject matter in question. Otherwise, we’d have nothing but recitations of facts with no analysis.
 * On the topic of NRA’s role in today’s popular culture, there’s a book that addresses this: Gun Crusaders: The NRA’s Culture War by Scott Melzer. Credentials, with the following blurb: “His first book (Gun Crusaders, NYU Press, 2009) analyzes the National Rifle Association's transformation from a recreational firearms interest group into a conservative social movement organization.”
 * In general, this new facet of NRA should be addressed in the article, and this addition is a good start. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - that's about the election, not really about the NRA or important about it ... seems a bit of soapboxing sideshow. Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support There is an established relationship between trump and NRA. References and notability support inclusion. ContentEditman (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Summoned by a bot. I don't necessarily oppose including something along these lines (Trump's connections to the NRA), but shortening and rewriting this to be less specific seems necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE. <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b> (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, although possibly with some rewrites and expansion. The sources are good, and the basic elements here are good and need to go in somehow as part of the description of their political activity under Trump; however, I would probably rework it into part of our broader coverage of how their political activity has extended away from guns and into culture-war issues (which seems to be what these sources are saying.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think Aquillion summarizes my thoughts on this particular issue above. Acebulf (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not surprising or even notable that that the views of a conservative organization and a conservative president overlap but that seems to be the thrust of the authors' criticism. I am confused by the above comments that refer to "sources" as I see only one source linked twice. Are there others? James J. Lambden (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Membership numbers?

 * "In 2015 the organization claims to have received $165 million in dues, which happens to be $10 million less than what they picked up in their biggest year, which was 2013. At the current rate of $40 a year, this works out to slightly more than 4 million members, although there are various multi-year deals which might alter those numbers somewhat."


 * NRA said they were headed to 10 million members, but appears to be dropping as they went from more than 5 million to nearly 5 million


 * Good list of membership at various points in time. Points out 3.6 million was likely inflated. One board member admitted thst many of the lifetime members counted are actually dead. Issuing of "honorary memberships" and buy a gun get free NRA membership deals to inflate the numbers. An insurance mailing showed 3 million not publicized 3.6 million number.

Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the best way to handle this is include the NRA's stated numbers and a sentence "sources have questioned". Perhaps
 * ''According to the NRA the organization has (has over) X.X million members [citations]. Outside sources have questioned the membership number with estimates ranging from Y to Z [citations].
 * This keeps us from suggesting which source is correct. Springee (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This source addresses the recent rise in member numbers . Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A paragraph about membership over time would be appropriate. I'm not done collecting sources, but the evidence for membership artificial inflation is clear and needs to be covered properly. Legacypac (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Artifical inflation' sounds POV and seems to be used by sources that have a POV. We don't know if they simply count a member for a certain period after their paid dues expire etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We do know they include dead people per one source. I'm thinking "The NRA reported membership of X in 19xx [], Y in 19xx[], Z between 20xx and 20xx[]. No audit or verification of these numbers has heen permitted [] Various sources have questioned these numbers. The WaPo reported in xx ... Mother Jones reported a NRA board member admitted in ____ that many "lifetime NRA members" are actually dead noting there is no incemtive to scrutinize the membership roles. And so on. Legacypac (talk)
 * We "know" because of one source? The NRA, like any organization with a lifetime membership, probably doesn't track those incredibly closely. But what percentage actually pay for a life membership? It's not cheap. Could the number include dead people? Yes. My dad renewed his annual membership in January, but died in March. So for 9 months, they counted a dead member. Is that a conspiracy? If it is, the Teamsters and the USS Roosevelt Association were engaged in the same conspiracy because he counted for them too. I'm seeing a mountain being made out of a molehill on this whole "dead people" thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * All membership organizations lose members due to death, tahtbis not what the report is talking about. How about the buy a gun get a free membership or the mailing of unsolicited free membership cards? I have been but am not currently a member of a Canadian political party. Their membership list is audited and scrutinized. Unless I'm a paid up current member I can't vote to select candidates, convention delegates or leaders. I've very confident the membership numbers the party reports are accurate and that dead people get removed from the rolls within a reasonable amount of time (ie when they don't renew or mailings are returned marked deceased, or a family member reports their death). Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then if dead members aren't an issue, why did you make a point of mentioning it? I know in my dad's case, I haven't notified the NRA, returned any mailings asking for donations or anything like that. I don't know if they are counting him a year later? I doubt it. I'm sorry that your political party makes you pay to be a member. Some gun makers have done a free membership with a purchase. Some dealers do. It's simple enough for someone to reject it. I mean they actually have to fill out the application to become a member, even for one included in the cost of your purchase. They mail out a faux membership card, but you don't actually become a member until you apply. Gee, I wonder if Netflix counts me as 2 members since I had a free month, then subscribed using a different email? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the Mother Jones source carefully before commenting further. Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what? Unlike you, this isn't just 'read an article' for me. I've received the "honorary membership" cards before. And when I actually called to see if I was eligible for the insurance a member recieves, I was told no. Because it's a promotional gimmick. Those aren't actual memberships. Maybe the WaPo reporter who wrote that actually thought he was a member. But it's a guess on his part, as well as yours. So please stow your condescending attitude. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, MJ is a RS and since several sources have made similar claims we should note that in the article. I don't think we need to give it too much weight but a statement talking about membership should include the NRA's stated size and that some sources refute the claims.  We also should probably mention that membership and/or donations (make sure the source and the wiki article use the same nouns) increase when there is a perceived thread of new gun control laws (this is my verbiage, not verbiage from a source). Springee (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I support the current version permalink which... ummm.... already covers the discrepancy. We could add a few more sources and expand coverage of membership over time.
 * Reliable sources tell us that the questionability of the NRA's self-published numbers is significant. If reliable sources were to report on similar discrepancies for Netflix, the Teamsters, etc then we would cover those as well.
 * Keep in mind that a statistic may be significant in the context of one topic but not another. I would assume that the USS Roosevelt Association isn't using its membership numbers to influence national legislation and nobody really cares if a deceased member isn't removed until the end of the year. In contrast, reliable sources tell us that the NRA may be keeping deceased members on the books for years and using those numbers to inflate its level of public support. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: A RS said that someone told them that. Once again, you entirely miss the point by quibbling over something not even being asserted. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So this reporter is uniquely unreliable for reporting what an NRA board member said? Every reporter reports what people tell them. That is the definition of "reporter". WP:CIR Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for defining a word I undersatand and linking me to a wikilink that isn't new. Are there any other useless, time-wasting things you need to share? Sorry you don't comprehend that point that a single person saying what "someone" told them isn't automatically a fact, even if it is reported in a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The current version needs a bit of work. For example, the first sentence says that 1/10th of the members jointed in the last 6 months.  OK, which last 6 months?  I would put a bit less text into the details of what MJ says.  Instead simply stating that several sources dispute the membership claims (perhaps include what they estimate the rolls to be).  Given MJ's general hostility towards the NRA I'm not sure I would take the things they say without a pinch of the same salt we use when quoting the NRA.  I'm not sure if I would keep the Pew information or not.  If we read that as sympathetic with the NRA vs membership then perhaps it would go into some other part of the article?  Springee (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, which last 6 months? The sentence you're referring to says "prior six months" and "as of May 2013". I find this to be quite clear, but feel free to make a bold edit or suggest a specific change that would add clarity. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's only clear when you look at the date of the citation. That makes the first sentence time sensitive.  I would suggest finding the best estimate of the current membership (or NRA's current claim) say that as of 20XX the NRA reports to have X members.  You are correct about the bold part :) . Springee (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Wayne La Pierre, as of May 2013, NRA membership exceeded 5 million as of May 2013, one-tenth of whom had joined in the prior six months. Would this make it more clear? –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent solution, . <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

2016 donation list in lede
, I don't think the donation list is appropriate for the lede and has a few other issues. First, we have lede follows the body. We shouldn't be introducing new facts/links etc in the lede and ideally would have no citations in the lede. Second, the link text suggests this would link to a general artcile discussion of donations from the NRA to politicians over time. The text you added strangely limited the donations only to Congressional races while not mentioning the organizational aspect (often seen as more powerful than the monetary donations) and ignores involvement in local and statewide elections, not just Congress. It reads a bit like an edit intended to insert a link/citations. The actual linked article is a 2016 only list that is currently under deletion review (where it appears consensus is leaning to keep but is not strong in that direction). The link would make sense in a section talking about the 2016 election but that would beg the question, why link to the wikipedia copy of the list vs an external source. Alternatively it would make sense as a "see also" link. Absent a compeling reason to keep it in the body I would propose moving the link to "see also". Springee (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the link is appropriate for the lead (note: It's not a list as stated by the above; it's a wikilink to a list). Are you saying that we should also have articles about NRA contributions to state and local campaigns, and link them from the lead as well? Regarding what you refer to as "organization aspects", would that be primarily advertising like the $30+million spent on the 2016 presidential race?- MrX 🖋 15:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am ok with the topic being listed in the lead, but not convinced the list of congressmen needs linked from it. I took a look at some other lobbying groups that make similar sized contributions. The articles about the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ($27 million in 2016) and the American Federation of Teachers ($33 million in 2016) don't mention their campaign contributions in the lead. The articles about the National Education Association ($29 million in 2016) and the Service Employees International Union ($39 million in 2016) do mention amounts. However, none of them link to lists of who they gave money to. So why are we treating this org differently? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no lists (yet) for the other organizations. If such lists become available, then that can be added to those articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the difference at all. You essentially said 'because I can'. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the link to a narrow article like that shouldn't be used to support a broad statement. It is appropriate to discuss the NRA's donations and organizing efforts at the local, state and federal levels.  The lede can say it happens, the body gives the details and the links.  It's one thing to wikilink to something like a definition in the lede.  For example, the NRA is a Not for Profit.  It's another thing to try to introduce a specific fact or citation that isn't used in the body.  Remember that ideally the lede doesn't have citations.  It shouldn't need them.  The organizational aspects that I mentioned can be found when searching for articles that talk about the NRA's effectiveness.  It's not that they have more money.  In terms of political donations they are relatively small.  It's that they do a good job of motivating voters [].  BTW, I do think that is something the article is missing in the politics section.   Springee (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the lede section should summarize what the NRA is about, what it does, and so forth. One of the things it does is that it contributes to congressional campaigns. This isn't some side issue or detail -- it is a major thing that the NRA does, and it reflects its power and influence, and readers need to know this. So all I did was add the six (6) words and contributed funds to candidates for Congress with an internal link, plus references, so what is wrong with that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What you added was a specific detail that only applies to the 2016 election, not a general statement appropriate for the lede. If you feel the material should be added why not put it in the body with other 2016 election related material. The specific link is UNDUE in the lede. Springee (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You have an org that's 150 years old and you're making it about a specific election. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2016 election was the most recent election; when 2018 data becomes available, the list will be expanded. For me, this detail does not justify burying the important fact that the NRA contributes to Congress. As per WP:LEAD, the most important information should be included. Are you saying that NRA contributions to Congress aren't important?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So now we're a newspaper? I'm not even disputing adding info about lobbying to the lead. But adding a wikilink to what is essentially a political hitlist, is being disputed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lead says the most important information from the body goes in the lead. Where is this in the body?  Why are you adding new citations to the lead?
 * There's no information about the NRA contributing to Congress in the body of the text? If so, that violates WP:NEUTRAL and such information should be added. It is not my fault if other contributors here whitewash the body of this article in the same way that some contributors are trying to whitewash the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Already making "whitewashing" claims? An hour into the discussion and AGF is out the window. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And that circles back to my point. The material should go in the body. It isn't your fault it isn't there but that doesn't mean in goes in the lede instead of the body. Springee (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So why am I thinking that if I do at it to the body, that people will find a way to get that information deleted? But face it -- it's important to know that the NRA contributes to congressional campaigns. Belongs in the lede, regardless of whether it was added or deleted from the body.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have no guarantee it will stay but that is Wikipedia. You haven't made a good case for that level of detail in the lede. Springee (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the lede and moved the material to the 2016 section of the lobbying section of the body. Springee (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Funding political campaigns seems to be a major reason this organization exists. This belongs in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?
The following material noting the NRA operates gun safety and training courses was removed from the NRA article's section entitled, "Safety and sporting programs".
 * The NRA sponsors a range of programs about firearm safety for children and adults, including a program for school-age children, the NRA's "Eddie Eagle". The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors. 

As quoted above the material self cites the NRA.

Material removal here [] (also includes removal of material not related to this RfC).
 * Should the material be included in the article (No=Oppose/Yes=Support/Yes with modification)?

Springee (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent discussion Talk:National_Rifle_Association and Talk:National_Rifle_Association Springee (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey - safety programs

 * Oppose. Not unless there is coverage by independent secondary RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of coverage by third party sources. Have you looked for any of it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion The material has been in the article for ~ 5 years in almost it's current form []. The material in general has existed in the article since at least 2006 [].  This means there is a strong historical consensus for inclusion.  The material as written was removed for WP:RS - self cite.  However, per WP:ABOUTSELF (a section of a WP policy) significant activities of the article subject can be included, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities.".  Both training and education appear on the home page pull down menu of the organization's home page.  This makes it clear this is one of the NRA's primary public functions.  Arguments against related to WP:weight need to be balanced against consensus for inclusion for the past 14 years, almost since the article's inception.  Arguments that we shouldn't include self promotional material seem questionable.  Training and safety education aren't inherently self promotional and the removed statements also aren't promotional.  Springee (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fairly non-controversial fact here. Not seeing the issue with citing the NRA for services they offer. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support NRA is well-known for their education and training programs. By removing this information it will appear to many folks that we are punishing NRA in the wake of the Florida school shooting, i.e., a knee-jerk liberal attack. I am not saying that was the motivation, just how it will appear. The bottom line is that we are not a political organization. We are an encyclopedia which strives to report "just the facts, Ma'am--just the facts." Here is a reference for when we (hopefully) restore the sentence.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  03:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Markworthen, please leave your talking points at the door. If the NRA is "well-known for their education and training programs", it shouldn't be too hard to find secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did find secondary sourcing, which I posted above. I'm not sure what you mean about "talking points". I'm pro-gun-control; worked for Hillary's campaign; and a registered Democrat. I'm just talking about perception and, most importantly, the importance of objectivity.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You did--here it is, for those who don't have it on the shelf. I invite anyone to read that entry and judge whether it is neutral and provides a fair overview of the NRA's activities; it is so obviously not-neutral that its language here would be flagged immediately. It makes me think twice about ABC-CLIO. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How about this one?
 * ”The NRA was incorporated in 1871 to provide firearms training and promote shooting sports.”


 * https://questrompublish.bu.edu/cb/OS2001.pdf


 * Defining Who You Are By What You’re Not: Organizational Disidentification and The National Rifle Association, Kimberly D. Elsbach • C. B. Bhattacharya, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 2001, Vol. 12, No. 4, July–August 2001, pp. 393–413.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  23:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Considering that the Eddie Eagle program is a NRA safety program and has more than enough coverage for it's own article, I'd say it's really a matter of picking a couple to cite here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose content and support removal. It is indeed self-sourced and promotional; this kind of stuff is removed all over the place, regardless of what the organization is. That it's been in here for a while just means that it's sad we don't have more editors in this area who apply our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , would you change your stated vote to "Oppose" to avoid confusion? So far "Support" has indicated inclusion and "Oppose" for exclusion.  I assume you want exclusion.  Springee (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * :) Drmies (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. My opposition is only weak if it's a sentence or two somewhere down in the article devoted to NRA activity (provided we use secondary sources, a sentence somewhere should be fine; additional sourcing and moving the sentence to further down in the article rather than the lead would satisfy this part of my opposition); but Strong Oppose to any mention in the lead.  Also, procedural objection to this RFC in that a huge part of the debate is whether it should be in the lead.  We could find additional sources to put a sentence or two somewhere in the article in a section devoted to NRA activities, but I don't believe the sourcing exists to support the idea that it's high-profile enough for the lead.  I request that people also mention their positions on that aspect in particular.  Obviously, I strongly feel that even if we do include it, it shouldn't be in the lead, and given that this RFC doesn't even mention that, it's not going to resolve that aspect (unless Springee means to concede that point and agree that it doesn't belong in the lead?  I don't know how else to interpret the complete lack of a mention of that aspect.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support restoral of content which has a 5 year consensus. People: we are building an encyclopedia. This is exactly the kind of supporting background information our readers expect to find not just in NRA but in any organizational article. To say that this mention of a training program is "unduly self-serving" is preposterous. How can I say this? Because it's been in the article for five years. No violation of SELFPUB. Now what I really want to know is can we figure out a way to add the Charleton Heston video "cold dead hands" with some kind of Fair Use rationale? – Lionel(talk) 11:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose content and support removal - Per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:UNDUE. If his program were well-known, it would be well-documented in third-party sources; it's not. Stating in Wikipedia's voice that the NRA "sponsors a range of programs" is particularly promotional. There is no such thing as a "five year consensus". Silent consensus is only valid until someone challenges the existing content. I think readers looking for information about the NRA's gun safety program might wonder how supporting selling high-power semi-automatic rifles to mentally ill children, without a proper background check, contributes to gun safely. Come on folks, of course this material is controversial! WP:NPOV requires that articles proportionally reflect the universe of available reliable sources about the subject. In that universe, the NRA's promotion material is a hydrogen molecule floating somewhere in a supercluster.- MrX 🖋 13:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did the NRA ever advocate selling rifles to children (mentally ill or otherwise)? I'd love to see that source.....but I suspect you'll not only refuse to provide the source but avoid removing the hyperbole as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * here you go: NRA Rewrites Fairy Tales With More Firearms, Less Bloodshed, NPR. Quote: "Adding guns to the world of the Brothers Grimm drastically reduces death rates, according to a study — well, OK, according to a couple of stories published by the NRA. (...) ...the trendline is clear: In the NRA's reimagined fairy tales, putting rifles in the hands of children creates a safer world." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you failed. What you linked to is an article about fan fiction written on a NRA related Facebook page by people who aren't representatives of the NRA. And, even with that, it still doesn't advocate selling rifles to children. And yes, that matters. In most states, youth are allowed to hunt under the age of 18, but can't purchase one. According to most gun control groups, they're not trying to intefere with hunting. Thus, they don't have an issue with a youth under 18 being in possession of a firearm. Fail. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out the words K.e.coffman chose to elide from his quotation: "So far, there are only two data points. And they're imaginary. But the trendline is clear..." And it's also worth pointing out the final line in the cited article: "But the NRA is pretty clear about its own intent: The stories are tagged "Fun Friday" and "Just for fun" on the site." Let's not misrepresent what's going on here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not following: the article says, “The NRA Family site published its first reimagined fairy tale — "Little Red Riding Hood (Has A Gun)" in January, and followed up with "Hansel and Gretel (Have Guns)" last week. The links are to www.nrafamily.org/, www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/1/13/little-red-riding-hood-has-a-gun/ etc. It’s not a NRA related Facebook page. Or are you saying that “NRA Family” is not part of the NRA? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The site may be run by the NRA, but the material is not. It's like writing fan fiction on a Star Wars site. LucasFilm may run the site, but they didn't generate the content. Even with that, it still doesn't advocate selling rifles to children. And yes, that matters. In most states, youth are allowed to hunt under the age of 18, but can't purchase one. According to most gun control groups, they're not trying to interfere with hunting. Thus, they don't have an issue with a youth under 18 being in possession of a firearm. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The site may be run by the NRA, but the material is not - huh? NRA published the materials on its website and it was, understandably, covered as "NRA promoting guns to children". In fact, that was the search term that led me to the NPR article. Several other outlets covered these "fairytales" in a similar fashion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The material was authored by a non-NRA blogger. You are still massively failing. Why? Because the question you are trying to answer is NOT "can a youth be allowed to shoot a rifle". It was "Where did the NRA ever advocate selling rifles to children (mentally ill or otherwise)? I will repeat, for the THIRD TIME, that most states allow youths to legally hunt and since the gun control lobby claims that they're not trying to interfere with hunting, the mere act of having a youth shoot a rifle isn't the issue. Will you finally see this glaring inconsistency in your answers? Or does it need a fourth repitition? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36 that is just misleading. The NRA published the material, and yes people write stuff not organizations. The "NRA promoting guns to children" is different than "the NRA promoting gun sales to children" but not by much. The law also forbid alcohol and tobacco sales to children and most people would agree publishing fairy tales about kids drinking and smoking as a good thing on a "family" site is not appropriate. Publishing children's stories where kids are using guns against other characters (maybe not shooting the charactors but threatening to) is definately promoting guns to children. Kids tend to kill themselves and others when handling guns - its a public safety issue. Lawn darts are prohibited in the US as dangerous and swimming pools must have fences while the NRA promotes guns to children. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not misleading. Many websites "publish" the contents of guests contributors and that doesn't make it the official policy of their organization. Do you honestly need me to give you 10 examples of that? No, promoting the SALE of guns to children and the SAFE USE of guns by youth are very, very different. A 16-year-old in my state can drive a car, but a 16-year-old in my state cannot OWN a car or BUY a car. Once again, in many states, youth can legally begin hunting at age 12. Most gun control advocates claim they're not trying to interfere with hunting. The fact that both of you have ignored that is noticeable. Do kids tend to kill themselves and others when handling guns? Some do, but the vast majority do not, especially not those with proper training. Of course there is an exception from time to time, so spare me the obvious. I'm speaking of the majority, not the small minority. BTW, not all locations require fences around pools. Those are typically local or state regulations, not a federal one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That appears to be an (not "the") official NRA site, with the NRA itself as the contact info. It's just as much the NRA as the main website. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's like saying every letter to the editor printed on a newspaper site is the opinion of the editorial board. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I'd expect this to be non-controversial for neutral editors. If we can devote an entire article to the NFL Foundation (one sourced almost entirely from primary sources), despite the NFL's failings, I don't see where a paragraph here would hurt. The NRA actually teaches firearm safety. This isn't based on the anonymous allegation of someone "familiar with" the program. The Eddie Eagle program has its own article. If the safety program of an org is able to pass GNG on its own, how it's not relevant to the org overall is a valid question. NRA instructor certifications are recognized by many states, my own included, to provide the legally required training for concealed carry licenses. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I would have thought this to be noncontroversial. One of the primary functions of the NRA is to provide training and safety programs, whether it's Eddie Eagle, or the NRA training that many states require before granting a license. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here from the note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. Strong Oppose to including it in the lead section, per WP:DUE. Support for including information about these programs later in the article, with sourcing to the NRA for the basic existence of the programs, but with secondary sources for the context, significance, and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The U.S. Justice System: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 source backs it up. It's a significant enough part of the group's activities that it can be included in the lead.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Inclusion should be fairly non-controversial.  It was for many, many years, at least until the NRA became the favorite "hated" organization of a large group of biased editors.  Calling this material "self-serving" is a strong disservice to readers who come to Wikipedia hoping for a balanced presentation.  NRA Certified Instructor requirements exist in many state laws, for teaching acceptable Concealed Carry classes, as well as even by the Boy Scouts of America, who require NRA Certified Instructors and Range Safety Officers (RSOs) for the rifle and shotgun shooting merit badges for boy scouts.  Doesn't it make sense that parents who come to Wikipedia to learn about the NRA safety information for the Instructors and RSOs required to teach their son's merit badge classes actually see some information on this very point?  Seems obvious, and it should be non-controversial.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The precise wording is never an issue. Any content that is added today is subject to change tomorrow. Regardless of exactly what tone and content is chosen, the topic must be covered. Particularly since we have Eddie Eagle, a separate article that stands a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted due to lack of notability. There is no question that there is a large quantity of secondary sourcing about NRA training and the Eagle thingy. There's nothing partisan about mentioning this topic. Some perceive the existence of training like this as evidence that the NRA is more than just a political pressure group, and proof that the NRA is actively involved in spreading useful knowledge and awareness. Others see it as a means to indoctrinate children and infiltrate public schools, or as a ploy to distract from the question of the proliferation of guns and define any problem as a defect in children that can be corrected through education. Some say training prevents children from handling guns without adult permission, others say there is evidence that this kind of training increases the chance that a child will pick up a gun they find. And so on. When you have so much on both sides, there's no way to avoid going over it in an article about the NRA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Include. Per . Eddit Eagle has its own article, complete with plenty of independent sourcing. Fine, our content here was sourced to the NRA's website, which wasn't ideal. So fix it. Gasp did I just call out Niteshift for making a strong argument? Impossible! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel. Every once in a while, I find myself agreeing with someone I rarely do as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, add secondary sources and expand our coverage of the NRA's significant role in gun safety education along with any notable criticism. Education programs run by advocacy groups deserve a certain amount of scrutiny to ensure that they are not thinly-veiled propaganda campaigns. Article content can always be challenged, and it seems like this discussion may lead to a more well-rounded and well-sourced section. Concepts such as "long-standing" or "historical" consensus have no standing here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Include This seems pretty basic, I don't think it should be removed but if there are reliable sources that have a critical viewpoint of this that are not in the article adding those as balancing content would be preferable to removal of a basic non-controversial fact. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with modification: "According to the NRA website...". Also possible: using a secondary source, or finding a primary source stating just how much they spend on these programs. "They do because they say so" isn't enough. François Robere (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Include only with secondary sources. Fine with this concept, but not OK with citing the NRA itself to tout its own programs. Neutralitytalk 19:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, informed of the RfC by way of the talk page of Wikiproject United States. The language proposed by appears to be non-controversial and does not appear to advocate or oppose the gun safety training. As  suggest above, please find non-primary reliable sources that verify that such gun safety training programs exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Like others have said: just add some better sources. They're out there... I spent about 1 minute, and found plenty. Cinteotl (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support only with secondary sources. A toxic organization like the NRA cannot be trusted as a source for anything. Plenty of secondary sources exist, and they should used instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusion of secondary sources is going to be a given at this point but I see nothing wrong with citing the NRA as well. "A toxic organization" is an opinion only.  I don't think we have any evidence that says the NRA is in anyway misleading or deceptive about it's basic offerings in this area.  I think the "toxic" part (and I can understand why some people would feel that way but "controversial" would be a more neutral description) comes from the political activities the NRA engages in to support their gun rights objectives.  Springee (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support (Summoned by bot) No serious editor would believe that the NRA is lying about its gun safety programs and independent sources can verify this. Rather, I worry that a partisan minority might prefer to ignore the NRA's concern for gun safety; that bias is in violation of WP:NPOV. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose: the disagreement above was really about whether WP:ABOUTSELF is enough of a justification for including this self-cited material. I believe that the community's efforts would have been better spent on finding reliable secondary sources, as opposed to launching this RfC.
 * I'm also concerned about the statement by the OP that "...since we can find citations that support the existence of the material but none as direct as the NRA's links". In contrast, in another article, Springee removed a statement with the following edit summary: "VPC is a anti-gun group and a self published source thus the addition violates RS and WEIGHT". We could equally say that "NRAis a pro-gun group and a self-published source..." etc. This selective application of guidelines is concerning. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The easy answer there would be this is the NRA article, so citing the org themselves can be acceptable here. The dif you link is in the Smith & Wesson article and a non-RS issue. Not a apples to apples comparison. PackMecEng (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - that NRA does safety programs and Eddie Eagle in particular is an objective fact simply stated for years and widely available WP:RS. I can hardly believe it takes a RFC to say it exists and belongs -- the removal was unwarrented.  Markbassett (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - How can you exclude safety and training that is a huge part of what the NRA does? I think self-descriptive sources should be considered reliable unless there is specific information to the contrary. Not including would mean you couldn't consider corporate financials or a host of other documents that are frequently included in many articles. In this case however, there is plenty of supporting documentation. The NRA is closely associated with the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP, an organization established by the US government) for managing official matches, publishing rules, and ensuring safety at the matches. CMP is, in part, dedicated to safety and training programs and the NRA is the largest single supporter of these matches. In addition, there is objective physical evidence of the NRA programs such as the Eddie Eagle workbooks, Eddie Eagle training videos, and training manuals available for download from the NRA website. The NRA developed and managed a comprehensive instructor program recognized by the Department of Defense and many law enforcement agencies for training and safety. Removing this section is like removing a reference to a wall visible in photographs because there is no secondary source specifically mentioning the wall. TXGRunner (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
 * Support. This is plainly not very controversial, and I think the NRA can be trusted for a minor fact like this one. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 15:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SPS --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do know we have third party sources, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen the third party sources. They do little to support the wording you're trying to introduce. And you do know there's a section for threaded discussion below, right? --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do know and since I'm not the only one who has responded to something in here, I'm not sure why you find it so unusual. Regardless, it's worth pointing out that simnply opposing per SPS, when we've already agreed that other sources exist seemed like it needed pointed out. The discussion had evolved beyond the inital, premature RfC question.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - The purpose of the NRA in the beginning, from my understanding, was to train people in proper gun etiquette and safety. It's basically the purpose of the organization, they purport to have close to 100,000 instructors capable of delivering safety talks to groups about guns. It's no small wonder the timing of this RfC considering the developments of American politics, but if we are to be objective it's fairly apparent that this is what they do. There looks to be other editors here who have brought to light better references. While a primary reference in this case is acceptable in my mind (it's uncontroversial.. until emotion kicks in supposedly) we can now bolster the statement with references given by Markworthen. I also fully agree with what Dennis Bratland wrote above. <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 00:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I just spotted some Wikilawyering nightmare on WP:MED claiming that saying NRA's program was a "safety program" needed a medical source.  There must be some kind of over the top POV policy abuse going on here.  Obviously you talk about the safety program, obviously you document it with secondary sources to avoid an overly self-serving representation of it, and obviously you document it with the primary source so readers can read about it from the horse's mouth. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until someone can demonstrate that the programs mentioned above have received substantive coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. And this applies to any program run by any organisation. This is a no-brainer, folks; why are we even discussing this? Any organisation, from the NRA to the Communist Part of the USA, engages in activities to promote itself, and is likely to discuss those activities on its website/other media it produces. By relying upon those sources, we are aiding in their promotion. Vanamonde (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support because, as gun safety training and education is a huge part of what the NRA does and has always done, this is a no-brainier. Except for the "the NRA is evil and supports the murder of children!" crowd, of course. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion - safety programs
The removal was contested and thus requires consensus for removal (vs consensus for inclusion). Springee (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BRD should apply but consensus required is not in effect for this article as far as I can tell. PackMecEng (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Your rationale (and several others) cite "strong consensus" for this material as their main argument.  If the RFC fails to produce strong consensus, those arguments are invalid and must be disregarded, correct? By your own wording, consensus must be required for inclusion (since you're basing your entire argument on the fact that the material is supported by consensus.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

the question "Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?" does not have a strong connection to the diff being discussed. The content was removed on the grounds of being self-cited and promotional, not due to an opposition to the idea that the article should discuss NRA's "gun safety and training programs". I suggest the question be modified as follows: "Should self-cited material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?"

You might also include the prior discussions, for background: Talk:National_Rifle_Association and Talk:National_Rifle_Association. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought about including the self-cite as part of the question but decided against since we can find citations that support the existence of the material but none as direct as the NRA's links. Also since WP:ABOUTSELF applies it isn't a requirement.  I will add the link to the background discussion, thanks for pointing that out.  Springee (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, (...), so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving...". Devoting substantial real estate to NRA's statements about itself, in this already quite a long article, would be "unduly self-serving".
 * Also, I'm not quite following: "...since we can find citations that support the existence of the material but none as direct as the NRA's links". Why don't we cite all NRA activities to NRA's web site, since they provide the most "direct" links (?). Could you elaborate on that? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's opinion that the material is self serving. Is it self serving when we write an article about the GAP and say they sell the following types of clothing?  The key part is "unduly" self serving.  Since the material was around for 14 years why do you think it's unduly self serving?  We also aren't talking about substantial material here.  This is two sentences and one isn't very long.  That is about as little weight as one can get and still include the material.  To answer your question about direct links, use the CT news story.  Through it we can tell that NRA training was recognized by the state and for political reasons there is a debate about removing that recognition.  Well that does show the NRA offers training but it's not very direct.  Here is another reference that shows the NRA offers training []] (page 22 if it doesn't come through).  The author talks about the training as something that helps the NRA's public standing as a type of community service.  Perhaps we need to turn the question around.  How can we describe the scope of the NRA if we exclude their training and safety functions?  It seems like that would be a case to WP:IAR (also a policy)  Springee (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is opinion that the material is self-serving (of course it is: it is an attempt to show the organization is doing something good or useful) it is certainly "opinion" that the material is worth including without secondary verification. And describing the NRA's scope without those functions, well, that's not hard: it's pretty clear, from the sources, that the NRA is here to protect gun ownership. Again, we remove that content, and should remove that content, all over the place. We shouldn't list the clothes that GAP sells unless sources talk about that. I wrote up Sissy-Boy years ago, and did not list their clothes (or, by the way, their image and clientele) because I couldn't verify it. Go through my edit history and you'll find hundreds, possibly thousands of edits where I removed for instance product information because it lacked proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some good example pages would be Southern Poverty Law Center or the NAACP that are self cited all over the place. It is not uncommon or against policy to do so. Heck WP:ABOUTSELF spells is out fairly clearly on that subject. It is no more self-serving than listing a product or service offered by any organisation. It also does not seem to meet WP:PROMOTIONAL, back to the SPLC example, we list legal representation and educational materials as their products. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you conceding the point that this material does not belong in the lead, regardless of the outcome of this RFC (ie. regardless of whether we conclude that it belongs somewhere else in the article?) As I mentioned in my !vote, that was a major aspect of the debate above, at least from my position, and given that the RFC makes no mention of it, my interpretation is that you're conceding that point.  I want to make it absolutely clear, either way, that this RFC as-worded cannot produce an outcome that would keep the material in the lead (since you didn't mention that aspect of the debate at all in your description, it isn't what the RFC addresses.)  If you still want to put it in the lead specifically, you need to create a new RFC that mentions that aspect explicitly. Your description gives the impression that you've conceded that point and will now settle for a sentence or two anywhere in the article rather than the previous mention in the lead. Is my reading correct? --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, the composition of the lead is described by MOS:LEAD. Generally, if a topic has its own section, and it is WP:DUE, then mentioning it in the lead should be considered. – Lionel(talk) 10:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quote; "its own section" is not the important part (after all, a very small section does not belong in the lead.) Things need to be given equivalent weight in the lead according to the weight they get in the article (for example, compare the size of the 'criticism' section to the amount of text it gets in the lead; anything that gets that much text should have a section of about the same size.)  In this case, safety training is not even mentioned anywhere in the article, and the glaring and clear-cut violation of WP:LEAD that this represents has been one of my main objections to it.  Since there is no section devoted to safety programs in particular, and since you're now familiar with WP:LEAD (which unequivocally would not support placing it there in the article's current form), I assume you agree that it is inappropriate to place this material in the lead?  I notice you didn't assert they could go there in your !vote.  Again, my objection is that people are sort of dancing around whether it goes in there or not; the fact that nobody seems willing to unequivocally say it belongs there (and the fact that Springee seems to have conceded the point by making an RFC that makes no mention of that aspect) leads me to believe that most people, even those who think it belongs somewhere in the artice, are in agreement that the lead is not the appropriate place for it.  Unless you think you could write a section devoted to safety programs in particular of size comparable to the criticism section, the lobbying section, and so on?  --Aquillion (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The bald wording "The NRA sponsors a range of programs about firearm safety", sourced to the NRA itself, falls foul of WP:SELFPUB, specifically the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. The problem with the wording is that it gives the impression to the casual reader that these programs actually contribute to firearms safety. That hidden assumption which it promotes has no basis in fact, and a reliable source, notes that "[although the Eddie Eagle program] has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good." Without such addressing independent criticism, the self-published source becomes self-serving and fails WP:V. --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do know we've identified third party sources, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So have I. The one I quote above is an independent secondary source. So is this policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
 * That's a lot better quality than the self-published stuff and press releases that you seem to want to base your text on. So have you read my concerns about the "unduly-self-serving" nature of the NRA as a source yet? --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't proposed any text or expressed a support for press releases etc, I question if you are either responding to the right editor.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't proposed any text or expressed a support for press releases etc, I question if you are either responding to the right editor.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Media Matters blog as a source
inserted this material here, I reverted here saying "a Media Matters blog and tampa blog are not RS for this", and he reinserted here stating "Excuse me but Salon is not Media Matters, and it IS a reliable source. The Tampa Bay Times is NOT a blog, and it has won 12 Pulitzer prizes. We can take it to WP:RSN if you like.". If you look at the Salon source you cited here, it clearly states it is a re-post from Media Matters. The original article which is a word for word copy is here, is clearly stated as a blog. We do not cite blogs as fact. The Tampa Bay Times article is here, part of their "The Buzz" section, which again is listed in their blog section here. So again, we are using a highly bias blog source, Media Matters, and another Tampa blog source as statements of fact which is no good. PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? One section up, you are arguing to include promotional material referenced to the subject's publications. Here, the WP:INDEPENDENT sources are Salon and the Tampa Bay Times, both reputable publicationsthe latter highly-reputable. On top of that, Salon lays out reasoning that is unassailable. Many publications syndicate content from other sources. We even have a policy link: WP:USEBYOTHERS. We can take this to the fine folks at WP:RSN if you like.- MrX 🖋 02:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are citing a Salon article that is a word for word re-post of a blog. Period, full stop. It is also established the Tampa article is a blog, again both are not in question. Are Salon, Media Matters, and Tampa Bay Times news sections reliable? Of course. Are their blog sections reliable? Heck no. Please self revert and respect WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blogs can absolutely be used as sources, but were not really talking about blogs are we? Salon and the The Tampa Bay Times are news sources. Let's just take it to RSN and see if other experienced editors think the sources are useable for the content in question. - MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I posted as RSN . PackMecEng (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim for oldest civil rights group in the US has been debated before. Based on the previous discussion I think it's reasonable to say the NRA claims it and some sources recognize it while others do not. I'm mixed about the Salon reprint of a MM opinion/blog post. However, I would say it's reasonable for use in this case. The TB article isn't since it doesn't make any arguments for or against the NRA's position on the matter. I would suggest dropping the TBTimes citation and change the sentence from a rejection in Wikipedia voice to an attributed counter argument. Springee (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Salon even if a reprint, is a perfectly fine source and so it TBTimes. The claim by the NRA is at best creatively selectively putting facts together. Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's fine to say that the NRA makes that claim, but we have to include other noteworthy views as well. The Tampa Bay Times says the NAACP is the oldest civil right organization. They are not stating an opinion, and their reputation for fact checking is rather exemplary.- MrX 🖋 03:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Salon, by reprinting it is offering a level of endorsement. That doesn't mean we treat Salon as correct just a reliable view that disagrees.  Remember that the NRA isn't the only source that says the NRA is the oldest.  The TBTimes article isn't a RS for this particular claim simply because it wasn't addressing the claim.  The article offhandedly said the NAACP was the oldest in context of a discussion of teachers with guns.  That can't reasonably be seen as refuting the NRA's claim (though it does support that other organizations are also recognized as oldest).  However, to that end we could include this article Smithsonian Institute article [].  It doesn't mention the NRA but it does talk about the NAACP.  Also, keep in mind the dispute isn't one of basic facts but of how to interpret agreed upon facts.  The NRA is the older organization but didn't get into the civil rights part until later so now it's subjective if the important part is when the organization was founded or when it was involved in civil rights.  That should really be reserved for articles that actually discuss the difference.  Personally, I would accept the Salon article as sufficient to show the claim is disputed and why.  Springee (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources that say that the NRA is the oldest obviously got it straight from NRA talking points. One source attributed it to La Pierre. As it stands now, we present both views. If you like we can attribute the NAD as the oldest, and NAACP as second oldest to Media Matters, and NAACP as the oldest to the Pulitzer Prize winning Tampa Bay Times. That way, the disputed views are all attributed. Awkward, but workable.- MrX 🖋 03:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pulitzer prize winning....for something that has nothing to do with this discussion. That's like claiming everything Michael Moore says is correct because he won an Oscar for documentaries or that everything Jayson Blair write was true because it was in a "Pulitzer prize winning" newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What about this:
 * The NRA has been called the "the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization" and "one of the largest and best-funded lobbying organizations" in the United States by The Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues and Ashok Sharma.[164][165] The title of oldest civil rights organization is disputed. While the NRA was founded in (year here) it did not pursue a gun rights agenda until 1934. The National Association for the Deaf (NAD, founded ____ ) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP, founded ____) originated as civil rights organizations [Salon and/or other sources directly addressing the matter].
 * I feel like that reads a bit better and makes the case why the claim is disputed more directly. Springee (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could live with something like that.- MrX 🖋 04:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, looking back at the Media Matters source they don't even state when the NRA became a civil rights group. But "according to an analysis by the National Association for the Deaf" which is rather suspect. I didn't know the National Association for the Deaf was a strong reliable source on when the NRA became a civil rights group. PackMecEng (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Change "The NRA has been called" to "The NRA calls itself". The National Association for the Deaf is a very good source for how long they have been around. They are also pretty good at comparing dates. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The recent change was good but I would suggest we stick with "NRA has been called" or perhaps "the NRA and others have called it...". "The NRA calls itself..." implies that no one else accepts the claim and no one else refers to the it that way.  Since others do, and our sources say as much, we should use the more general phrasing.  I'm open to suggestions for exact phrasing.  If nothing comes up I will restore that bit of phrasing.  Springee (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

So since RSN has basically wrapped up basically saying find better sources. At least the Slate article should be removed for obvious reasons. the Tampa Bay Times article makes no mention of NAD, only mentions NAACP in passing and the opinions of the article should be attributed to the author, not in Wikipedia's voice. I will remove Slate and change the rest to conform to the source in the next day or two unless there are objections. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation of the RSN discussion. There was no consensus to consider Salon an unreliable source for this content. If anything, the opposite is true.- MrX 🖋 14:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is not, no one supported the Media Matters sources and at best the Tampa source was noted to be a newsblog. Which would require in text attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this has resurfaced, I'm not ok with the current article text for two reasons. First, the NRA isn't the only source for it's claim.  My speculation is the NRA is the source but others have also made the claim so, as I noted above the text should not imply through omission that the NRA is the soul claimant.  Second, the TB Times article is not reliable for the claim is being used to support.  I don't think it hurts the article to remove it as a source for the counter claim.  I assume a better source, not linked to the MM source could be found.  Springee (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with just killing the whole addition in general. I was trying to make a compromise since neither of the sources are in the ball park of good sources especially with how they were used. PackMecEng (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a couple of options. We can attribute everything; or we can generalize by saying some sources say the the NRA is the oldest, but other sources say that the NAD and NAACP are older. I prefer the later. If we want to remove all claims of the NRA being the oldest, that would work also.- MrX 🖋 15:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are quite a few books that state that the NAACP is the oldest civil right org in the US: - MrX 🖋 15:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be synth to use those book sources since they do not mention the NRA? PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the text said something like, "other sources acknowledge the NAACP as the oldest..." it wouldn't be SYN in my opinion. Springee (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should say "acknowledge". We can simply make a straightforward statement of fact that other sources say that the NAACP is the oldest.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that cite the book sources in this article; only that they add veracity to the view that the NRA is not the oldest.- MrX 🖋 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just having a hard time finding reliable sources that make the connection. I see plenty calling the NAACP or the NRA the oldest but none making the connection between the two. Which would go against "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If those making the comparison don't view firearm ownership as a civil right, they probably won't make the link. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. We don't need to form a conclusion. We simply need to say something like: "Some sources view the NRA as the oldest. Some sources view the NAACP as the oldest."- MrX 🖋 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that sentence. Many sources, for example the TB Times, are likely making the claim as common knowledge WP:CK and without any analysis as to the validity of the NRA's claim.  The TB Times is acknowledging that they (the author) think that the NAACP is the oldest without actually supporting the claim.  I think the section on "controversial claims" would apply here only because we have some level of disagreement and few sources are critically reviewing the claim.  Don't get me wrong, I suspect when presented with what facts we have a majority would say the NAACP is the older "civil rights" group (I would fall off the fence in that direction as well). I do get MrX's concern with saying "acknowledge".  I think MrX's suggestion above offers that balance without picking sides. Springee (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I could go for something like that with proper sources I suppose. What specifically did you two have in mind? PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer we use book sources in both cases, but the Tampa Bay Times would be a good supplementary source. By the way, the wording I suggested was to illustrate the proposal. I would think we could come up with slightly more interesting wording without too much effort.- MrX 🖋 14:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then what is your suggestion? Leaving poorly sourced information in the article is not the answer. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not poorly sourced. Both Salon and The Tampa Bay Times are good sources. This is borne out by other sources that also say the NAACP is the oldest civil rights organization. I'm don't understand what the problem is.- MrX 🖋 18:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, they just are not good sources for statements of fact. Above and RSN both confirm that. Does it need an RFC next? PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the RSN discussion does not confirm that. I'm getting a sense of deja vu here. Do you dispute that the NAACP a was civil rights organization before the NRA was?- MrX 🖋 20:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, but if we are going to state that, a usable source would be required. My comments are not for or against the content, just that the sources are not good enough. Heck if other sources are found that mention the NAACP or NAD in connection to the NRA I would add them myself. But if we are making the connection or just giving dates each were founded/became a civil rights org to imply a conclusion that is a synth and OR issue. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not made a case for not using sources that we routinely use throughout Wikipedia. Verifiability is what matters.- MrX 🖋 20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The case has been made just above by me and others as well as at RSN. Venerability is kind of the case I am making which synth and OR fall under. The blog is not applicable the way you are using it and the TB times only talks about NAD with no relation to the NRA. Us making the point that it is older without the sources making the comparison is wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not heard any updates in a while, do you have anything to add? PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis, and there are other sources that establish the NAACP as the oldest. This is why we should state both views, and possibly say that the NRA's claim is disputed. You seem to want to wikilawyer about types of sources and other technicalities, when there is no doubt that this content is verifiable. Your RSN venture did not yield the results you were looking for. I think it's time to move on.- MrX 🖋 15:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No RSN confirmed what several people have told you here as well. Since WP:ONUS is a thing and you are using poorly sourced content to make a point the even the opinion blogs you cited don't make, you have two options. Fix it with the sources the make the connection to the NRA you say exist but no one has found or remove it. This stonewalling is getting disruptive at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please link to a closing statement that supports your assertion that RSN confirmed something, and please quit calling the sources opinion blogs. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As you well know it was not closed, but consensus can still be drawn from it regardless. Also the two sources are opinion blog sources. The TB Times expressly states it and the Slate article is a repost of a Media Matters blog that expressly states it is a blog as well. As far as sources are concerned the Slate article does not exist as it does not change or take credit for the content at all, the Slate article is the Media Matters blog. This also still does not address the onus part I brought up, it has clearly been challenged and you clearly do not have condenses for inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I dispute your claim of consensus, as I have done repeatedly. I also dispute your assessment of the sources, which I have done repeatedly. You need to also understand that "blog" is simply a format for conveying information. It is not ever a reason for dismissing an otherwise reliable source. Further, we cannot let the NRA's dubious self-claim stand without also including verifiable information that disputes it. You seem extremely rule bound, when the goal should be to craft content that accurately reflects available sources, from a neutral point of view. Do you dispute that the NAACP has pursued civil rights longer than the NRA? - MrX 🖋 00:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not necessarily dispute that the NAACP became a civil rights group before the NRA, though I have not been shown a RS that says the NRA was not a civil rights group went founded as opposed to the Slate/Media Matters cite that just throws that out there. I also agree that blogs can be reliable, I would even say the TB Times is one of those cases. I do disagree that the Slate/Media Matters one is reliable though, it's just to dubious for this situation. I would certainly be open to another source that establishes when the NRA "officially" became a civil rights org, but besides that lone Slate/Media Matters one no one else seems to be saying that directly. Have you seen any others that do? Otherwise that would also disqualify that source since they are the lone ones making that claim. PackMecEng (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"And in the midst of this fight over individual rights, the NRA has opposed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which actually is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States." - MrX 🖋 12:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah cool thanks! Ill take a look at the source more in depth tonight when I get a chance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I still have not been able to track down a digital version of the book or head to the book store to see the context of the rest of the page. But that isn't a reason to hold it up, and no reason to believe it is not correct. Would you be good with replacing the Slate/Media Matters article with the book cite then? PackMecEng (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK .- MrX 🖋 13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)